Payton to get majority of starts in LF

[mweb]

I'm not saying platoons can't work, but that's a pretty rosy take on it! You better have players that have been adjusted to the idea.

Let me paint this picture. Imagine if your employer comes to you today and explains that they broke down your work into a handful of subcategories, and in about 30% of those subcategories your work is unacceptably poor. On top of that, they're so sure that you're unable to improve that they've hired others to handle those subcategories in which you're deficient, and your responsibilities will now be limited to those areas where they feel you don't hurt the company.

So how do you feel about your abilities and your standing in the company? Better? Or worse.

(and yes, I said that last bit like Sean Connery in The Untouchables )

I suppose certain people could take to that in a humble fashion without much fanfare, resistance, depression, anger etc..., but let's not pretend that this would be easy for everyone. I'm sure that I wouldn't like to hear that from my employer.

Again, it depends on the players, if you use the right type of players, I think it is a positive in terms of chemistry. If you bring in a guy like Payton who expects to start, no it's not good for chemistry to sit him against right handers most of the time.

And to answer your question, if it's obvious that I do hurt the company in certain subcategories, I'd have no problem being taken off those tasks considering I'd be paid the same and the company would be better off.

Now how about the right handed part of a platoon? Would that guy rather be a guy who rarely plays and has no clue when he'll play, or a guy that will start about 25% of the time and knows exactly when he'll play?

[El Gordo]

You're absolutely right. His lack of regular time there could be a factor. I'm not quite as optimistic, though, that he'd improve dramatically enough given more playing time to change my opinion much. Isn't that what the time at 1B during Spring Training was supposed to be for?

The problem is they have to see Huff, Dubois, House, and Knott there as well, not to mention give Millar some playing time.

[El Gordo]

I don't mind that you think I agree with SportsGuy all of the time. Most of the longtime posters know how funny that really is, no one more than SG, himself.

If that were really true you wouldn't have bothered to repond at all.

[Moose Milligan]

You're absolutely right. His lack of regular time there could be a factor. I'm not quite as optimistic, though, that he'd improve dramatically enough given more playing time to change my opinion much. Isn't that what the time at 1B during Spring Training was supposed to be for?

Yeah, but Perlozzo doesn't know anything about anything so his opinion about what to do at 1B shouldn't matter

[MP]

Again, it depends on the players, if you use the right type of players, I think it is a positive in terms of chemistry. If you bring in a guy like Payton who expects to start, no it's not good for chemistry to sit him against right handers most of the time.

Good call, I agree.

If it's the team's intentions to platoon, then let it be communicated clearly and positively. It's such a difference between laying it out plainly for the players, right from the get go (aka Wedge), vs letting a guy take a role on thin ice, fail at it, and then go through a demotion / role reduction.

But I said "IF" it's the teams's intentions, and I don't think they're necessarily clear on those. And that leads to threads with almost 300 posts! Has that ever been done before?

[Elbren]

lol Good lord ... 19 pages. How is this thread still going???

.

[Frobby]

Left field, particularly at Oriole Park, is a whole different bag than right field. It's a shorter throw, but it's more ground to cover. If the team were compelled to move Nick Markakis over to left and put Gibbons back in right, I don't know if there would be any fallout from that, but I'd be all for it.

I agree 100%. The idea that Nick hit better because he was moved to RF is absurd. With the current array of OF's we have, Nick is far more valuable to us in LF than RF (at least at OPACY).

[DrungoHazewood]

I agree 100%. The idea that Nick hit better because he was moved to RF is absurd. With the current array of OF's we have, Nick is far more valuable to us in LF than RF (at least at OPACY).

The other thing you'd have to consider is likely distribution of fly balls. Maybe it's more important that LF is bigger than RF at OPACY, but I'd like to know where all the fly balls were hit off of current O's pitchers last year. If a majority went to right I'd be inclined to keep Markakis there. In any case they play half their games somewhere that's not Baltimore.

[ScottieBaseball]

The other thing you'd have to consider is likely distribution of fly balls. Maybe it's more important that LF is bigger than RF at OPACY, but I'd like to know where all the fly balls were hit off of current O's pitchers last year. If a majority went to right I'd be inclined to keep Markakis there. In any case they play half their games somewhere that's not Baltimore.

C'mon, Jon. You don't already have that stat at your fingertips?

I agree...for the same reasons I read Weaver moved Ripken to SS from 3B, Markakis should move to left (or stay in right) if it can be proven our pitchers are more likely to give up fly balls to one or the other.

That doesn't make me a stathead, does it?

[rolliefingers]

That doesn't make me a stathead, does it?

As long as you follow that up with something about "veteran presence" or "guts", you'll probably be OK.

[DrungoHazewood]

That doesn't make me a stathead, does it?

Only if you're wearing a propeller beanie with a Baseball Prospectus logo!

[Frobby]

The other thing you'd have to consider is likely distribution of fly balls. Maybe it's more important that LF is bigger than RF at OPACY, but I'd like to know where all the fly balls were hit off of current O's pitchers last year. If a majority went to right I'd be inclined to keep Markakis there. In any case they play half their games somewhere that's not Baltimore.

I can't tell you how many balls were hit to LF vs. RF, but I can tell you that our LF's made 360 putouts and our RF's made 392. That may suggest that a few more were hit to RF than LF. Of course, if Markakis had been in LF and Conine in RF, instead of the other way around, maybe there would have been more putouts in LF.

[weams]

Umm, Flanagan, Duquette and Perlozzo never went to Kindergarten?

They Are smarter than a fifth grader.

[weams]

I've watched him with my own eyes, SG. LOL...you're gonna tell me what I saw didn't happen?!?! I'm talking about watching him during infield practice on several occassions.

I'm quick to back down from an opinion if I feel like I'm lacking in knowledge, but if there's one thing I'm confident in relative to the game of baseball, it's teaching infield defensive play all the way around the horn.

His footwork is bad. He was slow to react. He had trouble digging balls out of the dirt that would be routine to an average first baseman.

There's a reason the O's packed in the Gibbons/first base experiment, and I have no doubt the above played a significant factor.

We have a team of Dh's...