Can you win with all defense and no offense SS?

[NoVaO]

Trade Miggy for Jay Bruce.

Bruce is a phenom...basically untouchable.

The quotes I'm hearing about a veteran #3 starter...the FAs include Colon, Garcia, Livan Hernandez, Maddux, Schilling, Silva, Weaver...I don't see any of them signing here nor would I want any of them.

It seems like we might trade Tejada for a guy like Garland or somebody. That would be horrible for this franchise, and I don't even think Garland is that bad. They would just be heading in the complete opposite direction they should be going in.

[El Gordo]

Getting a good defensive SS is perfectly reasonable. But we need one who can swing the bat a little. You have to do a lot better than this if you expect to compete.

Hernandez will not be able to hit at this level if given regular ABs.

Probably not, but since we aren't doing anything next season, why not let him prove it? We are not going to be able to upgrade all the positions we need to next year. He if proves to be adequate offensively that's one problem solved. If the guy can hit .250, put the ball, in play move runners over, and bunt, consistantly, he'll be doing a lot more than some of our current O's.

[Mackus]

Theres nothing wrong with going after a defensive minded SS, but its gotta be someone who can at least do something respectable with the bat.

Anybody advocating Luis Hernandez as a major league caliber starting shortstop is just being ridiculous. Barring a one in a thousand miracle, Hernandez will never hit well enough to justify a starting spot, even if he fields like the lovespawn of Mark Belanger and Ozzie Smith.

[HeatherC12]

Trade Miggy for Jay Bruce.

Jay Bruce is an outfielder, not a shortstop, and he's definitely not going anywhere since he hasn't even gotten up to the Reds yet. They're very high on him and wouldn't move him without some sort of phenomenal deal.

Stats: http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Jay%20Bruce&pos=OF&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=457803

[Mackus]

Probably not, but since we aren't doing anything next season, why not let him prove it? We are not going to be able to upgrade all the positions we need to next year. He if proves to be adequate offensively that's one problem solved. If the guy can hit .250, put the ball, in play move runners over, and bunt, consistantly, he'll be doing a lot more than some of our current O's.

Because we pretty much already know he can't do better than that. Why take a 1/1000 chance that Hernandez can be a respectable bat when you could find someone else very easily with just as good or better of a glove that has a much higher chance of being an acceptable hitter.

People always give Paul Bako crap about being a terrible hitter. He only plays in about 15% of the games, if that many. Hernandez is considerably worse with the bat than Bako and people want him playing daily?

[os1971]

The question was asked to Trembley and his answer was basically:

I think so, the Cardinals did with Eckstein, the Orioles did with Belanger, etc.

The Belanger comparison has been talked about. Eckstein is actually just a little below average offensively for a SS.

Now, here we are talking about Hernandez completely exceeding expections. His OPS entering tonight was .633. It is now .713 (see what small sample sizes do?) His ISO power was .034. His BABIP was .347. You continue giving him ABs and you will see his OPS gradually decline and it will end up in that .500s.

The idea that Hunter/Dempsey are spinning that since there are better MLB pitchers up at the MLB level so it will serve him is an absolute joke. His K% is 15.5% at the big league level...basically where you can expect it since his K% was 13.7% at Bowie. However, he doesn't make hard contact and he doesn't walk. Again, you keep giving him ABs, his OPS will end up below .600.

And you especially can't have a no hit SS if your LFs are putting up a .610 OPS, your 1b/DHs are putting up a.780 OPS, your catchers at .650, your CF at .690, and your 3b at .750. Then you are replacing your second best hitter in Tejada.

Get players who can hit and field and you will be fine. Ditch the idea of no offense players unless you have excellent hitters at other spots (which we clearly don't).[/QUOTE]

We don't, that doesn't mean we can't. Not in one offseason anyways, but we can work towards it 2009/2010. So trying out Hernandez in 2008 isn't gonna kill us (if that is what they wan't to do). Hernandez is 13 mil cheaper. I personally think he'd save us at least 40-50 runs just on a defense to defense comparison with Tejada. We use that money to get some offense somewhere else. We're not going anywhere in 2008. Fact is, having a poor defensive shortstop like Tejada is a liablity for the pitching staff.

Look what Boston is doing with Lugo batting .230 (who

isn't even that great defensively IMO). They don't have great hitters in every postion. Crisp, Drew and Varitek arent exactly great players and are having pretty average seasons. Manny isn't exactly what he used to be (good but not great numbers). Youkalis is good but not great.

Of course they do have Ortiz and Lowell having great seasons and Pedroia having a pretty good one. It's not that great of an offensive team, but its a well constructed offensive team that can produce runs.

It is a very good pitching and defensive team.

If we go with Hernandez, we have to significantly upgrade the offense. Yeah we can't go with Millar, Mora, Payton, Patterson, Gibbons etc. We can keep one of these guys , not 5 or 6 of them. Heck we couldn't win with Babe Ruth and this cast of characters. Could we honestly win with these guys even if Tejada was still average to above average defensively? The past 4 years says no. Now that he's below average defensively, the writing is on the wall. Lets go a different direction.

SS is the most crtitical defensive position on the field and we're supposedly building our team around pitching. Hello, lets get a good defensive SS. I think thats a good idea, and a better/younger defensive 3rd baseman with some pop while we're at it (Moore maybe?).

Trembley acknowledged we need to upgrade the offense. But tightening up our infield defense, especially at SS, should be a top priority.

Between FA, trading Tejada, Farm system, and other trades lets look at filling 1B/DH/LF/CF/3B with some offensive production (preferably as many young/quality players as we can get) and get rid of the old mariginal players.

Why worry about losing a good offensive shortstop who is aging and can't field his position.

[El Gordo]

Because we pretty much already know he can't do better than that. Why take a 1/1000 chance that Hernandez can be a respectable bat when you could find someone else very easily with just as good or better of a glove that has a much higher chance of being an acceptable hitter.

People always give Paul Bako crap about being a terrible hitter. He only plays in about 15% of the games, if that many. Hernandez is considerably worse with the bat than Bako and people want him playing daily?

Where are you going to find this respectable bat at SS and who are you giving up to get him? We need to upgade the offense and SS is the least significant offensive position. Why not focus on LF,1B, DH, CF, and take a chance on Luis next year? What have we got to lose.

[Mackus]

Where are you going to find this respectable bat at SS and who are you giving up to get him? We need to upgade the offense and SS is the least significant offensive position. Why not focus on LF,1B, DH, CF, and take a chance on Luis next year? What have we got to lose.

Don't give up anything, just sign a guy to a MLC. There are dozens of guys with better minor league track records than Luis Hernandez who are good with the glove. Luis Hernandez is simply a terrible hitter. When Loewen pitches it'd probably be better to DH for Hernandez instead of Loewen. Hernandez would likely have a sub-600 OPS as a MLB regular.

You can shake a tree and a guy who can hit better than Hernandez will fall out. Shake a few and you'll find one who also fields as good as him.

[Sports Guy]

Where are you going to find this respectable bat at SS and who are you giving up to get him? We need to upgade the offense and SS is the least significant offensive position. Why not focus on LF,1B, DH, CF, and take a chance on Luis next year? What have we got to lose.

There are a lot of guys likely available.

SS is much more important than DH or even 1B IMO.

[NoVaO]

Probably not, but since we aren't doing anything next season, why not let him prove it? We are not going to be able to upgrade all the positions we need to next year. He if proves to be adequate offensively that's one problem solved. If the guy can hit .250, put the ball, in play move runners over, and bunt, consistantly, he'll be doing a lot more than some of our current O's.

.250 would probably equal .285/.300 with Hernandez, maybe worse. So he would still be by far the worse offensive player in our line-up.

Anyways, my biggest problem is the philosophy of the organization. Is this how little they value offense? Is 40 ABs really all it takes for this team to evaluate players? Do they even look at stats? And I'm not even talking sabremetric stats; I'm talking OPS here...are we to expect somebody that had a .545 OPS in AA to hit anything above .600 at the MLB level.

The little talk that Hunter and Dempsey had in the post game show was absurd and could possibly be the organization's thoughts on this...they actually said since the pitchers are better at the MLB level, that it may help Hernandez and he would be a better hitter up here. It was one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

It isn't easier to hit up here just because pitchers are around the plate. He has a line drive swing and can make contact, but he will not hit for power and he will not walk.

Think about the Fahey timeline. Similar player with similar skill set. Line drive stroke, good contact hitter, very little power, a little better plate discipline. His OPS last year was about .652 through 130 ABs or so. He got hot and actually got his OPS up to .742. Once he hit that high point, the league exposed him. His OPS was .435 the rest of the year. And he has been awful in limited time this year. At some point the league will expose Hernandez...

Your theory is fine since you believe there is no harm to try him in a useless year. But the Orioles truly believe he will help our team win games even if he provides no offense to speak of. Them thinking that is truly scary and it isn't going to cut it in this division or in any division for that matter. You want to win? Get players who can hit and field. Not rocket science.

[os1971]

There are a lot of guys likely available.

SS is much more important than DH or even 1B IMO.[/QUOTE]

I don't get this. Are you saying offense at SS is more important than offense at 1B/DH. Offense is offense, its a team concept. Only the Yankees can afford offense at every postion.

Defense is the most critical aspect of a SS, offensive production is a plus. The more critical aspect of a 1B/DH should be offense.

[scOtt]

Fahey would probably be a better option as the starting SS... and still a terrible idea. Diametrically opposed to what we need.

If we trade Miggi, we need a ML ready, young SS coming back. If we move Miggi to third, we need a FA, much more of a SS than anything we have in house.

[RShack]

There's a couple things here that I'm curious about. I'm not advocating that LH should be the O's SS next year, but I am nonetheless curious about what assumptions people are making here. I would like to know what they are...

1. People keep quoting OPS. Does this mean that everybody now believes that there is no place for a singles hitter? By it's definition, OPS will make a singles hitter look bad. Is there some level of OBP that is acceptable for a little SS? Or has OPS become the One True Way to judge all players at all positions?

2. What were the Braves thinking? LH was one of their very top prospects through 2005. In his 2002-2005 MiL seasons, he never hit worth a damn either. But the vaunted ATL organization sure loved him despite those numbers. The O's got him because ATL decided not to protect him (just like CLE with Gurthrie), so evidently their opinion changed. But prior to that they were certainly very high on him. Why? Were they nuts? Did they perhaps have a view that maybe OPS is not everything? Or what?

3. If LH was Luis Aparicio (I'm not saying he is), would you find him an acceptable SS? In his career, Aparicio was ROY, was a 9-time All Star (back when AS meant more than the ballot-stuffing exercise it is now), and was in the top-25 of MVP vote-getters 9 times. He entered the HOF in '84. For his career, his OBP was .311 and OPS was .654. When he was MVP runner-up, his OPB was .316 and his OPS was .648. Would Luis Aparicio be good enough for you?

[now]

There are a lot of guys likely available.

SS is much more important than DH or even 1B IMO.[/QUOTE]

I don't get this. Are you saying offense at SS is more important than offense at 1B/DH. Offense is offense, its a team concept. Only the Yankees can afford offense at every postion.

Defense is the most critical aspect of a SS, offensive production is a plus. The more critical aspect of a 1B/DH should be offense.

This is perhaps the trickiest issue in baseball to sort out objectively - the tradeoff between a player's offensive and defensive abilities, and then comparing one player's combination to another's, especially at a different position.

To compare players under discussion such as Tejada, Hernandez, Payton, etc., I recommend seeing how they rank in WSP (=2007&league_filter[0]=AL&team_filter[0]=BAL&pos_filter[0]=All&Submit=Submit&orderBy=wsp&direction=DESC&page=1"]Win Shares Percentage). You can also see the breakdown for hitting and fielding contributions (total playing time values).

There are some definite surprises in the WSP (rate) list:

Top 10:

Zambrano, Knott, Bedard, Redman, Loewen, Guthrie, Roberts, Walker, Bradford, Ray.

Luis Hernandez ranks just ahead of our beloved DCab and Payton.

Back to the general question at hand, offense/defense importance by position:

The old shorthand calculation used by Bill James in the pre-Win Shares era gave importance of fielding to shortstop as compared to, say, 1B, as 11:3.

That's not the same as saying defense is more important than offense at SS. It just means defense at shortstop is relatively more important than defense at other positions. The difference could be expressed as the ratio 11:3 for 1B, 11:4 for LF, 11:6 for 3B, etc.

Because of this fielding difference, a corresponding difference could be traded off in offense - say, in points of OPS. The problem of course is quantifying defensive abilities in the first place. If you trust how Win Shares does it, then you have a number (Fielding Shares) that you can put next to Hitting Shares for the sake of comparison. Here are some totals to date:

Player ... Hitting ... Fielding

Tejada ... 11.7 ... 2.8

Markakis ... 16.4 ... 3.1

Mora ... 6.6 ... 3.4

Huff ... 12.8 ... 1.1

L.H'dez ... 0.2 ... 0.5

Payton ... 3.6 ... 2.8

Bako ... -2.3 ... 1.4

BTW Hernandez, Bako, Castillo, Molina, Fahey and House are the only non-pitchers on the team who contributed more with their fielding than with their hitting. (Did I say J. R. House? ) So I guess with these glove-only subs, you'd be correct in saying that "defense is their primary contribution." But with a team high ceiling of 4.4 Fielding Shares (Roberts), that's a pretty low cap for a regular player's hitting shares.

I like Luis. I like defense at SS. I think Tejada should be traded. But put it this way. If you're drafting a fantasy team and there's one .800 OPS SS and ten .800 OPS 1B-men, who do you pick first? On the other hand, if you compare a .780 average-fielding SS with a .820 slick-fielding first-baseman, who do you take? I think it requires some serious math to answer the question accurately - or a handy Win Shares chart. Failing that, you can always resort to the ancient formulas ("Pitching and defense wins ball games," etc.). Or throw a few players out on the field and see who stays afloat for awhile...

[Eight]

Tejada playing wasn't even part of the discussion. Funny how the manager of the O's values saving outs and pitch counts and some "experts" don't. Who's getting paid to make those decisions? Who's lived baseball his whole life and sees the obvious? Who's more qualified to make these decisions?

Bye bye Miggy. Take your VORP with you.

Nothing says valuing outs more than giving 600 PA to a .270 OBP guy.