from Amazon
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Lopez and Figgins switching positions
You may have read about this on Rob Neyer’s blog or somewhere else. The M’s are trying to move Figgins (who played mostly 3B for the Angels) to 2B and their former 2B, Lopez, to 3rd (remember that the M’s lost one of the best defensive 3B in Beltre).
I had read this quote somewhere else and then Rob printed it in his blog:
Lopez, and his 25 homers of last season, fit the offensive profile of the position.
Rob made this comment about that quote:
I don’t find the “offensive profile of the position” argument particularly compelling.
It is not “compelling” because it is a non-argument. While each position has an average offensive profile associated with it, for obvious reasons, how a player hits has NOTHING (I repeat - NOTHING) to do with a team’s decision to choose his defensive position, other than the fact that offense obviously factors into whether a player is a starting (full-time) player or not.
So, if you have two players vying for two defensive positions, like Lopez, and Figgins, their offensive profiles have nothing whatsoever to do with determining who plays where.
That goes along with the silliness you sometimes hear about a team needing “more power at first base” or some such thing.
So I doubt that the quote above about Lopez’ power being more suited to 3rd base came from anyone in the M’s organization. If it did, Tango will have to slap him with a wet noodle!
That being said....
Rob or anyone else trying to figure out whether the move is warranted or not, is ridiculous. Even though on the average the fielding skill of a 2B and 3B are the same, and we are pretty sure that when you move someone from a position they are familiar with to one they are not, that a player’s fielding will take a hit, at least for a while until they get used to the new position, decisions like these are completely in the domain of the team and its coaches and not an outside analyst (or outside anyone), especially for a smart team like the M’s.
Obviously the M’s think that there is a good chance that their overall defense will be better with the new configuration than with the old one, for whatever reasons (and there can be many legitimate ones). Who are we to question that?
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date