2021 Series #24 | Indians @ Twins | June 24-27, 2021

[mopete12]

Everything I have said is rational and logical. The entire impetus behind this particular discussion was the confounding defensive performances we have seen this year from certain players. I've told you my opinion as to what I believe helps to explain that problem.

Naylor leads all of our OF in errors. Naylor's Defensive WAR is -0.4, 2nd lowest on the team. Amed Rosario has 5 errors, the 2nd lowest Fielding Percentage of any regular on the team, and another negative Defensive WAR. Owen Miller in his limited time here also managed to be one of the few players on the team who accumulated a negative Defensive WAR. He also struggled mightily despite coming to the team as the hottest hitter in our entire organization. Yu Chang's new experience with 1B potentially cost us a game to the White Sox. All of the players I just named have spent considerable time playing positions that are either brand new or relatively new to them this season.

Do not act like there is no evidence that supports my position. I'm sure you would like to summarily end the discussion, label me a troll, and otherwise assume you are the arbiter of truth and fallacy. But the discussion is not over, unless you'd like it to be.

Now, please provide us with the evidence you have that supports your claims that positional flexibility is NOT negatively affecting performance.

I'll wait. Otherwise, I'll simply assume that you are "falsely asserting" that positional flexibility is not negatively affecting performance.

Amed’s defensive stats are right along with the rest of his career.

Owen Miller was playing multiple positions at AAA before he was called up and it had no impact on his hitting. There is just as much evidence that playing multiple positions helps his hitting as there is to say that playing multiple positions is the reason he didn’t hit in his first stint in the major leagues.

Naylor is not a good 1B or outfielder. He’s have a negative defensive WAR at either position. He has played 106 innings at 1B in the majors since he was called up in 2019 and 1053 in the outfield. San Diego converted him to the outfield, not Cleveland.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

Everything I have said is rational and logical. The entire impetus behind this particular discussion was the confounding defensive performances we have seen this year from certain players. I've told you my opinion as to what I believe helps to explain that problem.

Naylor leads all of our OF in errors. Naylor's Defensive WAR is -0.4, 2nd lowest on the team. Amed Rosario has 5 errors, the 2nd lowest Fielding Percentage of any regular on the team, and another negative Defensive WAR. Owen Miller in his limited time here also managed to be one of the few players on the team who accumulated a negative Defensive WAR. He also struggled mightily despite coming to the team as the hottest hitter in our entire organization. Yu Chang's new experience with 1B potentially cost us a game to the White Sox. All of the players I just named have spent considerable time playing positions that are either brand new or relatively new to them this season.

Do not act like there is no evidence that supports my position. I'm sure you would like to summarily end the discussion, label me a troll, and otherwise assume you are the arbiter of truth and fallacy. But the discussion is not over, unless you'd like it to be.

Now, please provide us with the evidence you have that supports your claims that positional flexibility is NOT negatively affecting performance.

I'll wait. Otherwise, I'll simply assume that you are "falsely asserting" that positional flexibility is not negatively affecting performance.

Do you think it's possible that people who aren't elite at a specific defensive position tend to get moved around more?

The last time Josh Naylor played first base significantly was 2017. In 2018 he played OF 75% of the time and he's been primarily an outfielder ever since.

So, what are you arguing? Is it that the Padres AA affiliate never should have put Naylor in the OF? Or is it that the player who last was a first baseman in 2017 would be better served moving back to that position?

Oh, and Naylor had 35 errors as a minor league first baseman.

I believe the guy just isn't great defensively, and that letting him play positions where he fits the organization the best isn't the reason for that.

Amed Rosario is struggling defensively--that's the reason we want to move him to a different position. He's not an elite defensive shortstop. I don't think any amount of additional reps there changes that. I think you have your cause and effect backwards.

If you're an absolute stud, like Lindor at SS, or Zimmer in CF, you're going to stick at one position. Everyone else is likely to move around. Guys who aren't great defenders are going to make not great defensive plays no matter where you put them. You just have to figure out where their defensive woes hurt you the least, so that their bat can help you the most.

The shit you sling at @AZ_ is completely unnecessary. There's a baseball discussion in your post, but you repeatedly shovel so much other shit on top of it that is only meant to cause personal problems.

 

[sportscoach]

Everything I have said is rational and logical. The entire impetus behind this particular discussion was the confounding defensive performances we have seen this year from certain players. I've told you my opinion as to what I believe helps to explain that problem.

Naylor leads all of our OF in errors. Naylor's Defensive WAR is -0.4, 2nd lowest on the team. Amed Rosario has 5 errors, the 2nd lowest Fielding Percentage of any regular on the team, and another negative Defensive WAR. Owen Miller in his limited time here also managed to be one of the few players on the team who accumulated a negative Defensive WAR. He also struggled mightily despite coming to the team as the hottest hitter in our entire organization. Yu Chang's new experience with 1B potentially cost us a game to the White Sox. All of the players I just named have spent considerable time playing positions that are either brand new or relatively new to them this season.

Do not act like there is no evidence that supports my position. I'm sure you would like to summarily end the discussion, label me a troll, and otherwise assume you are the arbiter of truth and fallacy. But the discussion is not over, unless you'd like it to be.

Now, please provide us with the evidence you have that supports your claims that positional flexibility is NOT negatively affecting performance.

I'll wait. Otherwise, I'll simply assume that you are "falsely asserting" that positional flexibility is not negatively affecting performance.

First off, Naylor is learning a new position, so was Chang... So lack of experience doesn't help them at all, but what about HRam's, Eddie's, Hernandez' etc errors... They aren't out of position at all, if anything they are playing positions they are very familiar with so can you legitimately explain their issues? Also Miller didn't play enough innings to say if his numbers were negative or positive... One error in a low amount of innings will make you negative...

The issue with the defense cannot be pointed to the flexibility on defense, it's been the fact our regulars haven't been playing well to begin with while mixing in guys in new/out of position... This isnt out of the question for a retooling team since we are trying to figure who we should keep, who belongs where and who can play where. It's called growing pains...

 

[DCTribefan]

Funny, I came here for a game thread and stumbled upon posters bickering like children.

 

[DickyLeftridge]

First off, Naylor is learning a new position, so was Chang... So lack of experience doesn't help them at all, but what about HRam's, Eddie's, Hernandez' etc errors... They aren't out of position at all, if anything they are playing positions they are very familiar with so can you legitimately explain their issues? Also Miller didn't play enough innings to say if his numbers were negative or positive... One error in a low amount of innings will make you negative...

The issue with the defense cannot be pointed to the flexibility on defense, it's been the fact our regulars haven't been playing well to begin with while mixing in guys in new/out of position... This isnt out of the question for a retooling team since we are trying to figure who we should keep, who belongs where and who can play where. It's called growing pains...

I certainly agree that much of our problems defensively are attributable to veterans like Jose and Cesar who are better than their performance thus far and guys like Eddie and Harold or simply horrible defensively. I am not disputing that and I'm not excusing that.

But I don't understand how you can start your post by saying that Naylor and Chang are learning new positions, and then simply move on. That's what I've been saying for 2-3 pages now and since I've been here. How is it that there isn't some base level agreement between us since we seem to agree on this key point, at least?

Last page it was "Naylor wasn't playing out of position." Now it's, well yeah, obviously Naylor is playing out of position. I don't get it. I'm also not picking on Naylor.

My biggest issue is that we are doing this to our young guys. Not everyone is Michael Martinez who is an established vet and can bounce to every position on the field and play them equally well (while hitting equally bad). Not everyone is Jose Ramirez who can bounce around to every position WHILE breaking into the bigs and play them all well and become a perennial MVP candidate. Most players, in fact, fall between those extremes. And my concern as it relates to bringing up and developing our young guys is that more of them will suffer from that approach than will benefit from it.

I'd be all for bringing in another Michael Martinez veteran type to be our Util guy. I think it stunts the growth of our young players by making many of them succeed in that role before they get everyday ABs and at a consistent position.

 

[sportscoach]

I certainly agree that much of our problems defensively are attributable to veterans like Jose and Cesar who are better than their performance thus far and guys like Eddie and Harold or simply horrible defensively. I am not disputing that and I'm not excusing that.

But I don't understand how you can start your post by saying that Naylor and Chang are learning new positions, and then simply move on. That's what I've been saying for 2-3 pages now and since I've been here. How is it that there isn't some base level agreement between us since we seem to agree on this key point, at least?

Last page it was "Naylor wasn't playing out of position." Now it's, well yeah, obviously Naylor is playing out of position. I don't get it. I'm also not picking on Naylor.

My biggest issue is that we are doing this to our young guys. Not everyone is Michael Martinez who is an established vet and can bounce to every position on the field and play them equally well (while hitting equally bad). Not everyone is Jose Ramirez who can bounce around to every position WHILE breaking into the bigs and play them all well and become a perennial MVP candidate. Most players, in fact, fall between those extremes. And my concern as it relates to bringing up and developing our young guys is that more of them will suffer from that approach than will benefit from it.

I'd be all for bringing in another Michael Martinez veteran type to be our Util guy. I think it stunts the growth of our young players by making many of them succeed in that role before they get everyday ABs and at a consistent position.

What you aren't getting and everyone is trying to you, that players, especially young ones changing positions is 100% normal and something that every team does... I get you don't agree with it, but it's just something you have to accept since it's what happens in every organization... Wander Franco, MLBs #1 prospect... Has been used at 2B, SS and 3B between the minors and majors this season... Miller, Clement, Chang are all being developed as utility guys...

Now normally guys get some innings in the minors first, but because of the fact we are retooling and didn't have everyone in games last season, we lost a lot of time with these guys so some guys had to learn at the big league level. Plus the FO wanted to see who can play where and see who we should keep and not keep going forward so guys needed to be played at new positions cause of that factor.

If you don't like it, then so be it, but it's something you gotta accept since it's very much apart of baseball. It's actually rare a player only plays one position from start to finish in the minors to the bigs... I remember some guys like Michael Young changed positions so Ian Kinsler could be the everyday 2B...

Players need to be able to play multi positions so the team can adjust to the talent they have... You are making a big deal out of a normal thing in baseball and when they try to tell ya that, you did in your heels and snap back. Also some guys aren't always the nicest on here if they dont feel the person arguing back isn't listening/seeing reason... Right now you aren't seeing that what you are arguing against is so normal that it's almost impossible to find stats that back up your argument. Why would one of the best organizations at developing players, do it if it was so detrimental to a players development?

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

What you aren't getting and everyone is trying to you, that players, especially young ones changing positions is 100% normal and something that every team does... I get you don't agree with it, but it's just something you have to accept since it's what happens in every organization... Wander Franco, MLBs #1 prospect... Has been used at 2B, SS and 3B between the minors and majors this season... Miller, Clement, Chang are all being developed as utility guys...

Now normally guys get some innings in the minors first, but because of the fact we are retooling and didn't have everyone in games last season, we lost a lot of time with these guys so some guys had to learn at the big league level. Plus the FO wanted to see who can play where and see who we should keep and not keep going forward so guys needed to be played at new positions cause of that factor.

If you don't like it, then so be it, but it's something you gotta accept since it's very much apart of baseball. It's actually rare a player only plays one position from start to finish in the minors to the bigs... I remember some guys like Michael Young changed positions so Ian Kinsler could be the everyday 2B...

Players need to be able to play multi positions so the team can adjust to the talent they have... You are making a big deal out of a normal thing in baseball and when they try to tell ya that, you did in your heels and snap back. Also some guys aren't always the nicest on here if they dont feel the person arguing back isn't listening/seeing reason... Right now you aren't seeing that what you are arguing against is so normal that it's almost impossible to find stats that back up your argument. Why would one of the best organizations at developing players, do it if it was so detrimental to a players development?

I'm not sure why you said Naylor's learning a new position.

He's been an outfielder for years. The last time he was a first baseman was 2017.

 

[buzzdog]

I love this bar.

Give me a double Gentleman Jack on the rocks, please. Wait, better make it a triple.

 

[DickyLeftridge]

What you aren't getting and everyone is trying to you, that players, especially young ones changing positions is 100% normal and something that every team does... I get you don't agree with it, but it's just something you have to accept since it's what happens in every organization... Wander Franco, MLBs #1 prospect... Has been used at 2B, SS and 3B between the minors and majors this season... Miller, Clement, Chang are all being developed as utility guys...

Now normally guys get some innings in the minors first, but because of the fact we are retooling and didn't have everyone in games last season, we lost a lot of time with these guys so some guys had to learn at the big league level. Plus the FO wanted to see who can play where and see who we should keep and not keep going forward so guys needed to be played at new positions cause of that factor.

If you don't like it, then so be it, but it's something you gotta accept since it's very much apart of baseball. It's actually rare a player only plays one position from start to finish in the minors to the bigs... I remember some guys like Michael Young changed positions so Ian Kinsler could be the everyday 2B...

Players need to be able to play multi positions so the team can adjust to the talent they have... You are making a big deal out of a normal thing in baseball and when they try to tell ya that, you did in your heels and snap back. Also some guys aren't always the nicest on here if they dont feel the person arguing back isn't listening/seeing reason... Right now you aren't seeing that what you are arguing against is so normal that it's almost impossible to find stats that back up your argument. Why would one of the best organizations at developing players, do it if it was so detrimental to a players development?

I think you'd be wise to avoid appealing to the sentiments of certain others who have popped into this thread. Your positions are well articulated and thought out. I'll leave it at that.

Here is where the disconnect may be: I understand that certain teams do it and have success with it. I understand that the best prospect in baseball has done it. I alluded to the history of position flexibility and the success we've had with it for crying out loud with guys like Jose.

But simply putting a player at a new or different position doesn't mean you have positional flexibility. That's the point that I think you are struggling with here. We could put Bobby Bradley at SS tomorrow. That doesn't mean he has position flexibility. That's an extreme example, sure. But the point made by that example should be clear, and it's the point I started this paragraph with. Rotating Naylor through 3 slots in 3 years doesn't mean he has position flexibility.

I think Ernie Clement is tailor-made for the Util role. I said as much in one of the other threads. Man you put him anywhere, he's a contact hitter, he's up for the task, he hasn't missed a beat. Owen Miller? I have my doubts. Rosario as an OF? I have my doubts. Naylor at a new spot each season (1B coming up, LF with us last year, RF this year), I have my doubts. And the doubts don't end there: Nolan Jones will soon be learning either RF or 1B. Multiple of the glut of career SS in the higher minors will soon be learning a new position. You seem to be assuming that because Wander Franco can do it and Jose Ramirez can do it, that Arias, Freeman, Gimenez, etc. should be able to do it, or they can't play. I think that's an extremely high bar to set for these players who, by all accounts, are otherwise very good players. Just like Amed Rosario. Just like Naylor. And on and on.

Here's the other disconnect: I don't think we're bouncing all those guys around because they're naturally position flexible. That would be a different story. What about Yu Chang do you say hey, man, that'd be a good 1B? Again, just an example. As I said, I think we're doing that because we're organizationally inflexible--we use high draft picks and high int'l signing dollars on one type of position player these days, and guess what? They're not corner OF or corner IF. And guess what else? While there are nice exceptions over the last 10 years, we sure seem to want to avoid taking on a high-dollar veteran or trade acquisition to fill those positions with established MLB players.

Just consider that. You may not agree with it. But consider it, and don't simply dismiss it out of hand because it's working right now for Tampa Bay.

 

[sportscoach]

I'm not sure why you said Naylor's learning a new position.

He's been an outfielder for years. The last time he was a first baseman was 2017.

Naylor has primarily been in LF, not RF, so almost all his OF innings have been in LF and it's almost 2k innings at 1B before he played any innings in the OF and if you watch his RF in spring training, he looked horrendous and you could tell he wasn't comfortable out there at all... OF in general for him is still a newer position, let alone RF which he didn't have enough innings in to say he was any good to begin with... He converted to OF in 18, and it was all LF... Played some RF in 19, didn't really play any in 20... The lost time in 20, hurt his development as an OF...

 

[buzzdog]

Regardless of how many games anyone has played at a position...

How's about we get some professional major league baseball players to simply start trying to play with a little discipline regarding fundamental rules of the sport of baseball? You know, the stuff that anyone who had a decent Little League coach learned before middle school? How is it that so many MLB players seem to be so brain dead when it comes to basic base running, knowing where to throw a fielded ball with different situations, knowing how to hit a cut-off man, and yes... CALLING FOR IT when you know a batted ball is going to put you in proximity with one of your team mates trying to make a fucking play on the same ball you're going after?

There's a plague of undisciplined, fundamentally unsound plays happening this season or at least it seems that way. And it's all a big joke until one of those plays ends a player's season.

 

[sportscoach]

I think you'd be wise to avoid appealing to the sentiments of certain others who have popped into this thread. Your positions are well articulated and thought out. I'll leave it at that.

Here is where the disconnect may be: I understand that certain teams do it and have success with it. I understand that the best prospect in baseball has done it. I alluded to the history of position flexibility and the success we've had with it for crying out loud with guys like Jose.

But simply putting a player at a new or different position doesn't mean you have positional flexibility. That's the point that I think you are struggling with here. We could put Bobby Bradley at SS tomorrow. That doesn't mean he has position flexibility. That's an extreme example, sure. But the point made by that example should be clear, and it's the point I started this paragraph with. Rotating Naylor through 3 slots in 3 years doesn't mean he has position flexibility.

I think Ernie Clement is tailor-made for the Util role. I said as much in one of the other threads. Man you put him anywhere, he's a contact hitter, he's up for the task, he hasn't missed a beat. Owen Miller? I have my doubts. Rosario as an OF? I have my doubts. Naylor at a new spot each season (1B coming up, LF with us last year, RF this year), I have my doubts. And the doubts don't end there: Nolan Jones will soon be learning either RF or 1B. Multiple of the glut of career SS in the higher minors will soon be learning a new position. You seem to be assuming that because Wander Franco can do it and Jose Ramirez can do it, that Arias, Freeman, Gimenez, etc. should be able to do it, or they can't play. I think that's an extremely high bar to set for these players who, by all accounts, are otherwise very good players. Just like Amed Rosario. Just like Naylor. And on and on.

Here's the other disconnect: I don't think we're bouncing all those guys around because they're naturally position flexible. That would be a different story. What about Yu Chang do you say hey, man, that'd be a good 1B? Again, just an example. As I said, I think we're doing that because we're organizationally inflexible--we use high draft picks and high int'l signing dollars on one type of position player these days, and guess what? They're not corner OF or corner IF. And guess what else? While there are nice exceptions over the last 10 years, we sure seem to want to avoid taking on a high-dollar veteran or trade acquisition to fill those positions with established MLB players.

Just consider that. You may not agree with it. But consider it, and don't simply dismiss it out of hand because it's working right now for Tampa Bay.

We are retooling so we do have to see who can play were, so there will be times guys are out of position so we can see if they can play there going forward.

Now on paper, Gimenez and Amed should be legit OFs, both guys are some of the fastest people in all of baseball...so Amed's horrid play as a SS makes him a legit candidate to switch to the especially at CF... Now the timing was bad, but at the same time, he should be in CF not SS.. He won't be at SS after this season if he is still in Cleveland. Look at Millers minor league numbers not his major league ones... His best position is likely 2B, but his numbers support him being a legit utility guy. You have to look at his whole picture not just a small sample size... Jones isn't a 3B and with JRam likely getting an extension, Jones needs a new position eventually and that's likely in the corner OF/1B... Chang actually hasn't been bad at all at 1B, but from being someone who played 1B a lot, there is certain things that only experience teaches and his mistake isn't something someone knows right away at 1B... He doesn't bother me there at all, if anything he does a good job for as little experience as he has there...

Also I never ever care what position someone has been drafted at since the best athletes/players on a team are always at SS or CF. How often do you see a high draft pick go to a 1B only prospect? How often do you see large international money on a first base only prospect? My point is, you always draft the best talent and then find them a position later... Good athletes can play multiple positions without a doubt on paper...

Plus we are a small market team, most of the players have to be home grown, and the free agents are just to fill in holes now and again to keep the team competitive/be that missing piece...

 

[AZ_]

Everything I have said is rational and logical. The entire impetus behind this particular discussion was the confounding defensive performances we have seen this year from certain players. I've told you my opinion as to what I believe helps to explain that problem.

Naylor leads all of our OF in errors. Naylor's Defensive WAR is -0.4, 2nd lowest on the team. Amed Rosario has 5 errors, the 2nd lowest Fielding Percentage of any regular on the team, and another negative Defensive WAR. Owen Miller in his limited time here also managed to be one of the few players on the team who accumulated a negative Defensive WAR. He also struggled mightily despite coming to the team as the hottest hitter in our entire organization. Yu Chang's new experience with 1B potentially cost us a game to the White Sox. All of the players I just named have spent considerable time playing positions that are either brand new or relatively new to them this season.

Do not act like there is no evidence that supports my position. I'm sure you would like to summarily end the discussion, label me a troll, and otherwise assume you are the arbiter of truth and fallacy. But the discussion is not over, unless you'd like it to be.

Now, please provide us with the evidence you have that supports your claims that positional flexibility is NOT negatively affecting performance.

I'll wait. Otherwise, I'll simply assume that you are "falsely asserting" that positional flexibility is not negatively affecting performance.

None of this provides any rational discourse for “position flexibility” as a cause of this performance drop.

Naylor is incredibly young, and while I feel horrible for his injury he’s always going to be a league average OF, and that’s been his scouting report for just about forever. Miller and Chang have nowhere near a sample size large enough, but they’re utility players trying to earn at bats in the same manner baseball teams have done for a century plus. Miller has played all over the diamond in Columbus to the tune of an OPS over 1.000. Isn’t affecting him there.

Instead of asking me to further prove a negative exists, do you have anything that is not speculative?

Otherwise, I think it’s pretty clear to see that you don’t have a rational argument to provide. Just projection and a lack of understanding what constitutes causation vs correlation.


Is there anything else I can help explain? I’ll wait.

 

[DickyLeftridge]

None of this provides any rational discourse for “position flexibility” as a cause of this performance drop.

Naylor is incredibly young, and while I feel horrible for his injury he’s always going to be a league average OF, and that’s been his scouting report for just about forever. Miller and Chang have nowhere near a sample size large enough, but they’re utility players trying to earn at bats in the same manner baseball teams have done for a century plus. Miller has played all over the diamond in Columbus to the tune of an OPS over 1.000. Isn’t affecting him there.

Instead of asking me to further prove a negative exists, do you have anything that is not speculative?

Otherwise, I think it’s pretty clear to see that you don’t have a rational argument to provide. Just projection and a lack of understanding what constitutes causation vs correlation.


Is there anything else I can help explain? I’ll wait.

All of this provided rational discourse for a cause for this performance drop. Do you even know what any of the terms you are using actually mean? Serious question. Put down the thesaurus for 15 seconds and listen to yourself.

I've debated the merits of my position across multiple pages now, providing specific examples backed by specific data. In response, you've abdicated your purportedly high standards and refused to offer any support for how shuffling the several named young players across several positions as they're breaking into the majors neither accounts for any of their struggles nor explains our poor team defense.

Someone told you that if you sprinkle enough vapid buzzwords like "rational discourse" and all of the Logical Argument 101 terms you can learn at a community college that you'll sound intelligent and won't actually have to engage in the discussion. I'm here to tell you that's not the case. And for free!

I respond in kind. You come at me with all these personal attacks because I hurt your feelings, I'll respond back similarly only better at it.

Perhaps I've offered evidence only of correlation. You, on the other hand, have offered evidence of nothing.

 

[AZ_]

All of this provided rational discourse for a cause for this performance drop. Do you even know what any of the terms you are using actually mean? Serious question. Put down the thesaurus for 15 seconds and listen to yourself.

Yes, I do.

Correlation vs. Causation is actually a pretty simple concept, one which you're on the wrong side of.

I've debated the merits of my position across multiple pages now, providing specific examples backed by specific data. In response, you've abdicated your purportedly high standards and refused to offer any support for how shuffling the several named young players across several positions as they're breaking into the majors neither accounts for any of their struggles nor explains our poor team defense.I

That's not entirely true, you've claimed that it caused the performance drop, but have provided no sound logic for proving causation.

It's not about high standards, or any of the other personal attacks you're allowed by the mods to throw my way while attempting to avoid actually proving causation.

No, I haven't proved a negative, because as most people with an understanding of basic argumentation know....you cannot.

Someone told you that if you sprinkle enough vapid buzzwords like "rational discourse" and all of the Logical Argument 101 terms you can learn at a community college that you'll sound intelligent and won't actually have to engage in the discussion. I'm here to tell you that's not the case. And for free!

I respond in kind. You come at me with all these personal attacks because I hurt your feelings, I'll respond back similarly only better at it.

Perhaps I've offered evidence only of correlation. You, on the other hand, have offered evidence of nothing.