Mags wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"And i dont put as much value in having a great defensive second baseman."

I didn't, until I started watching Roberto Alomar. And the 2006 Cardinals don't win the World Series unless they make a trade for Rafael Belliard. 

Many years ago, there was an article I read somewhere that purported to do a study that concluded that Shortstops and Second baseman were the positions that required the rarest skill set of any position.  They reached that conclusion based almost entirely that the folks in those positions, along with Centerfield and Catcher a distant third and fourth, because the players there were able to get by with so much less in the way of offensive production.  I think I read that in Psychology Today, which I eventually concluded could be more full of unscientific bullshit than a Huey Long stump speech.

But when I first started learning about baseball, the conventional wisdom was that a team had to be strong up the middle (meaning short, second, center, and catcher) to win.  And my unscientific observation over the past 66 years has been consistent with that.wisdom.  It certainly proved true of the Cardinals.

My thought on Wong is that he is too much like Garry Templeton.  He can make lots of spectacular plays.  But then he can turn around a make a lackadaisical error, sometimes hot-dogging, that seems to destroy a team's morale in a tight game. Of course it just looks like any other error in the stats.
 

I agree about being strong up the middle.  Id rank second as leadt important for the two.  I see it as the easiest position to hide a less than average fielder.  I think that is especially more true with the use of shifts.  Has to be a little easier to field the position when there is 3 players on the right side of the infield.  If you put dejong and Goldschmidt and each side of me, i could probably manage to knock down anything hit right at me and let them deal with the rest. 

I admit that im talking out of my ass on this subject tho.  Its just my personal belief.

Sometimes i like to take a stance and then see if it is valid.  Picking and choosing info off the internet is a great way of proving that point.  So, in that spirt, here is a clip from an espn article;

"Second basemen handled 15.52 percent of all non-catcher fielding chances during the 2018 season, the lowest figure ever. (Or at least since 1956, the first season for which we have a full data set.) The figures for shortstops are at an all-time low as well, but the drop hasn't been as severe.

What is going on? Could the shift have anything to do with this?

Well, it almost certainly does. While shifts still account for only a portion of total defensive configurations, there simply didn't used to be so many second basemen playing shallow right field. There didn't used to be so many shortstops playing behind the second-base bag, or often to the first-base side of it. Fielders are just not positioned where they used to be positioned."

forsberg_us wrote:

On the other hand, the second baseman has the most difficult role in turning a double play. The ball is always coming from his right, he has to catch it, tag the base and immediately throw to his left while not getting taken out by the base runner.* * *.

And where that is concerned, I don't think they come much better than Wong.
 

"My thought on Wong is that he is too much like Garry Templeton.  He can make lots of spectacular plays.  But then he can turn around a make a lackadaisical error, sometimes hot-dogging, that seems to destroy a team's morale in a tight game. Of course it just looks like any other error in the stats."

Yeah, and maybe this is wishful thinking because I still think Wong can be a very good player, but I've seen less of that over time. This is a kid who grew up on a very small island and probably didn't have a lot of adversity to overcome until he got to the major leagues, most famously when picked off to end a game in the 2013 World Series. If they just let him hit higher in the order and leave him alone, I think he can be one of their more productive players.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (2/19/2019 11:34 pm)

"Hudson ready to start when one of Wacha or Wainwright inevitably break down. "

Sorry, I must have been on Neptune the past three months. Are there people seriously discussing whether Wainwright will be in the starting rotation?

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Hudson ready to start when one of Wacha or Wainwright inevitably break down. "

Sorry, I must have been on Neptune the past three months. Are there people seriously discussing whether Wainwright will be in the starting rotation?

I’m not sure whether you’re saying you assume he’s in or out of the rotation, but I’d personally be stunned if Wainwright is healthy when camp breaks and isn’t part of the rotation.

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Hudson ready to start when one of Wacha or Wainwright inevitably break down. "

Sorry, I must have been on Neptune the past three months. Are there people seriously discussing whether Wainwright will be in the starting rotation?

I’m not sure whether you’re saying you assume he’s in or out of the rotation, but I’d personally be stunned if Wainwright is healthy when camp breaks and isn’t part of the rotation.

I assumed he'd be long relief and/or maybe a bridge guy in the fifth/sixth inning. I never thought they were considering a spot in the rotation for him, with all the good young starting pitchers they have.

With Martinez out (and from what I'm told, assume the worst), if Wainwright's not in the rotation, you have Mikolas, Flaherty, Wacha and ????

I personally assumed Wainwright fills one of those spots until he can't.  I don't think there's been any serious discussion around St. Louis that he wouldn't be a starter unless he was incapable.

"With Martinez out (and from what I'm told, assume the worst)"

Yeah, from reading Langlosh's (or whatever her name is) article yesterday, it doesn't look like there's much cause for optimism. 
I think in five years we're going to look back on Carlos Martinez's career and come to the quick conclusion there was so much unfulfilled potential. 
And I think much of it will revolve around the notion he has the proverbial million dollar arm and a five cent head.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"With Martinez out (and from what I'm told, assume the worst)"

Yeah, from reading Langlosh's (or whatever her name is) article yesterday, it doesn't look like there's much cause for optimism. 
I think in five years we're going to look back on Carlos Martinez's career and come to the quick conclusion there was so much unfulfilled potential. 
And I think much of it will revolve around the notion he has the proverbial million dollar arm and a five cent head.

Would it be better to look back and see him as a productive reliever as opposed to an under performing starter?

I understand the point that the numbers vs dollars say he is better valued as a starter.  Im on the fence about it tho.

APIAD wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"With Martinez out (and from what I'm told, assume the worst)"

Yeah, from reading Langlosh's (or whatever her name is) article yesterday, it doesn't look like there's much cause for optimism. 
I think in five years we're going to look back on Carlos Martinez's career and come to the quick conclusion there was so much unfulfilled potential. 
And I think much of it will revolve around the notion he has the proverbial million dollar arm and a five cent head.

Would it be better to look back and see him as a productive reliever as opposed to an under performing starter?

I understand the point that the numbers vs dollars say he is better valued as a starter. Im on the fence about it tho.

From a strategic standpoint, the Cardinals probably should have been grooming him for the closer's role as soon as he came to the majors, because his mentality - read: he's an immature dumbass - was more suited to a relief role. But his stuff was so apparent that you can't blame the Cardinals for trying to make him a starter.

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Would it be better to look back and see him as a productive reliever as opposed to an under performing starter?

I understand the point that the numbers vs dollars say he is better valued as a starter. Im on the fence about it tho.

From a strategic standpoint, the Cardinals probably should have been grooming him for the closer's role as soon as he came to the majors, because his mentality - read: he's an immature dumbass - was more suited to a relief role. But his stuff was so apparent that you can't blame the Cardinals for trying to make him a starter.

From what I was told, the Martinez issue is more serious than Ozuna's, but apparently neither player did what they were supposed to do this off-season in terms of rehab, strengthening, etc...

I'm not sure if the team has any recourse, and there are probably player relations reasons why the team shouldn't seek any recourse, but I'd be pretty pissed if I was paying over $20M for two players, both of whom had health issues, both of whom were asked to stay in St. Louis so their health and rehab issues could be monitored, and both of whom apparently said "thanks, but no thanks," went back to the DR and didn't do what they were supposed to do.

Didn't Ozuna have surgery in the off-season, or did he blow it off?

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Would it be better to look back and see him as a productive reliever as opposed to an under performing starter?

I understand the point that the numbers vs dollars say he is better valued as a starter. Im on the fence about it tho.

From a strategic standpoint, the Cardinals probably should have been grooming him for the closer's role as soon as he came to the majors, because his mentality - read: he's an immature dumbass - was more suited to a relief role. But his stuff was so apparent that you can't blame the Cardinals for trying to make him a starter.

From what I was told, the Martinez issue is more serious than Ozuna's, but apparently neither player did what they were supposed to do this off-season in terms of rehab, strengthening, etc...

I'm not sure if the team has any recourse, and there are probably player relations reasons why the team shouldn't seek any recourse, but I'd be pretty pissed if I was paying over $20M for two players, both of whom had health issues, both of whom were asked to stay in St. Louis so their health and rehab issues could be monitored, and both of whom apparently said "thanks, but no thanks," went back to the DR and didn't do what they were supposed to do.

Yeah, total bs.  Id think ozuna would be concentrated on being all he can be in 2019

APIAD wrote:

Harper deal is supposedly close. Phillies are his likely landing spot and the number 360mill has been spoke of.

With money being thrown around like that, it's going to make it feel a lot better to take a pass on the ridiculously overpriced tickets.