Uggla signed for $7.8 million

[Nny]

As of now, all I have provided is evidence using last season's stats and the projections of Bill James/CHONE/etc. that a Coghlan/Carroll combo has the ability to be better than an Uggla/Coghlan combo, with your only retort being that the likelihood of it is not definite.

 

 

I think everybody that has posted agree that it's possible, but the diction of your posts has made it seem like you believe it's definite (And since I'm not the only one responding, I'm not the only one getting that impression). If that's not the case, then that's not the case.

[MarlinsLou]

As of now, all I have provided is evidence using last season's stats and the projections of Bill James/CHONE/etc. that a Coghlan/Carroll combo has the ability to be better than an Uggla/Coghlan combo, with your only retort being that the likelihood of it is not definite.

 

Because it's not definite. I mean, this isn't a math equation. You use numbers to project the future, not call it a certainty. And when those numbers are based on young player projections, and not someone who has a four year sample size against MLB, I mean...

 

What are the odds Carroll is +20 defensively and hits a .725 OPS overall or whatever? I mean. We all swoon over his LHP splits, but they were .258/.286/.515. That's really slugging heavy. He just hit 2 triples and 3 HR in his limited AB. You can't take it away from him, but this is screaming sample size. He had a sub .600 OPS vs RHP. You want to put that player in the lineup, just for the hope he keeps up a premier defense rate? Hell, Bonifacio could hit .725, turn into a gold glover, and steal 50 bases too and that's arguably around Uggla. What's that probability?

 

I mean, like it's been said a billion time, you trade Uggla for pitching, you use that money to buy more pitching and a left handed platoon partner for Carroll, and that is looking pretty good. But just to say we can eliminate Uggla, and get the same production is really a stretch. Uggla isn't a shmuck. He's a pretty damn good baseball player.

[Fish Dynasty]

As of now, all I have provided is evidence using last season's stats and the projections of Bill James/CHONE/etc. that a Coghlan/Carroll combo has the ability to be better than an Uggla/Coghlan combo, with your only retort being that the likelihood of it is not definite.

 

Because it's not definite. I mean, this isn't a math equation. You use numbers to project the future, not call it a certainty. And when those numbers are based on young player projections, and not someone who has a four year sample size against MLB, I mean...

 

What are the odds Carroll is +20 defensively and hits a .725 OPS overall or whatever? I mean. We all swoon over his LHP splits, but they were .258/.286/.515. That's really slugging heavy. He just hit 2 triples and 3 HR in his limited AB. You can't take it away from him, but this is screaming sample size. He had a sub .600 OPS vs RHP. You want to put that player in the lineup, just for the hope he keeps up a premier defense rate? Hell, Bonifacio could hit .725, turn into a gold glover, and steal 50 bases too and that's arguably around Uggla. What's that probability?

 

I mean, like it's been said a billion time, you trade Uggla for pitching, you use that money to buy more pitching and a left handed platoon partner for Carroll, and that is looking pretty good. But just to say we can eliminate Uggla, and get the same production is really a stretch. Uggla isn't a shmuck. He's a pretty damn good baseball player.

 

 

You keep implying that I said it was definite, which is far from the truth. What's the difference between a player who is a great hitter/poor defender and a player who is a great defender/poor hitter, if their strengths and weaknesses cancel each other out to create about an average ballplayer? The only answer is that the great hitter is the "prettier" player. Your notion that the lineup will turn into a weakness is flawed if you do not consider the effects Carroll would have on defense. And if you're going to use a player to try to compare Carroll to, at least make it a player who has a history of being an elite defensive player, not Bonifacio.

 

The problem is that you as well as others seem to think that I am implying that Uggla is a near-worthless ballplayer who could easily be replaced by a "scrub" like Brett Carroll, when in fact that is completely the opposite. Carroll could probably start on quite a few teams. People vastly underrate players like Carroll since defense isn't as "flashy" as hitting. Notice how the great defensive players are almost always the most underrated ones (Utley and Gutierrez come to mind.)

[bobbob1313]

I think the problem most have with it, speaking for myself, is that you are replacing a sure thing >.810 OPS with so so defense for a guy who is not at all a sure thing to be what you think he will.

 

Yes, he MIGHT turn into that.

 

He might also Cameron Maybin it up and end up covered in sh*t for a month and force us to call someone up. For a team that won 87 games last year and is potentially looking at a wild card run, you don't replace a sure thing with a maybe for a gain of half a win. A gain of half a win is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

 

Yes, it's a potential half win gain for 7.4 million dollars less. But there's every possibility that he can't get over a .600 vs RHP and he's completely useless.

 

Brett Carroll is immensely useful in the role he was in last year. Starting vs LHP and playing awesome defense in late and pressure situations. Just like Bonifacio, he may turn into a valuable starter, but he's more likely to be a great bench player.

 

We've really got three potentially great bench pieces on this team, and all three of them have their supporters to start: Carroll, Gaby, and Bonifacio. It's in the best interests of this team to utilize them on the bench IF we have capable options besides them. Gaby is the only one I would say probably should be starting everyday next year, but even him, I'd rather limit to LHP if I could.

[Backin2008]

I don't see Carroll having much of a factor on the Marlins unless they trade Uggla. He will not be platooning with Coghlan, Maybin or Ross in 2010. I think it would be a huge mistake on using him as anything more than a platoon player despite his defense. I think righty pitchers would carve him up in the majors.

[Fish Dynasty]

I think the problem most have with it, speaking for myself, is that you are replacing a sure thing >.810 OPS with so so defense for a guy who is not at all a sure thing to be what you think he will.

 

Yes, he MIGHT turn into that.

 

He might also Cameron Maybin it up and end up covered in sh*t for a month and force us to call someone up. For a team that won 87 games last year and is potentially looking at a wild card run, you don't replace a sure thing with a maybe for a gain of half a win. A gain of half a win is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

 

Yes, it's a potential half win gain for 7.4 million dollars less. But there's every possibility that he can't get over a .600 vs RHP and he's completely useless.

 

Brett Carroll is immensely useful in the role he was in last year. Starting vs LHP and playing awesome defense in late and pressure situations. Just like Bonifacio, he may turn into a valuable starter, but he's more likely to be a great bench player.

 

We've really got three potentially great bench pieces on this team, and all three of them have their supporters to start: Carroll, Gaby, and Bonifacio. It's in the best interests of this team to utilize them on the bench IF we have capable options besides them. Gaby is the only one I would say probably should be starting everyday next year, but even him, I'd rather limit to LHP if I could.

 

 

 

I don't want to keep arguing about Carroll because it is getting repetitive, but you are missing a key point. Even if the Coghlan/Carroll duo doesn't out-perform the Uggla/Coghlan duo, we can't forget about what we could do with the extra $8 million. Pineiro signing with the Angels today didn't help the cause, but if we could land someone like Sheets on a one-year deal, it's almost impossble for the Marlins not to improve in that situation.

[bobbob1313]

Except Ben Sheets is chronically incapable of stay healthy and is coming off another lost season. Keeping Uggla is better than paying Ben Sheets 6 million for 9 starts.

 

I get it, you like the high risk, high reward move. If Ben Sheets, Chris Coghlan and Brett Carroll all work out to be what they can be, we're a potential playoff team. If not, we win 75 games.

 

A lineup with Brett Carroll and Chris Coghlan everyday and a rotation with Ben Sheets is very high reward. But chances are, at least 2 of them are going to underperform what you seem to expect.

 

When you have 45 million dollars, you take a 500k risk, like Jorge Jimenez. You don't take a 7 million dollar risk. If you pay someone 7 million, you have to know what you're getting. Uggla gives you that. Ben Sheets absolutely doesn't.

[Backin2008]

I think the problem most have with it, speaking for myself, is that you are replacing a sure thing >.810 OPS with so so defense for a guy who is not at all a sure thing to be what you think he will.

 

Yes, he MIGHT turn into that.

 

He might also Cameron Maybin it up and end up covered in sh*t for a month and force us to call someone up. For a team that won 87 games last year and is potentially looking at a wild card run, you don't replace a sure thing with a maybe for a gain of half a win. A gain of half a win is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

 

Yes, it's a potential half win gain for 7.4 million dollars less. But there's every possibility that he can't get over a .600 vs RHP and he's completely useless.

 

Brett Carroll is immensely useful in the role he was in last year. Starting vs LHP and playing awesome defense in late and pressure situations. Just like Bonifacio, he may turn into a valuable starter, but he's more likely to be a great bench player.

 

We've really got three potentially great bench pieces on this team, and all three of them have their supporters to start: Carroll, Gaby, and Bonifacio. It's in the best interests of this team to utilize them on the bench IF we have capable options besides them. Gaby is the only one I would say probably should be starting everyday next year, but even him, I'd rather limit to LHP if I could.

 

 

 

I don't want to keep arguing about Carroll because it is getting repetitive, but you are missing a key point. Even if the Coghlan/Carroll duo doesn't out-perform the Uggla/Coghlan duo, we can't forget about what we could do with the extra $8 million. Pineiro signing with the Angels today didn't help the cause, but if we could land someone like Sheets on a one-year deal, it's almost impossble for the Marlins not to improve in that situation.

 

What makes you think the Marlins would spend the money they would save in a Dan Uggla trade? And don't say the union.

[Nny]

What makes you think the Marlins would spend the money they would save in a Dan Uggla trade? And don't say the union.

 

 

Well, considering that reports say our agreement with the union is that payroll with be north of 40 mil, and if we trade Uggla our payroll would be under 40 mil...

[Backin2008]

That doesn't mean they would have to spend the whole $8 million. I think it would be dumb to trade Uggla right now with teams mostly set up for the 2010 season. Why does everyone continue to hate on a 2B who cracks 30 homers a year? Amazing.

[MarlinsLou]

As of now, all I have provided is evidence using last season's stats and the projections of Bill James/CHONE/etc. that a Coghlan/Carroll combo has the ability to be better than an Uggla/Coghlan combo, with your only retort being that the likelihood of it is not definite.

 

Because it's not definite. I mean, this isn't a math equation. You use numbers to project the future, not call it a certainty. And when those numbers are based on young player projections, and not someone who has a four year sample size against MLB, I mean...

 

What are the odds Carroll is +20 defensively and hits a .725 OPS overall or whatever? I mean. We all swoon over his LHP splits, but they were .258/.286/.515. That's really slugging heavy. He just hit 2 triples and 3 HR in his limited AB. You can't take it away from him, but this is screaming sample size. He had a sub .600 OPS vs RHP. You want to put that player in the lineup, just for the hope he keeps up a premier defense rate? Hell, Bonifacio could hit .725, turn into a gold glover, and steal 50 bases too and that's arguably around Uggla. What's that probability?

 

I mean, like it's been said a billion time, you trade Uggla for pitching, you use that money to buy more pitching and a left handed platoon partner for Carroll, and that is looking pretty good. But just to say we can eliminate Uggla, and get the same production is really a stretch. Uggla isn't a shmuck. He's a pretty damn good baseball player.

 

 

You keep implying that I said it was definite, which is far from the truth. What's the difference between a player who is a great hitter/poor defender and a player who is a great defender/poor hitter, if their strengths and weaknesses cancel each other out to create about an average ballplayer? The only answer is that the great hitter is the "prettier" player. Your notion that the lineup will turn into a weakness is flawed if you do not consider the effects Carroll would have on defense. And if you're going to use a player to try to compare Carroll to, at least make it a player who has a history of being an elite defensive player, not Bonifacio.

 

The problem is that you as well as others seem to think that I am implying that Uggla is a near-worthless ballplayer who could easily be replaced by a "scrub" like Brett Carroll, when in fact that is completely the opposite. Carroll could probably start on quite a few teams. People vastly underrate players like Carroll since defense isn't as "flashy" as hitting. Notice how the great defensive players are almost always the most underrated ones (Utley and Gutierrez come to mind.)

 

Utley is considered the best 2B in baseball and one of the best players in the league. Guitterrez just got a huge contract. Oakland's entire team is built around defense. Boston has revamped their entire team around defense. I have no idea what you are talking about here. Defense is understood and is not underrated.

 

I get it. Trust me. But defense isn't what you base your core production on. Uggla is a bat, Carroll is a glove. This isn't football where you can have a 4th down stop in the 9th inning to preserve a win. Carroll is a great guy to pick and choose your spots with, but averaging him out constantly is going to create severe problems because his production is based on something he does not control. Balls hit into the outfield. Get him a lefty that can hit to platoon with and then we can talk. But Carroll is a guy who won't win you a game, he just won't lose it for you. Important difference. Look at Oakland. Despite one of the best bullpens in the league, 15-23 in 1 run games. You have to be able to hit, so unless you want to say he can turn into Guitterrez (who is lifetime .730ish), I mean I don't think you have much ground to stand on despite hypothesizing on 4 or 5 variables to come up to a wash production. I'm skeptical Carroll can do that with his inability to hit righties, and literally all or nothing slugging versus lefties.

 

You take the sure thing with Uggla unless you trade him and buy more pitching. This is a no brainer.

[MarlinsLou]

What makes you think the Marlins would spend the money they would save in a Dan Uggla trade? And don't say the union.

 

 

Well, considering that reports say our agreement with the union is that payroll with be north of 40 mil, and if we trade Uggla our payroll would be under 40 mil...

Barely. It would be over $39 if we add in a CC player to replace Uggla.

[mystikol87]

So, I'm assuming Maybin and Ross will be plus defenders in CF and RF. Does this mitigate BC's value in LF relative to a poorer LF like Coghlan, since he won't need to get to as many balls in the first place?

It's probably not too significant of a difference, but I'm curious if there are any studies or whatever regarding this.

[Schnellders]

Wow. It really seems like some of you guys don't understand that Dan Uggla is a asset to the team. There is no way in hell that Coghlan and Carroll will produce anywhere near as much offensively than Uggla and Coghlan. Big deal you would save money by getting rid of Uggla but the Marlins would not be a better team......period.

 

 

I agree with you 100%, Uggla is an asset to to the team. Having Hanley-Cantu-Uggla in the middle of the order again bodes well for 2010

[Fish Dynasty]

As of now, all I have provided is evidence using last season's stats and the projections of Bill James/CHONE/etc. that a Coghlan/Carroll combo has the ability to be better than an Uggla/Coghlan combo, with your only retort being that the likelihood of it is not definite.

 

Because it's not definite. I mean, this isn't a math equation. You use numbers to project the future, not call it a certainty. And when those numbers are based on young player projections, and not someone who has a four year sample size against MLB, I mean...

 

What are the odds Carroll is +20 defensively and hits a .725 OPS overall or whatever? I mean. We all swoon over his LHP splits, but they were .258/.286/.515. That's really slugging heavy. He just hit 2 triples and 3 HR in his limited AB. You can't take it away from him, but this is screaming sample size. He had a sub .600 OPS vs RHP. You want to put that player in the lineup, just for the hope he keeps up a premier defense rate? Hell, Bonifacio could hit .725, turn into a gold glover, and steal 50 bases too and that's arguably around Uggla. What's that probability?

 

I mean, like it's been said a billion time, you trade Uggla for pitching, you use that money to buy more pitching and a left handed platoon partner for Carroll, and that is looking pretty good. But just to say we can eliminate Uggla, and get the same production is really a stretch. Uggla isn't a shmuck. He's a pretty damn good baseball player.

 

 

You keep implying that I said it was definite, which is far from the truth. What's the difference between a player who is a great hitter/poor defender and a player who is a great defender/poor hitter, if their strengths and weaknesses cancel each other out to create about an average ballplayer? The only answer is that the great hitter is the "prettier" player. Your notion that the lineup will turn into a weakness is flawed if you do not consider the effects Carroll would have on defense. And if you're going to use a player to try to compare Carroll to, at least make it a player who has a history of being an elite defensive player, not Bonifacio.

 

The problem is that you as well as others seem to think that I am implying that Uggla is a near-worthless ballplayer who could easily be replaced by a "scrub" like Brett Carroll, when in fact that is completely the opposite. Carroll could probably start on quite a few teams. People vastly underrate players like Carroll since defense isn't as "flashy" as hitting. Notice how the great defensive players are almost always the most underrated ones (Utley and Gutierrez come to mind.)

 

Utley is considered the best 2B in baseball and one of the best players in the league. Guitterrez just got a huge contract. Oakland's entire team is built around defense. Boston has revamped their entire team around defense. I have no idea what you are talking about here. Defense is understood and is not underrated.

 

I get it. Trust me. But defense isn't what you base your core production on. Uggla is a bat, Carroll is a glove. This isn't football where you can have a 4th down stop in the 9th inning to preserve a win. Carroll is a great guy to pick and choose your spots with, but averaging him out constantly is going to create severe problems because his production is based on something he does not control. Balls hit into the outfield. Get him a lefty that can hit to platoon with and then we can talk. But Carroll is a guy who won't win you a game, he just won't lose it for you. Important difference. Look at Oakland. Despite one of the best bullpens in the league, 15-23 in 1 run games. You have to be able to hit, so unless you want to say he can turn into Guitterrez (who is lifetime .730ish), I mean I don't think you have much ground to stand on despite hypothesizing on 4 or 5 variables to come up to a wash production. I'm skeptical Carroll can do that with his inability to hit righties, and literally all or nothing slugging versus lefties.

 

You take the sure thing with Uggla unless you trade him and buy more pitching. This is a no brainer.

 

 

Please. Why do we never hear Utley's name when people talk about MVP candidates, yet he is consistently one of the best players in the MLB? He might clearly be the best second baseman to you and me, but we don't account for the majority of the baseball world. If defense is understood, then why is Derek Jeter still winning Gold Gloves (granted, he did a little bit better last year, but still)?

 

Thinking that you build around offense is a just a common misconception. Defense in the MLB is comparable to an offensive line in football. Rarely gets any credit, yet is one of the key components to success. Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a guy that can win ballgames and a guy that won't lose it for you, and how does that apply in any way to this situation? Did you happen to forget one of the early games this past season when Carroll came in for Hermida and made the game-winning defensive play, and then did the same thing just a few games later? According to you, which category would that fall under, if there is any difference?

 

Do you know what the Orioles, Nationals, Blue Jays, Indians, White Sox, Twins, Mets and the Royals all have in common? Those eight teams finished in the bottom eight in UZR last year, and out of all of them only one team, the Twins, finished the season with a winning record.

[bobbob1313]

Thinking that you build around offense is a just a common misconception. Defense in the MLB is comparable to an offensive line in football. Rarely gets any credit, yet is one of the key components to success. Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a guy that can win ballgames and a guy that won't lose it for you, and how does that apply in any way to this situation? Did you happen to forget one of the early games this past season when Carroll came in for Hermida and made the game-winning defensive play, and then did the same thing just a few games later? According to you, which category would that fall under, if there is any difference?

 

 

If I said "Did you happen to forget the game tying (or winning, can't remember specifically) home run Uggla hit against Kevin Gregg in August" you probably would dismiss it as irrelevant to the conversation.

 

Your point is similarly irrelevant. Hermida made a game saving catch against the Phillies at one point last year.

[Fish Dynasty]

Thinking that you build around offense is a just a common misconception. Defense in the MLB is comparable to an offensive line in football. Rarely gets any credit, yet is one of the key components to success. Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a guy that can win ballgames and a guy that won't lose it for you, and how does that apply in any way to this situation? Did you happen to forget one of the early games this past season when Carroll came in for Hermida and made the game-winning defensive play, and then did the same thing just a few games later? According to you, which category would that fall under, if there is any difference?

 

 

If I said "Did you happen to forget the game tying (or winning, can't remember specifically) home run Uggla hit against Kevin Gregg in August" you probably would dismiss it as irrelevant to the conversation.

 

Your point is similarly irrelevant. Hermida made a game saving catch against the Phillies at one point last year.

 

 

The example was mainly an attempt to try to figure out which of the "categories" it would have fallen under. It also was more relevant than the one you provided as my example resembled the the difference between the original player and the impact his replacement made (Hermida for Carroll). The likeliness of Hermida ending the play with the same result would have been much smaller.

[Haddaway]

Thinking that you build around offense is a just a common misconception. Defense in the MLB is comparable to an offensive line in football. Rarely gets any credit, yet is one of the key components to success. Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a guy that can win ballgames and a guy that won't lose it for you, and how does that apply in any way to this situation? Did you happen to forget one of the early games this past season when Carroll came in for Hermida and made the game-winning defensive play, and then did the same thing just a few games later? According to you, which category would that fall under, if there is any difference?

 

 

If I said "Did you happen to forget the game tying (or winning, can't remember specifically) home run Uggla hit against Kevin Gregg in August" you probably would dismiss it as irrelevant to the conversation.

 

Your point is similarly irrelevant. Hermida made a game saving catch against the Phillies at one point last year.

 

 

The example was mainly an attempt to try to figure out which of the "categories" it would have fallen under. It also was more relevant than the one you provided as my example resembled the the difference between the original player and the impact his replacement made (Hermida for Carroll). The likeliness of Hermida ending the play with the same result would have been much smaller.

 

 

Also, I bet if Hermida threw the ball at the EXACT same time Carroll did, with the EXACT same percision, he wouldn't of made the out at the plate. His arm strength was just too weak. So yes, the chance of Hermida making the same play is VERY small, and the fact he did it twice in a short period of time is something Hermida could never do. I like Carroll, let's see how he does offensively in the beginning as a platoon player for lefties.

[MarlinsLou]

Please. Why do we never hear Utley's name when people talk about MVP candidates, yet he is consistently one of the best players in the MLB? He might clearly be the best second baseman to you and me, but we don't account for the majority of the baseball world. If defense is understood, then why is Derek Jeter still winning Gold Gloves (granted, he did a little bit better last year, but still)?

 

Thinking that you build around offense is a just a common misconception. Defense in the MLB is comparable to an offensive line in football. Rarely gets any credit, yet is one of the key components to success. Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a guy that can win ballgames and a guy that won't lose it for you, and how does that apply in any way to this situation? Did you happen to forget one of the early games this past season when Carroll came in for Hermida and made the game-winning defensive play, and then did the same thing just a few games later? According to you, which category would that fall under, if there is any difference?

 

Do you know what the Orioles, Nationals, Blue Jays, Indians, White Sox, Twins, Mets and the Royals all have in common? Those eight teams finished in the bottom eight in UZR last year, and out of all of them only one team, the Twins, finished the season with a winning record.

 

Utley has finished 13, 7, 8, 14, and 8 in MVP voting the last 5 years, won the silver slugger four years in a row, and made the all star game 5 years in a row. Call me crazy, but I don't think people are underrating Chase Utley. Who was in front of Utley last year in the voting? Pujols, Hanley, Howard, Fielder, Tulowitski, Ethier, and Sandoval. Do we have any real huge problems with him being behind any of them? Sure, maybe Howard steals some of his thunder, and it's not like Luis Castillo, Orlando Hudson, and Brandon Phillips who have won the GG during those years are chumps, but please. And per your Jeter comment, that is voted on by sports writers and not MLB front offices. Which I just realized is slightly hypocritical since all of Utley's accolades are relatively the same cause GM's don't vote on that stuff exclusively, but it's not like Utley wouldn't be universally held the top 2B if they were to vote. I just don't buy the Utley underrated thing at all. He's Chase freaking Utley!

 

Why did Oakland win 75 games with a defensive centric roster? The bottom line is the same, but that doesn't mean it simply isn't the bottom line. This isn't just a run differential race. There are different facets of baseball and types of production in getting to that bottom line that account for more/less wins. Like, if you have a really good bullpen it usually means you will perform better in 1 run ball games (which is why Oakland's record is so delicious for purposes of this argument). Or if you have a very HR oriented team, like the Marlins a few years ago, you may score a lot of runs, but you'll win a lot of games 9-3 when you face a certain type of right handed power pitcher, and lose a lot 3-2 against everyone else even if your run differential bottom line is really solid. You need mean average production across the board, and not to simply excel in one area. Brett Carroll, excels exclusively in one area, defense. Not like Uggla, who has a serious positional scarcity advantage as a middle infielder and hits the crap out of the ball. Baseball is a situational game. Look at OPS, which we'll use for very generalized offense. 6 of the top 7 teams made the playoffs (and Tampa was the one that didn't make it, AL East right there), and 13 of the top 15 offensive teams had winning records (Toronto, Cleveland). Only Cleveland had a notable negative run differential (Detroit -2, everyone else in the green). Sure San Francisco was last in the league in offense and did well, but that's due to unreal pitching. There are outliers each way, like my Oakland comments, and looking at that is not going to matter.

 

Your bread and butter is hitting the ball and pitching the ball. If you can find that with players that are neutral/above average defensively and that are fast on the base paths/steal bases, you've hit the jackpot. It's not what you base the team off of because you need reliable predictable production with hitting the baseball. Maybe you can get away with it at like, SS, but absolutely not in a corner OF position which is what you're saying we should do with Carroll.

[Iowa]

Love the watchlist Lou... would like to see Marlon Byrd added to the list. He's my odds on fave to win your award

[Fish Dynasty]

Please. Why do we never hear Utley's name when people talk about MVP candidates, yet he is consistently one of the best players in the MLB? He might clearly be the best second baseman to you and me, but we don't account for the majority of the baseball world. If defense is understood, then why is Derek Jeter still winning Gold Gloves (granted, he did a little bit better last year, but still)?

 

Thinking that you build around offense is a just a common misconception. Defense in the MLB is comparable to an offensive line in football. Rarely gets any credit, yet is one of the key components to success. Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a guy that can win ballgames and a guy that won't lose it for you, and how does that apply in any way to this situation? Did you happen to forget one of the early games this past season when Carroll came in for Hermida and made the game-winning defensive play, and then did the same thing just a few games later? According to you, which category would that fall under, if there is any difference?

 

Do you know what the Orioles, Nationals, Blue Jays, Indians, White Sox, Twins, Mets and the Royals all have in common? Those eight teams finished in the bottom eight in UZR last year, and out of all of them only one team, the Twins, finished the season with a winning record.

 

Utley has finished 13, 7, 8, 14, and 8 in MVP voting the last 5 years, won the silver slugger four years in a row, and made the all star game 5 years in a row. Call me crazy, but I don't think people are underrating Chase Utley. Who was in front of Utley last year in the voting? Pujols, Hanley, Howard, Fielder, Tulowitski, Ethier, and Sandoval. Do we have any real huge problems with him being behind any of them? Sure, maybe Howard steals some of his thunder, and it's not like Luis Castillo, Orlando Hudson, and Brandon Phillips who have won the GG during those years are chumps, but please. And per your Jeter comment, that is voted on by sports writers and not MLB front offices. Which I just realized is slightly hypocritical since all of Utley's accolades are relatively the same cause GM's don't vote on that stuff exclusively, but it's not like Utley wouldn't be universally held the top 2B if they were to vote. I just don't buy the Utley underrated thing at all. He's Chase freaking Utley!

 

Why did Oakland win 75 games with a defensive centric roster? The bottom line is the same, but that doesn't mean it simply isn't the bottom line. This isn't just a run differential race. There are different facets of baseball and types of production in getting to that bottom line that account for more/less wins. Like, if you have a really good bullpen it usually means you will perform better in 1 run ball games (which is why Oakland's record is so delicious for purposes of this argument). Or if you have a very HR oriented team, like the Marlins a few years ago, you may score a lot of runs, but you'll win a lot of games 9-3 when you face a certain type of right handed power pitcher, and lose a lot 3-2 against everyone else even if your run differential bottom line is really solid. You need mean average production across the board, and not to simply excel in one area. Brett Carroll, excels exclusively in one area, defense. Not like Uggla, who has a serious positional scarcity advantage as a middle infielder and hits the crap out of the ball. Baseball is a situational game. Look at OPS, which we'll use for very generalized offense. 6 of the top 7 teams made the playoffs (and Tampa was the one that didn't make it, AL East right there), and 13 of the top 15 offensive teams had winning records (Toronto, Cleveland). Only Cleveland had a notable negative run differential (Detroit -2, everyone else in the green). Sure San Francisco was last in the league in offense and did well, but that's due to unreal pitching. There are outliers each way, like my Oakland comments, and looking at that is not going to matter.

 

Your bread and butter is hitting the ball and pitching the ball. If you can find that with players that are neutral/above average defensively and that are fast on the base paths/steal bases, you've hit the jackpot. It's not what you base the team off of because you need reliable predictable production with hitting the baseball. Maybe you can get away with it at like, SS, but absolutely not in a corner OF position which is what you're saying we should do with Carroll.

 

 

Yet Utley has finished 4th, 4th, 2nd, 2nd and 2nd in WAR the past five years, never winning a "Gold Glove" in that time period, by the way. The point is that Howard catches everyone's attention with all of his home runs, Rollins takes some of the attention away (or at least he used to) with his speed, etc. No one notices the guy who is quitely amazing year after year with his combination of great offense and great defense, because that isn't what the majority of the baseball world deems "exciting".

 

The situation in Oakland is far from similar to the Marlins situation. Oakland is nearly a pure defensive team, which isn't what I suggested. Plugging in one player, Carroll, into the equation doesn't make us like the A's. The problem is that if we continue with the Uggla/Coghlan combination, then once again we would be almost purely an offensive team. The best ones are usually the most balanced ones, not just the ones who put the most runs on the board. Obviously, there would be a huge difference if Carroll was in our lineup since we still have guys like Hanley, Coghlan, Cantu, etc. to fill our offensive needs, rather than Oakland who has to rely on guys like Rajai Davis and Jack Cust to provide them with all of their offense.

[Rabbethan]

Utely underrated? You mean the best 2nd baseman in baseball? Nah. If you ask people who the best player in each position is they will give you different answers and can make an argument for it. Ask who the best 2nd baseman in baseball is and they will say chase utely.

 

Some will say Pedroia but you're basically right.

[mystikol87]

Utely underrated? You mean the best 2nd baseman in baseball? Nah. If you ask people who the best player in each position is they will give you different answers and can make an argument for it. Ask who the best 2nd baseman in baseball is and they will say chase utely.

 

Some will say Pedroia but you're basically right.

 

Either way, it doesn't mean he's not underrated. He's more than just the best 2nd baseman. WAR (apparently) has him as a clear top 5, if not top 3 player in all of baseball. I don't think people realize just how good he is.

[Haddaway]

Utely underrated? You mean the best 2nd baseman in baseball? Nah. If you ask people who the best player in each position is they will give you different answers and can make an argument for it. Ask who the best 2nd baseman in baseball is and they will say chase utely.

 

 

 

I would say Dan Uggla

[Anonymous]

Dan Uggla can't touch Chase Utley. And doesn't WAR have Utley as the best player in baseball?