What To Do With Brandon Inge?

[Big Sexy]

I'm not knocking Bill James and his ideas or trying to say he isn't a great baseball mind. I'm just pointing out that his sabermetrics and defensive spectrum is based only on stats and formulas. I've already shown how those types of analysis often have flaws. Unless you are actually doing something you can't know how hard it is.

You keep bringing up guys like Cabrera and Fielder who aren't very good at the position. Just because they can play it doesn't mean they are good at it. The reason all first basemen are bigger guys is because that's what the position requires. Other infield positions require more speed while first requires a big target. There's a reason about 90% of first basemen are at least 6'2 because guys that are small at the position will struggle more. A prime example is the 5'11 Prince Fielder who is probably the worst defensive first basemen in the game. I wouldn't put Adrian Gonzalez at second but I also wouldn't put the 5'9 Dustin Pedroia at first. The bigger the target the easier it is to make an accurate throw and the easier it is to get an out. I guarantee guys like Pedroia find second easier while guys like Adrian Gonzalez find first easier. It all depends on the type of player.

First basemen are involved in almost every single play where a ball is hit in the infield. They don't just have to scoop throws in the dirt, they have to expect bad throws and be able to come up with the catch whether it is high, low, or outside. Just like at second, there aren't as many balls hit to that side of the infield and first basemen field the least amount but they still have to make the occasional play on the ball hit to them. They also have to be alert in bunting situations and be able to charge and make a play on the ball. Having a good defensive first basemen makes the entire infield better and can save a team in a lot of situations.

 

[Megatron]

I'm not knocking Bill James and his ideas or trying to say he isn't a great baseball mind. I'm just pointing out that his sabermetrics and defensive spectrum is based only on stats and formulas. I've already shown how those types of analysis often have flaws. Unless you are actually doing something you can't know how hard it is.

It's objective analysis, and it's much less flawed then the naked eye, which tells you what you want to see.

First basemen are involved in almost every single play where a ball is hit in the infield. They don't just have to scoop throws in the dirt, they have to expect bad throws and be able to come up with the catch whether it is high, low, or outside. Just like at second, there aren't as many balls hit to that side of the infield and first basemen field the least amount but they still have to make the occasional play on the ball hit to them. They also have to be alert in bunting situations and be able to charge and make a play on the ball. Having a good defensive first basemen makes the entire infield better and can save a team in a lot of situations.

They may be involved in every play but they aren't the ones fielding the ball and making the throw. More often then not they are catching routine balls that they make during infield warmups. Second basemen need to be much more involved defensively by the way of double plays, balls hit to them, steal attempts, cut off throws, covering bunts themselves, etc.

Of course a good first basemen makes an infield better. As does a good 2nd basemen, 3rd, and SS. Their responsibilities aren't nearly as much, though, and their skillset isn't as wide or as needed as a second basemen. There's a reason worse defenders are put at first than 2nd, because the priority and importance of defense isn't there and it's easier to grasp. You're the only person I've seen that will say first is harder then 2nd, because you're either overestimating the responsibilities of a first basemen or underestimating the responsibilities of a 2nd basemen.

 

[Harthan]

I kind of find it difficult to believe we're having this conversation. It's commonly accepted in both traditional and statistical communities that first base is an easier position to play - from a physical standpoint, at the very least, but really, as an overall as well. First base, compared to the other positions, is about skill and learning, but you don't have to be a physical specimen to pull it off. It's why Jim Thome is going to be able to play first base once a week this year. Sure, he's old, but he did it for so long with reasonable effectiveness that he can do it, because he knows what he's doing out there and you simply don't need to be a fantastic athlete to pull it off. Second, third, you get worse as you get older, less athletic, etc., etc. This is not only common knowledge, but it's backed up by statistical data. There is really no position from which to make this argument. If you're into statistics, you can demonstrate that Miguel Cabrera's UZR/150 improved quite a bit when he made the move from 3rd to 1st. Admittedly, a small sample size, but given what we already know about the position, most tellingly Bill James's defensive spectrum, this all makes sense and builds the case for 1st as the easiest defensive position. And, furthermore, if you don't respect Bill James's ideas, I'm afraid your opinion is largely irrelevant. This isn't 2000, when sabermetrics were for nerds in basements. The Red Sox built two World Series using Bill James's theories. It works, because James is a genius, and he knows what he's talking about. His defensive spectrum is valid, and I'd be willing to bet that a majority, if not all, of the general managers in baseball would agree.

 

[Big Sexy]

You're still using the theory that bigger guys = worse defenders. Mark Teixeira is one of the best defenders in all of baseball but I guarantee that he wouldn't be nearly as successful at any of the other infield positions and it has nothing to do with the difficulty level of first. Dustin Pedroia would likely succeed more at any infield position other then first not because of skill but size. The type of skill set and athletic ability is different for a first basemen then the other infield positions. 2nd, 3rd, and short are based off speed to be successful while first is based off size. Having a first basemen who can catch nearly anything no matter where it's thrown and can get himself to the bag, set, and provide a big target before the fielding player is ready to throw, is key to getting every out at first. You continue to underestimate the abilities a first basemen has. I at least admit first and second are close in terms of difficulty and are played by completely different types of players. You continue to stay with the argument of "a few slow fat asses have played first and couldn't play anything else thus it's easy." Completely ignoring the fact that those slow fat asses are always awful defenders.

 

[Megatron]

You're still using the theory that bigger guys = worse defenders. Mark Teixeira is one of the best defenders in all of baseball but I guarantee that he wouldn't be nearly as successful at any of the other infield positions and it has nothing to do with the difficulty level of first. Dustin Pedroia would likely succeed more at any infield position other then first not because of skill but size. The type of skill set and athletic ability is different for a first basemen then the other infield positions. 2nd, 3rd, and short are based off speed to be successful while first is based off size. Having a first basemen who can catch nearly anything no matter where it's thrown and can get himself to the bag, set, and provide a big target before the fielding player is ready to throw, is key to getting every out at first. You continue to underestimate the abilities a first basemen has. I at least admit first and second are close in terms of difficulty and are played by completely different types of players. You continue to stay with the argument of "a few slow fat asses have played first and couldn't play anything else thus it's easy." Completely ignoring the fact that those slow fat asses are always awful defenders.

2nd and 1st aren't close in terms of difficulty, though. 2nd is closer to the difficult side of the spectrum then the easy side. I'm not talking makeup of a first basemen. 2nd has more responsibilities and isn't close to an easy position.

 

[Big Sexy]

Having more responsibilities doesn't always mean something is harder. I'd also like to point out that no position in baseball is easy. It takes a lot of skill and hard work to be a successful defender no matter what your position is, but some positions are obviously slightly easier then others.

 

[Harthan]

You're still using the theory that bigger guys = worse defenders. Mark Teixeira is one of the best defenders in all of baseball but I guarantee that he wouldn't be nearly as successful at any of the other infield positions and it has nothing to do with the difficulty level of first. Dustin Pedroia would likely succeed more at any infield position other then first not because of skill but size. The type of skill set and athletic ability is different for a first basemen then the other infield positions. 2nd, 3rd, and short are based off speed to be successful while first is based off size.

See, everything you're saying is valid up until this size thing. It's not that size makes you a good first baseman, it's that because the necessary skills to play 1B are really experience and skill rather than athletic ability, a man of size can play the position. That's why most first baseman are big men - not being the position demands it, but because the position allows it. Big, relatively unathletic guys can play first because the position demands skill, not athleticism.

Having a first basemen who can catch nearly anything no matter where it's thrown and can get himself to the bag, set, and provide a big target before the fielding player is ready to throw, is key to getting every out at first. You continue to underestimate the abilities a first basemen has. I at least admit first and second are close in terms of difficulty and are played by completely different types of players.

It's valid to say that first and second are played by completely different players, but again, you're misinterpreting the why of it. It's not because the middle infield demands athleticism and first demands size - it's because first demands skill, which allows size. First base is a position that can be learned, whereas the middle infield positions demand athleticism, which is why they're considered more difficult positions to play. Insisting that first is even remotely as difficult as second is just plain silly, and it's almost incomprehensible how you could be led to believe such a preposterous thing.

 

[Megatron]

Having more responsibilities doesn't always mean something is harder. I'd also like to point out that no position in baseball is easy. It takes a lot of skill and hard work to be a successful defender no matter what your position is, but some positions are obviously slightly easier then others.

Obviously baseballs hard. I'm not saying otherwise. In terms of the game, though, first base is thought as one of (if not the) easiest. And less responsibilities means less jobs to do which means less work on defense which means easier spot.

 

[Big Sexy]

See, everything you're saying is valid up until this size thing. It's not that size makes you a good first baseman, it's that because the necessary skills to play 1B are really experience and skill rather than athletic ability, a man of size can play the position. That's why most first baseman are big men - not being the position demands it, but because the position allows it. Big, relatively unathletic guys can play first because the position demands skill, not athleticism.

Size is a big factor in what makes a good first basemen. How many throws have you seen in the dirt or well over the head of a first basemen that he was able to get anyways because of the fact that he was in the 6'2-6'4 range? It also greatly helps out the other infielders who are making the throws. It's much easier to make a throw that is on target to a big guy who is 6'3 220 rather then a 5'11, 180 pounder. The smaller the player at first the less of a window there is for an accurate throw. I'm not saying every first basemen has to be a monster in terms of height but size is definitely a factor.