My question is, where was the Internet/WWW and its wealth of baseball information when I was a kid? Does anyone remember the Statis-Pro baseball game they used to advertise in the baseball mags of the day? Man, I used to dream about owning one and spending all my time playing virtual seasons. Of course, the phrase “virtual season” didn’t even exist at that time. I think it would have been called “simulated” then.

Yes, my case is far from airtight. Still, a batter has more responsibility for and control over run production than any fielder can have over run prevention. That’s the gist of my simple-minded analysis.

I see a different side to the scenario you present with bases loaded. There is one plus side to striking out (assuming less that 2 outs and a man on first) that people don’t often mention: you don’t hit into double plays. So say Inge strikes out in a bases-loaded situation vs hitting into an inning ending double-play, thus keeping the inning alive. Compare that to a fielding error by Guillen with bases loaded, which scores at least one run and keeps the inning going for the opposition.

It seems like a lot of the to Inge or not to Inge is a wash. We know we give up some offense, but we get back some defense. How much that effects the outcome…we’re not sure. If we assume that the offense will stick around though, we have to consider that the pitching and defense is what needs shoring up. We’ve averaged 10+ runs the last three games with Inge in the line up. I think its safe to say the offense can “carry” him (as I recall he was carrying the offense to start the season).

Understand Inge is only “my Tiger” when it comes to defense, the second it appears we can get somebody at 3b with a good bat and even average defense I’ll jump all over it. Until KRog hangs up the cleats though, we have 3 starting lefties and lots of balls headed to 3rd. I’d rather have Inge there, at least until Guillen proves me wrong.

While it’s true that a hitter (Inge) either succeeds or fails every at-bat, it’s a wonky assumption that this is more damaging than the few (relative to total balls put in play - not just those to third) errors Guillen’s glove would give up.

Why? Just as maybe a ninth of the balls put in play would go to the third basemen, the batter is only batting one ninth of the time. I’d say the defensive chances at any given position throughout a game matches fairly evenly to those position players’ at-bats.

Thanks for the welcome. I’ll have more to say about how grateful I am to you for this great weblog in another post.

Andre -

I haven’t read Billfer’s analysis yet (I look forward to it), but allow me to posit the following (about Guillen vs. Inge, since the Tigers obviously never even questioned Cabrera vs. Inge): In terms of success per at bat, Guillen is 66% better than Inge. Inge is far better defensively; I’m not sure if he’s 66% better there, but let’s say he is. So it’s pure offense vs. defense. To use an extreme example, with the bases loaded and the Tigers batting, a strikeout by Inge is more likely than a misplay or error by Guillen in the reverse situation (opponents bases loaded). For the batter, there is a 100% chance that he will either succeed (get on base, advance a runner, or drive in a run) or fail. For the third baseman, there is a relatively small chance that any given at bat will result in a ball hit toward him. Even if we assume that the damage from either type of failure is equal overall, in the long run, Inge the batter will fail more often than Guillen the third baseman. BTW, this is all quite off the cuff and without hard statistical evidence, so I welcome any challenge to my “common sense” conclusions. Also, the demoralizing effect of poor infield defense is hard to quantify.

I’m not against Inge winning his old job back, as unlikely as that seems. I’m just trying to understand the Cabrera-Guillen switch and (among other things) Inge’s role in it. In the process, it occurred to me that in the absence of Sheffield from the lineup, Thames + Jones everyday is likely “greater than” Guillen + Inge. In other words, why “waste” Guillen on DH full-time if you could use him to subtract Inge’s weaknesses (regular ABs) and keep his strengths (versatility, late-inning defense, and clutch hitting). I’m assuming Guillen could be moved from 3B to DH mid-game (my theories depend on it!). This probably isn’t what Leyland is thinking about at all.

Whether the Tigers are contenders or not comes back to what Leyland was saying about lots of talent but no team. I wonder what’s been keeping them from being that team. 22 games without a single one featuring a 1-2-3 of Granderson-Polanco-Sheffield doesn’t help. But has there been something more, as Kathy has alluded to? and does the Cabrera-Guillen thing have anything to do with that?

Granted, but it’s not like A.J. was a bona-fide star. The guy had one good year at the plate and played above-average defense at his position. That coupled with the fact that he had only one guaranteed year with the Giants makes it seem like giving up a former 1st round starter and a reliever with an ERA+ of 142 was a bad idea. Yeah, Liriano had some risk to him, but the Twins have already gotten more out of that guy than the Giants ever got out of A.J. who was a fairly poor hitting catcher during ‘04. You put all that together and one has to come to the conclusion that Sabean et al. were seriously mis-valuing both what they were getting and what they were giving up.

The Giants do have a handfull of valuable pitching prospects, but no one who could help at the major league level immediately. Even so, if what you’re saying about the A.J. trade is true, maybe we’ll get lucky. Inge’s contract is prohibitive, but as far as the Giants are concerned with what their alternatives at 3B are it may no longer be a deal breaker.

I disagree about the Giants having a handful of valuable pitching prospects. They just had their first good draft in years and that system is probably one of the 5 worst in baseball.

My defense of Sabean is that at the time, he trade a high-high risk, high-high reward pitcher, a middle of the rotation guy with a relatively low ceiling and a guy who wasn’t closing for them. It looks absolutely terrible now because it is, but there are guys like Liriano that get dealt often: throwers with questions about their mechanics, their health, and whether or not they’ll put it altogether ever. He did, he’s one of the success stories of the raw-throwers-becoming-pitchers ilk. It’s a bad trade now, but hindsight is 20-20. If he was guaranteed that Liriano would go on to be a potential top of the rotation LHP, he doesn’t make that deal, but there was no such guarantee and that’s the risk you run trading raw throwers who haven’t put it altogether yet and are still young. There are a ton of guys who can throw in the mid 90’s with good breaking ball pitch(es) and never succeed.