2008 DH OPS
.775 AL avg
.697 DET (13th of 14)

2009 DH OPS
.780 AL avg
.704 DET (13th of 14)

See a trend? Basically we’ve been putting out the equivalent of “an Inge” for a DH. Even ADAM EVERETT has had seasons with higher OPS than our DH the last 2 seasons. So, yeah, I think we can win with Everett at SS–but no, we can’t win with Everett as our DH, which isn’t far from what we’ve tried for 2 years running.

But it DOES make a difference where you have good defense–a 2B with an .800 OPS doesn’t help your offense more or less than a SS with an .800 OPS, but a 2B with a top glove is NOT worth as much as a SS with a top glove. The two most valuable positions, defensively, are 1. C and 2. SS.

If there’s anywhere you can afford a light hitter, it’s at C, then SS (assuming they have the defense to justify it, of course). And the worst positions for DET, relative to the rest of the league, were C (1.02 below avg OPS), SS (.075 below avg OPS) and DH (.074 below avg OPS).

In other words, our lightest hitters are ALSO the best defensively on the team, AND playing the most important defensive positions–EXCEPT DH. Unless you can find an avg+ OPS SS who is as good defensively as Everett, I’d rather keep Everett and have an at least avg+ DH. (C is more complicated, because of mysterious “staff-handling” qualities, etc). This doesn’t mean those positions can’t be upgraded–there do exist very good fielders who hit better than Everett and Laird. But this doesn’t seem so much to me like the cause of all our troubles.

The problem is, Everett played almost exactly as expected — stellar defense, weak bat. On the other hand, players who were counted on for their offense (and little else) failed to deliver as expected (Guillen and Maggs to name just two). If these others play up to expectations, in all likelihood, the Tigers are in the playoffs where, with their pitching, anything could happen (good or bad).

There is no way to show that offensive production, AT CERTAIN POSITIONS, is necessary to winning a pennant, except in fantasy leagues. And it doesn’t make sense–and this is a pet peeve of mine, not a criticism of Stephen–to distinguish between a line-up good enough to win games, but not get to the next level. What quality would allow a team to win x number of games with a certain lineup, but make them unable to win 4 of 7 vs a given opponent? (Other than pitching rotation factors). Are you saying the Tigers with Everett could beat teams’ 4 and 5 starters, but not their 1-3 guys? I just don’t see it…

You’re right, you need at least an OPS+ of 65 (see Julio Lugo and the 2007 RedSox).

“A true contender is going to have too many quality players to start a one-dimensional Everett-type player.”

I think this is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than the one you mention; I mean, can there be a two-dimensional Everett-type player?

Plenty of teams get away with one-dimensional offensive players (Manny Ramirez and Paul Konerko come to mind, although they played “light” defensive positions). The reverse, it seems, should be true of one-dimensional defensive players at the “heavy” positions.

“I’m pretty sure Andre you know what I mean, i.e. division titles, pennants etc.. ”

I know what you mean here (now, it was vague enough at the time for me to get all facetious about it), I just don’t agree with it. Everett had a higher OPS in October than the other players I mentioned. If that group doesn’t tank in that crucial period…who knows, maybe the bar gets lowered to 60 OPS+.

I mean, surely it was Adam holding the Tigers back from a playoff berth and not, lets say: Guillen, Huff, Polanco, and Granderson all going roughly .200 avg or lower in October.