There's that word again

I'd been wanting to see Clay Buchholz as a pinch runner for-EVER...and the one time it happens...

New Market Inefficiency is the New Best Shape Of His Life.

Shutdown the thread, lock up your daughters, GGC takes it.

Damon actually HAS played first base albeit in blowouts.

"Shutdown the thread" etc.

[misses point, but nice suck up ; )]

"Currently, versatility is neither encouraged nor valued very much."

Right or wrong?

"Currently, versatility is neither encouraged nor valued very much."

Right or wrong?

Exhibit A: Eric Brunlett has a job.

"Currently, versatility is neither encouraged nor valued very much."

Right or wrong?

As wrong as could be. They are more in demand than ever. There is now one utility player type per team, whereas the Jerry Terrell types used to be very rare 20 years ago. They have taken the jobs that the former defense-only middle infielders, no-defense pinch hitters and all glove, no bat outfielders used to have.

Jerry Hairston, Mark DeRosa, heck, Alfredo Amezaga despite hitting like a 70s era shortstop. Teams know having one of these guys on the bench is pretty much mandatory.

Oh, and as per usual, platooning is the market inefficiency. One day someone will man up and platoon 3-4 positions for real. Maybe even drop to a ten man pitching staff, too (well, maybe we should shoot for eleven before gettin' all crazy like).

I think good flexible players just don't exist or if they do, many of the times their flexibility has no value.

Brandon Inge can play a lot of positions, including catcher, but he isn't very good. On the other hand, you have guys who hit so well that being able to play another position doesn't matter if they can play SS, CF or catcher.

The examples of flexibility he offers are all on the edge of the roster (3rd catcher, non-elite relievers) that I don't think there is much value to be had. The Red Sox and Twins could use Brandon Inge so that they can play their starting catcher at DH to rest and not worry about injury/pinch hitting, but how many other teams are there with the same situation?

Youkilis is an example of versatility that is very valuable.

They are more in demand than ever

The New York Yankees made a deadline trade to add Jerry Hairston Jr. last year. Valuing versatility seems to have reached delusional levels.

Versatility is overvalued, I think. Guys like Joe McEwing gets lots of playing time because they can play at multiple positions, regardless of how well they do it. There's a huge demand for the five-tool supersub, who can suck for average, suck for power, such at running, suck at fielding, and suck at throwing.

I still wonder why they can't teach a decent non-prospect, a 30-year old AAA first baseman or something, to catch well enough to be an emergency catcher, and then use him as a pinch-hitter. A pinch-runner seems fairly unimportant to worry about; a decent defensive sub for CF or the middle of the infield should be fast enough.

Also, it seems to make a lot of sense to have your right-handed middle reliever handle LF for one batter so that you can keep him in the game yet still get your lefty specialist against the opposing team's most danger lefty. Why don't we see more of that?

#13 Gino Petralli, John Russell and Tim Laudner come to mind as late catcher conversions. In all 3 cases it worked out more or less OK.

Versatility is overvalued

I agree. What you have is someone like Jose Macias, who can do all sorts of things, but none of them particularly well. Managers like these players because there's no thinking involved: need a sub, in any situation, use Macias (or Mordecai, or Carroll, or Mackowiak, or Miles, etc). But you'd get much better results by having a good defensive outfielder for the times you need defense, someone who can actually hit to be your pinch hitter, and a real shortstop if you need to rest your regular. The problem is, with 13 roster spots dedicated to pitchers, you need a jack-of-all-trades to ensure you at least have a back-up at every position.

In my various sim baseball leagues I almost always end up platooning LF/RF/1B. Pay money for offense up the middle and use spare parts real cheap at the already offense-heavy positions. It tends to work.

Versatility is overvalued, I think. Guys like Joe McEwing gets lots of playing time because they can play at multiple positions, regardless of how well they do it. There's a huge demand for the five-tool supersub, who can suck for average, suck for power, such at running, suck at fielding, and suck at throwing.

I don't think this gets it right, even underneath the snark. A guy like Omar Infante is very valuable to a team, as long as his presence on the roster frees up space for better players than would be there otherwise. If you have to carry Diory Hernandez AND Gregor Blanco, you're worse off then if you can carry Infante and some guy that might could hit occasionally. This is true even if Infante hit like Hernandez or Blanco (which he doesn't, but still.)

Versatility is overvalued

Doesn't this run against the common theory that players who are great at one thing tend to be overrated, while players who do a lot of things well tend to be underrated?

Also, what's the best sim baseball program going? I used to do Bill James Classic Baseball and really liked that one.

The question is whether you give up quality in order to get quantity (of roles that a player can fill). If a guy is a ML caliber player at some role or other, then the chances are he is already on a roster. And if he CAN do 2 things (at ML quality), is he more valuable than a guy who CAN do 1? Of course.

But if the player in question CANNOT do 3 things, is he more valuable than a guy who CANNOT do 1 thing? Who cares? If he CANNOT do 3 things, is he more valuable than a guy who CAN do 1 thing? No.

"Brandon Inge can play a lot of positions, including catcher, but he isn't very good."

Isn't very good at what? At catcher? If that is what you're saying, I'll take your word for it. Inge is pretty good at 3B.

You know who was not good defensively last year at 3B? According to UZR, A-Rod. He stunk.

Counting all third baseman who manned the 5-hole for at least 250 innings in 2009, these were easily the worst four (based on UZR/150):

1. Ty Wigginton Orioles -30.2
2. Jorge Cantu Marlins -28.6
3. Brendan Harris Twins -26.3
4. Bobby Crosby Athletics -24.5
10. Stray Rod Yankees -11.7

That's "Stray-Froid".

I think good flexible players just don't exist or if they do, many of the times their flexibility has no value.

Of course some exist (DeRosa, Tony Phillips, Jose Oquendo) but they are rare and their goodness may be short-lived. And of course flexibility always has value.

Brandon Inge can play a lot of positions, including catcher, but he isn't very good.

Which Inge? The guy who, in his prime, averaged about a 100 OPS+ or the guy who, now, struggles to the low 80s? Brandon Inge the Tony Phillips type, splitting time between CF 3B and C (2004) or Inge the full-time starting 3B (2005-2009 except for 2008 when he split time at C). Brandon Inge the excellent defensive 3B and, in not many innings, CF ... or the guy in his 30s whose defense is probably on the decline.

A guy who puts up a 100 OPS+ while providing above-average defense at C, 3B and CF is hugely valuable when you have a roster constructed to take advantage of that flexibility. The value of these guys is contextual, which is to say their value is strategic. If Inge is your starting 3B then, at least when he was putting up a 100 OPS+ and good defense, he was an above-average player, not to be sneezed at. But a fully utilized Inge would allow you to run a 3B/CF platoon while also carrying a good bench hitter rather than a 2nd catcher. I'm pretty sure you can leverage that sort of flexibility into an extra win or two.

DeRosa is another example. His skills are fading now but, for the Cubs, he was a good hitter providing average or better defense at 2B, 3B and RF (while also being emergency SS and occasional 1B). That was just hugely valuable, allowing Piniella to platoon Fontenot, cover for Fukudome's occasional suckiness, and rest ARam all without really losing anything offensively. Then he went to Cleveland and St L where he was the full-time starting 3B -- that makes him just a standard, average player.

So maybe the author made this point -- I doubt it given the weakness of his examples -- but the value of such a player is in what they allow you to do with the rest of the roster. If you don't employ a strategy that leverages the value of having 1-2 flexible players on the roster, of course their flexibility will provide very little value. Or, as many have pointed out, if your flexible player has little/no offensive or defensive value, they're unlikely to do you any good.

So the basic idea is that having 1-2 "good" flexible players is hugely valuable if you have a roster with another 8 position players (ignoring DH) who are "starting quality" (where starting quality here would include platoon players) preferably plus a 4th OF. The flexibility makes it easier for you to platoon, carry an extra good bench hitter, rest guys, cover for injuries, etc. If you have a roster where DeRosa or Inge are your full-time starting 3B, then obviously their flexibility doesn't really help you at all. If you have a good starting 8 and your flexible player kinda sucks then that really only helps you cover for injuries and carry an extra bench bat (whose value is largely offset by the suckiness of your flexible player).

Now it's true that there are few good flexible players so it's rare that a team could really leverage this strategy. If there's a "market inefficiency" here to be exploited, it would be in a team developing more of its good players to be flexible from the start. Rather than, say, shifting a Skip Schumaker to 2B only out of his own and the team's desperation, develop him this way from the beginning. I have no idea if that would work but if a team could regularly develop 1-2 good flexible players along with developing and acquiring a good coterie of other position players, that team would have a real advantage. (There are obvious risks to such a strategy of course.)

The examples of flexibility he offers are all on the edge of the roster (3rd catcher, non-elite relievers) that I don't think there is much value to be had.

His examples are bad and generally of little value -- they wouldn't even open up a roster spot. There really is no value in a 3rd C when you'll never have enough bench players to PH or PR for your first 2 Cs anyway. (An emergency C is a different thing.) A pitcher who can PR (this happens a fair amount already) doesn't open up a roster spot (nobody has carried PR specialists for about 25 years), he just keeps you from burning a bench player in a low-leverage situation (which has some value but not enough to seek out relievers who would be good pinch-runners).

I think good flexible players just don't exist

Ben Zobrist doesn't believe in you, either.

I like to think of the Giants' roster flexibility (DeRosa, Uribe, Sandoval even Sanchez can play 2B/3B, and various corner OF) as "Injury proof mediocrity"

Other than Sandoval (1B/3B/C) who is the only guy on the team who can actually, you know, hit, they can take an injury at any other position have have little drop off. They have a little issue in CF, as the Rowand backups hit kind of like you would expect back up CFs on the ~worst hitting team in the NL to hit.

One day someone will man up and platoon 3-4 positions for real.

If it works as well as it does for me in MVP Baseball, this team will win an absurd number of games.

Gino Petralli, John Russell and Tim Laudner come to mind as late catcher conversions.

According to B-R, all of these guys were primarily catchers beginning in their first pro seasons. If they were converts, it must have been out of HS/college, ages 18-21. If that's the criteria, you could add Jorge Posada to the list as well.

Of course, little "conversion" is necessary for a true emergency catcher. Some guys have probably already filled that role without ever appearing in a game at C or being acknowledge as such.

One of the big problems with "flexible" backups is that the concept, when applied to actual rosters, ends up meaning "can play shortstop, center field, and/or catcher." For example last year, the Cards had Joe Thurston on the roster all year. Joe can play third and second, hits lefty, and can run. That's a "versatile" player by the definition of this thread. But it also meant that the Cards still needed to carry a backup shortstop, because Joe didn't have the glove for that. In the time between Khalil Greene's mental meltdown and the establishment of Brendan Ryan as the starting shortstop, the Cards had a problem. Their versatile backup middle infielder could not play short. They didn't really have a third shortstop. So, when Ryan needed a day off, they had to plug someone in there - sometimes Joe - and hope it didn't kill them. This year, the only way Joe is likely to make the roster is if the bench ends up with no other lefty bats on it. The Cards will carry a backup shortstop, just as they did at the start of last year with Ryan. Greene's meltdown exposed how important it is to have a third shortstop, a third catcher, and a third center fielder stashed away somewhere. With the Cards, that usually means a AAAA player stashed down in AAA, with options. That's one option. But if your GM isn't up to that kind of talent acquisition, you need to have one of each somewhere on your roster. The Cards, for example, right now have no backup center fielder. It's Rasmus or nothing. But Schumacher, now the starting second baseman, being really versatile, can play center if needed (and, of course, the Cards will find someone to play backup shortstop before spring training is done). The backup shortstop, whoever he is, can play second base in Skip's place. So Schumacher seems to be the versatile player, but it's really the combination of Skip and someone who can really play backup shortstop. So you're back to the really versatile guy being someone who can play one of the three prime glove positions. Any discussion of versatility needs to take that into account. Versatility starts with "who's the backup at short, center, and catcher?"

Walt Davis very accurately brought up Jose Oquendo. Jose Oquendo is one big test case for this. Jose could - and did, at least once - play anywhere, even though he did not run well. His outfield defense, like his other skills, was driven by his intelligence - he could position himself well enough to counter the lack of raw foot speed, even in center. But what was Jose Oquendo, actually? The #2 defensive shortstop in the National League, with an OBP-fueled bat that made him a certain starter-quality player. It wasn't his fault he was on the same team as Ozzie Smith, Tommy Herr, and Ken Oberkfell. On any other team in the league, he would have been playing starting shortstop and might have been hitting leadoff. Was he versatile? Hell, yes. Was he a bench player? Hell, no. The writers even came up with a nickname for him - "The Secret Weapon" - to separate him out from normal bench guys. But where did all this versatile glory start? He could play Gold Glove short, could play good center field, and could play emergency catcher. Without at least one of those, you're not really "versatile" on a current roster. - Brock Hanke

So, when Ryan needed a day off, they had to plug someone in there - sometimes Joe - and hope it didn't kill them.

Thurston actually didn't play a single inning at short last year. The Cards' third shortstop was Brian Barden at the start of the year, Tyler Greene in the middle and Julio Lugo at the end.

The Dodgers used Randy Wolf as a pinch runner several times last year when they didn't want to burn a bench player to pinch run.

It wasn't his fault he was on the same team as Ozzie Smith, Tommy Herr, and Ken Oberkfell.

I've long understood that - that Oquendo wasn't so much a miracle of versatility as he was a for-real (but blocked) SS for whom the defensive spectrum worked as it should. But in the line quoted, that should have been Pendleton rather than Oberkfell - Oquendo didn't become valuable until Oberkfell had been replaced.

A guy who can be an emergency catcher can be tremendously valuable, but only if managers use the position properly. Many managers refuse to voluntarily use their 2nd C (whether it's the regular backup or the starter getting a day off) unless the other one gets injured during the game, reasoning that if the 2nd guy gets hurt, they're screwed. So essentially, these teams are playing with a 24-man roster. That's a huge detriment

I think teams should aim to have a lefty/righty C combination, along with a guy like Inge who can enter in an emergency. That way, you can play matchups in high leverage situations and not have to worry being without a C if the 2nd guy gets hurt.

I also like some of the other ideas (eg, putting your righty setup guy in LF for an at-bat). I think managers are too reluctant to try unconventional things. If they backfire, they'll get crucified, but if they do it and it works, it's not always noted by the public and in any case, nobody else is doing it either.

Yeah, using pitchers as pinch runners is not that rare.

Who could forget that great moment in the playoffs when Joe Torre called on Randy Wolf to pinch run for Thome, only to delay the game because Wolf wasn't wearing spikes and had to go to the locker room to get them.

In the 2001 playoffs Jason Marquis was used primarily as a pinch runner. He would jog in from the bullpen, and go right to first base and run.

A guy like Omar Infante is very valuable to a team, as long as his presence on the roster frees up space for better players than would be there otherwise.

Omar Infante is a fairly exceptional supersub. He's played two half-seasons of practically league-average offense at a mix of every position but catcher and first base. If his defense is even passable at 2B, he could be starting somewhere. Probably should be.

But for every Omar Infante, there are several Joe McEwings, guys who hit like backup SS and barely ever even play there, because they are lousy defensive SS.