Re: The Amazing Jose Iglesias
posted at 8/15/2013 2:08 PM EDT
Very nice post. We're not far apart on this issue. Now let me respond, trying to be a bit nicer than I was previously :-)
In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
In response to S5's comment:
Because it can be said about ANY situation. It can be said that since a team has won a WS championship without a 20 game winner a team doen't need a 20 game winner. The same with an established closer, the same with a batting champion, the same with a GG winner at any position, the same with just about anything. The fact remains that the more of those things you have the better your chances of winning a championship.
The fact that the Sox have won without established GG SS proves only that it can be done, but it's not justifcation for not having one if it's possible to.
OK, let me clarify my position.
1) I'm primarily arguing against the 'revolving door at SS' complaint that people keep bringing up. There's nothing to show that continuity at the position matters. All that matters is that the guy you have that year does the job.
Agreed. Right now SS seems to be the Poster Child for this topic but it could be any position. SS being one of the highest profile positions it's understandable. and Iggy's skills at SS make it even more understandable.
2) Of course great defence at SS is a plus. Runs prevented are just as good as runs produced. But it's the total contribution on offence and defence that counts.
People keep saying 'the Red Sox value offence at SS too much and defence not enough'.
This is completely a philosophical issue and one the FO and I don't agree on. And since they have the money and the say in it, guess who wins. :-)
In my mind you build a team around the strengths of certain players. If you have a player with tremendous power you find a place where he can play adequate defense and keep him there. If you have a player who plays GG defense you put him at his position and leave him there, assuming he can hit adequately - and it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction yet that Iggy can't hit well enough to be a major contributor considering his defense. (BTW, If you have a player who can do both you offer him 5 years @ $18M, but that's another story. LOL). Then you fill in around these people with enough offense and defense to make your team competitive.
Well, maybe it's because the Red Sox keep looking at the example of the Yankees. Since Jeter became shortstop the Yankees have won 5 WS and missed the playoffs once. And as we all know by now, Jeter is one of the worst fielding SS's in baseball. But he'll be in the Hall of Fame because of his bat.
Jeter has been adequate defensively at SS throughout his career and better than adequate offensively, and I think he's a shoo-in for the HOF. Not necessarily because of his on-field performance but because of his "intangibles". He was the team leader and the face of the most successful baseball team in America when it was in its heyday and I think that will be the tipping point on the discussion as to whether he gets into the hall.