jamiethekiller wrote:

Phred wrote:

ReadingPhilly wrote:

John Dewan ‏@FieldingBible 2h

Stat of the Day: The 2005 Phillies infield, which started Howard, Utley, Rollins, and Bell, was worth 85 Runs Saved.

John Dewan ‏@FieldingBible 2h

Stat of the Day: The 2013 Phillies infield, which started Howard, Utley, Rollins, and Young, was worth -50 Runs Saved

I knew Young was bad but I didn't realize that Bell was so much better than him.

also 8 years of age on Howard/Utley/Rollins as well...

No way does that matter...Jimmy is 1 year removed from a gold glove and Chase just signed an extension!

Plus they're all hitting better than ever, too.

JFLNYC wrote:Plus they're all hitting better than ever, too.

and next spring they'll report in the best shape of their careers.

Phred wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:

Phred wrote:

ReadingPhilly wrote:

John Dewan ‏@FieldingBible 2h

Stat of the Day: The 2005 Phillies infield, which started Howard, Utley, Rollins, and Bell, was worth 85 Runs Saved.

John Dewan ‏@FieldingBible 2h

Stat of the Day: The 2013 Phillies infield, which started Howard, Utley, Rollins, and Young, was worth -50 Runs Saved

I knew Young was bad but I didn't realize that Bell was so much better than him.

also 8 years of age on Howard/Utley/Rollins as well...

No way does that matter...Jimmy is 1 year removed from a gold glove and Chase just signed an extension!

Howard only has like 75 million left on his deal though.

Not really sure the point of that tweet. Three of the guys are the same and are 8 years older. Bell was a well above average fielder that season. Michael Young shouldn't have been playing third at all. None of this is really news (other than maybe the Bell part as I didn't realize how good he was some years defensively)

Bell did really well in those UZR type things. As did Feliz.

Just thought it was interesting

I think the newsworthy part is not that time has taken its toll but, rather, the extent to which it has.

what's the difference without Young/Bell?

Ask Dewan.

Phred wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:

Phred wrote:

ReadingPhilly wrote:

John Dewan ‏@FieldingBible 2h

Stat of the Day: The 2005 Phillies infield, which started Howard, Utley, Rollins, and Bell, was worth 85 Runs Saved.

John Dewan ‏@FieldingBible 2h

Stat of the Day: The 2013 Phillies infield, which started Howard, Utley, Rollins, and Young, was worth -50 Runs Saved

I knew Young was bad but I didn't realize that Bell was so much better than him.

also 8 years of age on Howard/Utley/Rollins as well...

No way does that matter...Jimmy is 1 year removed from a gold glove and Chase just signed an extension!

Howard didn't even play half the season

It is a mortal lock that Juan Uribe ends up in the Phillies next year,

Trent Steele wrote:It is a mortal lock that Juan Uribe ends up in the Phillies next year,

The Delmon Young effect

But, we win 92 games with a +11 run differential and the World Series, so it's not all bad.

Squire wrote:

Soren wrote:ben revere makes ben revere far less valuable

I am in complete agreement.

Yes. And starting him in LF would be even worse than starting him in CF where at least his defense helps mitigate some of his suckiness. Revere in LF starts us off with an offensive disadvantage against nearly every team (possibly every team) in baseball.

Monkeyboy wrote:

Squire wrote:

Soren wrote:ben revere makes ben revere far less valuable

I am in complete agreement.

Yes. And starting him in LF would be even worse than starting him in CF where at least his defense helps mitigate some of his suckiness. Revere in LF starts us off with an offensive disadvantage against nearly every team (possibly every team) in baseball.

Again, Revere would only be in left (most likely platooning with Ruf or someone else) if they add a legit hitter to CF. Which would reduce Revere's role and improve the outfield/lineup collectively.

FWIW, there were only 12 qualifying left fielders this year with a higher OPS than Revere. (It's not 2003 anymore.) YMMV with the fielding and base-running data, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Revere would be near the top of that list.

Grote, it doesn't work that way. If you have a "legit cf" and move revere, it just means you have an easier path to upgrading Revere in left field. This is a statistical fact and not something that we can argue about. It's exactly why a centerfielder that can hit is worth more than a leftfielder who can hit at the same level. If you go ahead and waste your advantage of having found a great centerfielder, 2b, ss, c by having weak hitting cornermen, you've weakened yourself unnecessarily.

Now, what's open for some debate is whether he could be valuable in lf. According to fangraphs he was worth 3 wins in 2012 playing rf. I call bs on that because all 3 wins (and then some) were due to defense and baserunning and we've seen that his defense isn't exceptional by any means - this was more than likely a one time blip. No, the best way to maximize Ben Revere if he's not playing centerfield is to not have Ben Revere.

IMO any discussion of Revere begins with his health. He was supposed to be back in 6-8 weeks and didn't return at all, so his rehab did not go as well as planned. He's only got one plus attribute and that's his speed. If he can't run, he's worthless.

Still puzzled at how you foul a ball off your foot and you miss as much time as he did. Unless, if course, you're Danny Tartabull.

sydnor wrote:Grote, it doesn't work that way. If you have a "legit cf" and move revere, it just means you have an easier path to upgrading Revere in left field. This is a statistical fact and not something that we can argue about. It's exactly why a centerfielder that can hit is worth more than a leftfielder who can hit at the same level. If you go ahead and waste your advantage of having found a great centerfielder, 2b, ss, c by having weak hitting cornermen, you've weakened yourself unnecessarily.

Now, what's open for some debate is whether he could be valuable in lf. According to fangraphs he was worth 3 wins in 2012 playing rf. I call bs on that because all 3 wins (and then some) were due to defense and baserunning and we've seen that his defense isn't exceptional by any means - this was more than likely a one time blip. No, the best way to maximize Ben Revere if he's not playing centerfield is to not have Ben Revere.

None of that contradicts anything I said. Did you actually read what I said?

My point was you guys are twisting Amaro's quote for maximum gothery. Moving Revere off CF absolutely weakens his standing with the team. Corner OFs are easier to find and we already have at least one good option in Ruf.

Should Amaro have promised to tie Ben to train tracks or something?