From lurker sezwho:
With each game I'm finding it more difficult to understand this front office's perspective on valuing OF defense. If paying Carl Crawford 7x20 to play LF in Fenway made sense when he was barely hitting double digit HRs, how does it now make sense to start players in the OF who have never even played their positions? Betts played 2nd, Ramirez played SS (sort of), and Castillo was primarily a CF at the time they signed him.
Does Carmine think there is a market inefficiency in converted OFs? While Betts has been wonderful, having an entire outfield essentially learning their position at the ML level seems borderline ridiculous. Also, for any risk aware/averse front office, the volatility around forecasting defensive performance based on a non-existent sample size would seem prohibitive. It smacks of little much of Stratomatic-ism.
With each game I'm finding it more difficult to understand this front office's perspective on valuing OF defense. If paying Carl Crawford 7x20 to play LF in Fenway made sense when he was barely hitting double digit HRs, how does it now make sense to start players in the OF who have never even played their positions? Betts played 2nd, Ramirez played SS (sort of), and Castillo was primarily a CF at the time they signed him.
Does Carmine think there is a market inefficiency in converted OFs? While Betts has been wonderful, having an entire outfield essentially learning their position at the ML level seems borderline ridiculous. Also, for any risk aware/averse front office, the volatility around forecasting defensive performance based on a non-existent sample size would seem prohibitive. It smacks of little much of Stratomatic-ism.