Why does MLB love platoon players so much......?

[AlaskanTigersFan]

Just curious on ya'll's thoughts.......

Nick Kurtz - Unanimous rookie of the year. Why do they love platoon players? Sure he hit out of this world versus Righties (albeit with a .364 BABIP). But look at his left split. .197/.261/.423..... Do you think its ok for MLB to overlook such drastics? 

How many platoon players do you think it's ok to have on a MLB roster?  Kurtz for example, if the opposing team brings in a lefty reliever with the game on the line, do you leave him in? Just curious what you guys think.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, AlaskanTigersFan said:

Just curious on ya'll's thoughts.......

Nick Kurtz - Unanimous rookie of the year. Why do they love platoon players? Sure he hit out of this world versus Righties (albeit with a .364 BABIP). But look at his left split. .197/.261/.423..... Do you think its ok for MLB to overlook such drastics? 

How many platoon players do you think it's ok to have on a MLB roster?  Kurtz for example, if the opposing team brings in a lefty reliever with the game on the line, do you leave him in? Just curious what you guys think.

Assuming a team has 13 position players on their roster, they could have 5 who play every day plus 8 platoon players.  

[oblong]

By platooning you are turning weaknesses into strengths.   You can’t legislate it. 

[chasfh]

Sometimes a (usually left-handed hitting) player is so dominant from one side of the plate that teams will overlook how horrific they are from the other side. There are players who can get away with it more than other players. It's easy to overlook for Kurtz. It's harder to overlook for Carpenter.

This is also the same principle as a player being worth so many runs and wins as a hitter that teams will practically overlook how much those players strike out.

Edited Tuesday at 03:27 PM by chasfh

[Arlington]

So much of the game strategy seemed focused around Carpenter last season. It was particularly more noticeable in the playoffs especially in the Guardian series.  He forces decisions on the opposing manager and often those decisions put Tork and other RH bats in better match-ups. (I love the 3-batter rule)  He may push a RH starter out earlier.  In a series, he helps overwork the other team's LH relievers.   There definitely is an advantage to being so uneven, especially when you have pinch-hitters who can take advantage of the situation like the Tigers have the last two seasons..  

[papalawrence]

Casey Stengel did it. So did Earl Weaver. It makes sense from a statistical standpoint if you have players like Carp.

Edited Tuesday at 10:55 PM by papalawrence

[Screwball]

I look at it this way. I was a left handed batter. If I had to face Skubal I would just tell the manager to pencil me in for a day off, because that's what I would be doing if I had to bat. 

 

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, papalawrence said:

Casey Stengel did it. So did Earl Weaver. It makes sense from a statistical standpoint if you have players like Carp.

I understand the desire many fans have to want eight solid starters, always healthy and strong in every facet of the game for their positions, and five solid bench guys, good enough in all facets to spell the starters for a game or two, or maybe a couple weeks in case of injury. I would like that, too. I’m just not expecting anything like that.

Practically no team in history has ever had that.* Players are human, which means they have flaws, including physical flaws that impact their professional careers. Also, baseball is an exceedingly complex game requiring many disparate talents and skills, and it will always be true that the majority of big leaguers will be good in one or a few of those areas and be suboptimal or even bad in the rest.

The trick for a team’s general manager and field manager is to assemble a roster that covers well enough all the major facets of the game with enough talent and skills with the highest potential to win, and to deploy them properly and in a timely fashion during games to turn that potential into actual wins.

That’s what George Weiss and Casey Stengel did with the Yankees, and what Harry Dalton and Earl Weaver did with the Orioles. Beyond the few Hall of Famers they had were flawed players really good in certain aspects of the game, who they cobbled together into teams that excelled in enough facets to make those franchises perennial winners.

Those are the footsteps Harris and Hinch are striving to follow. All they need now are a couple future Hall of Famers to cobble that team of flawed players around. We have one in-house now, at least for the moment.

 

* - I should look up which teams in history came closest to that eight really good regulars/five good bench guys ideal.

[papalawrence]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

I understand the desire many fans have to want eight solid starters, always healthy and strong in every facet of the game for their positions, and five solid bench guys, good enough in all facets to spell the starters for a game or two, or maybe a couple weeks in case of injury. I would like that, too. I’m just not expecting anything like that.

Practically no team in history has ever had that.* Players are human, which means they have flaws, including physical flaws that impact their professional careers. Also, baseball is an exceedingly complex game requiring many disparate talents and skills, and it will always be true that the majority of big leaguers will be good in one or a few of those areas and be suboptimal or even bad in the rest.

The trick for a team’s general manager and field manager is to assemble a roster that covers well enough all the major facets of the game with enough talent and skills with the highest potential to win, and to deploy them properly and in a timely fashion during games to turn that potential into actual wins.

That’s what George Weiss and Casey Stengel did with the Yankees, and what Harry Dalton and Earl Weaver did with the Orioles. Beyond the few Hall of Famers they had were flawed players really good in certain aspects of the game, who they cobbled together into teams that excelled in enough facets to make those franchises perennial winners.

Those are the footsteps Harris and Hinch are striving to follow. All they need now are a couple future Hall of Famers to cobble that team of flawed players around. We have one in-house now, at least for the moment.

 

* - I should look up which teams in history came closest to that eight really good regulars/five good bench guys ideal.

The Big Red Machine came darn close

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

I understand the desire many fans have to want eight solid starters, always healthy and strong in every facet of the game for their positions, and five solid bench guys, good enough in all facets to spell the starters for a game or two, or maybe a couple weeks in case of injury. I would like that, too. I’m just not expecting anything like that.

Practically no team in history has ever had that.* Players are human, which means they have flaws, including physical flaws that impact their professional careers. Also, baseball is an exceedingly complex game requiring many disparate talents and skills, and it will always be true that the majority of big leaguers will be good in one or a few of those areas and be suboptimal or even bad in the rest.

The trick for a team’s general manager and field manager is to assemble a roster that covers well enough all the major facets of the game with enough talent and skills with the highest potential to win, and to deploy them properly and in a timely fashion during games to turn that potential into actual wins.

That’s what George Weiss and Casey Stengel did with the Yankees, and what Harry Dalton and Earl Weaver did with the Orioles. Beyond the few Hall of Famers they had were flawed players really good in certain aspects of the game, who they cobbled together into teams that excelled in enough facets to make those franchises perennial winners.

Those are the footsteps Harris and Hinch are striving to follow. All they need now are a couple future Hall of Famers to cobble that team of flawed players around. We have one in-house now, at least for the moment.

 

* - I should look up which teams in history came closest to that eight really good regulars/five good bench guys ideal.

looking around.... the 68 Tigers had a fairly large core of regulars - 6 guys >550 PA. SS was the only position that didn't have an almost every day regular, but of course they did have 4 'regular' OFs in Kaline, Northrup, Horton and Stanley. '61 Yankees had also had 6 over 550 PA. 

So to compare the 2025 Tigers had three, Tork, Greene and Gleyber. One aspect that is a little less of a fair comparison is that Dingler was an 'every day' catcher by the modern standard, but most teams won't work a catcher to 500 PA any more even if he is considered a regular. So you could give the Tigers credit for having 4 regulars. 

On the other hand, 68 Tigers and 61 Yankees had no DH, that was 6 regulars out of 8, today's team was 4 (including Dingler) out of 9. And DH's are always likely platoon candidates as they have no defensive value to support playing their bat against the tougher side pitcher.

Edited 19 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, papalawrence said:

The Big Red Machine came darn close

They are still the best position player team I have ever seen that stayed together for several years.  They could hit, hit for power, field, run and they had personality! Their pitching was not the best, but good enough to win with that team.  

[Screwball]

The Big Red Machine - I remember them well since I lived in Ohio. I always said the toughest job Sparky Anderson had was finding a pencil to make out the lineup. Yet many thought he was a genius.