Dear Derek Falvey...Two things happened last night.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think what he's saying is that if Plouffe and Dozier were bad enough SS that they would submarine a season playing there, then why were they played almost exclusively there in the minors? 

 

That's a fair question, but he's also pushing to get players to have multiple positions under their belt.  

 

I wonder how many players can suck terribly at one position but offer solid play at multiple other ones?  That seems counter-intuitive.  (It might be true, I am skeptical)

[Riverbrian]

Meanwhile the Dodgers and Cubs are light years ahead of us because they can acquire anyone and simply move people around to accommodate and have been doing this for years and are holding better cheap depth then we have.

 

We don’t have the Cubs or Dodgers budget. It should be the other way around.

[Riverbrian]

I think what he's saying is that if Plouffe and Dozier were bad enough SS that they would submarine a season playing there, then why were they played almost exclusively there in the minors? Then if they could so easily transition to 3rd and 2nd, why not left or right? Why waste their entire Minor league experiences at positions they're not good at rather than embracing that truth earlier on and finding multiple positions they might not suck as badly at. Basically, unless you're an elite defender, you should be a utility player because you're not that good anyway.

Exactly... plus it puts in question the ability of the decision makers so can any of us be sure about Rosario or Dozier some place else along with 2B and if true... that’s a speed bump that the Cubs. Dodgers, Brewers, Astros don’t have to do endure because they figured it out.

[Riverbrian]

That's a fair question, but he's also pushing to get players to have multiple positions under their belt.

 

I wonder how many players can suck terribly at one position but offer solid play at multiple other ones? That seems counter-intuitive. (It might be true, I am skeptical)

Look at the Dodgers and the skepticism will wane.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Look at the Dodgers and the skepticism will wane.

 

Is it that the Dodgers put their players at multiple positions or that they specifically targeted players to acquire who already possess that trait?

[jokin]

Alright... You don't see it. 

 

Let's try this... Trevor Plouffe and Brian Dozier being quickly removed away SS after an entire minor league career at SS is an example of bad assessment and many of those assessors are still in the room. 

 

Trevor Plouffe and Brian Dozier being quickly moved to other positions is also an example of how quickly these two particular players adapted to a 2nd position. Which shows that you can make a player flexible. 

 

Trevor Plouffe and Brian Dozier instead of becoming flexible were then locked down and Trevor Plouffe went on to be the very definition of average and his presence was enough to move Sano into RF and this was another bad assessment by assessors who are still in the room. 

 

The Twins were not paying attention to the Rays or the Cubs or Dodgers and if they had maybe we wouldn't be playing Astundillo in CF. Just one example: We may not have had to trade Hicks because the manager may have considered moving Rosario to IF position on occasion to fit Hicks in. Maybe we wouldn't had to sign Robbie Grossman to a contract if Dozier could have played an occasion LF or Plouffe an occasional RF. We created or own depth problems by being rigid and we are still experiencing the effect of that today. 

 

I would like the Twins to start looking at the Dodgers, Cubs and Brewers and stop being the 2010 Twins in approach. 

 

I don't know the answers but I'm asking the questions. Did the Dodgers identify special talent and focus on the acquisition of or did they create special talent by giving it a shot?

 

Great post. In the most recent example, do you think that it's possible that the D-Backs recognize what the Dodgers are doing and actually "bought low" from the Twins on Escobar?

[Riverbrian]

 

Is it that the Dodgers put their players at multiple positions or that they specifically targeted players to acquire who already possess that trait?

 

Exactly

 

Do they identify them or create them?

 

I've asked that question multiple times in this thread and other threads and about 1,000 times in my head when I'm sitting at church.

 

[Riverbrian]

 

Great post. In the most recent example, do you think that it's possible that the D-Backs recognize what the Dodgers are doing and actually "bought low" from the Twins on Escobar?

 

I do. 

 

Teams within the division are going to get first hand multiple looks at it and be the next wave. 

 

Theo Epstein saw the Rays multiple times and he targeted Joe Maddon like William Tell targeted the apple. 

 

Escobar is going to be more valuable to the D-Backs than Dozier because he can move around. They already have Lamb coming back, Descalso, Ahmed, Marte and Owings who can play IF. 

 

Dozier would actually be an unwelcome presence. They can add Escobar because Descalso and Owings can also play OF. 

 

If the Twins had all these pieces, we wouldn't be looking for another IF. 

 

I've been saying all year. If I had to choose between Escobar and Dozier, I have already chosen Escobar because he can be moved around. Dozier has been the better player and hitter but I'm choosing Escobar because the ability to move him around is carrying greater value to me. 

 

I said this in an earlier thread... It'll be interesting to see what Escobar brings in a trade compared to what Dozier brings in a trade? 

 

Player Fluid vs. Player Static

Recent Stats vs. Past Stats

 

 

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I personally thought the return on Escobar was pretty underwhelming. That tells me that the league doesn't value him quite as much as they should. I think that bodes well in FA if the Twins want him back, and I hope the front office sees that. 

[Platoon]

I personally thought the return on Escobar was pretty underwhelming. That tells me that the league doesn't value him quite as much as they should. I think that bodes well in FA if the Twins want him back, and I hope the front office sees that.

 

I highly doubt the return on Dozier will exceed Eddies. Doziers flaws have been clearly exposed. His history of half seasons of hot and cold are one thing. But they also seem to be coincidental to the teams greatest need for someone to carry them. His move to the middle of the order, and his failure to even put together a salary drive are not dissimilar to the previous sentence. He is a MLB ball player, but unlike us, most other teams would not have hung their hat on him for three years. Not do I think the new FO will continue that mistake. The previous FO satisfied fans with "fan favorites", see Hunter, Torii. I hope this one transitions to sarisfying fans with MLB quality baseball players.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

He is a MLB ball player, but unlike us, most other teams would not have hung their hat on him for three years. Not do I think the new FO will continue that mistake. 

 

There isn't a front office in baseball that wouldn't have hung on to Dozier through his arb seasons. We did try and trade him, though the return was pretty underwhelming. 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

I personally thought the return on Escobar was pretty underwhelming. That tells me that the league doesn't value him quite as much as they should. I think that bodes well in FA if the Twins want him back, and I hope the front office sees that. 

 

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about how I feel about prospects until I get to see them. All I can do is trust that the scouts identified the players they wanted and got them. 

 

As for the return... It was a rental and that will lower the return. I think the days of what the Cubs paid for Chapman are over. At least judging by what the Dodgers paid for Machado... I think they are. 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

I highly doubt the return on Dozier will exceed Eddies. Doziers flaws have been clearly exposed. His history of half seasons of hot and cold are one thing. But they also seem to be coincidental to the teams greatest need for someone to carry them. His move to the middle of the order, and his failure to even put together a salary drive are not dissimilar to the previous sentence. He is a MLB ball player, but unlike us, most other teams would not have hung their hat on him for three years. Not do I think the new FO will continue that mistake. The previous FO satisfied fans with "fan favorites", see Hunter, Torii. I hope this one transitions to sarisfying fans with MLB quality baseball players.

 

I assume supply and demand are going to set the market for Dozier. I think he is top value for a 2B but the supply 2B's on the trade block and the demand of teams needing a 2B are going to bring that price down significantly. 

 

Which of course brings us back to one of my points. If the club would have turned Dozier into a 2B/LF guy back in 2014 it would increase his value.

 

Keeping him as a 2B only may or may not have improved our defense by increments depending on who else could have played 2B. But... But... if Dozier shows the ability to play both 2B/LF. Last year when we were talking to the Dodgers about a deal, the Dodgers were about the only team looking for a 2B. 

 

WIth OF added to his resume as an option, we have opened up the trade market to other squads who are looking for OF help or someone flexible and we don't have to live and die by the Dodgers. You've increased demand and therefore increased his value. 

 

And... I believe that if the Dodgers Dozier deal would have went down last year... No way of knowing but I bet the Dodgers would have already had him playing multiple positions by now. 

 

We are hamstringing ourselves when it comes to roster management, we are self-lowering value of the players we do have by keeping them in a static position for what could be slight defensive increase. 

 

Escobar was easier to deal most likely because he had more demand being able to play 3 positions. 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

There isn't a front office in baseball that wouldn't have hung on to Dozier through his arb seasons. We did try and trade him, though the return was pretty underwhelming. 

 

See Post Above... Supply and Demand. 

[jkcarew]

Opposing forces at play.

 

First, defensive flexibility in the majors (emphasis on majors here) is determined primarily by inate skill and athleticism, not where you play your games in the minors (or college or HS, etc.) And players advance to the majors primarily based on hitting. The result is, the pool of players that find themselves in the majors because they can hit at that level is not optimized for defensive flexibility...no matter what their minor league managers tried to do with them in games that didn’t matter. Some teams might make it a priority to have truly ‘flexible’ guys...it certainly has value...but you’re not going to have a league full of them simply because, in general, the importance of the hit tool is the trump card.

 

RB, I see two trends that are your friends in your dream. Fewer roster spots available to position players (i.e., more and more pitchers on active rosters)...may force the issue to a certain extent. And/or the bar lowering with regard to what is acceptable major-league defensive play at all positions (fewer balls in play, higher FO/GO, station-to-station base running, etc.). So, although I think it’s a cool thing to think about....I put this one in the “be careful what you wish for” category.

[yarnivek1972]

I think the defense bar is already low. Errors are almost never called.

[Riverbrian]

 

Opposing forces at play.

First, defensive flexibility in the majors (emphasis on majors here) is determined primarily by inate skill and athleticism, not where you play your games in the minors (or college or HS, etc.) And players advance to the majors primarily based on hitting. The result is, the pool of players that find themselves in the majors because they can hit at that level is not optimized for defensive flexibility...no matter what their minor league managers tried to do with them in games that didn’t matter. Some teams might make it a priority to have truly ‘flexible’ guys...it certainly has value...but you’re not going to have a league full of them simply because, in general, the importance of the hit tool is the trump card.

RB, I see two trends that are your friends in your dream. Fewer roster spots available to position players (i.e., more and more pitchers on active rosters)...may force the issue to a certain extent. And/or the bar lowering with regard to what is acceptable major-league defensive play at all positions (fewer balls in play, higher FO/GO, station-to-station base running, etc.). So, although I think it’s a cool thing to think about....I put this one in the “be careful what you wish for” category.

 

I appreciate the well thought out post. Although I'm not so sure I agree.  I've experienced a lot of things in life that fall under careful what you wish for.  

 

I do agree that the hit tool is the trump card but I admit that I don't understand how the search for hitters compromises the development of future multi-positional players as you suggest. Hitting is hitting and defense is defense. When you find a hitter he will need a place to play in the field. Are you saying that defense has already been compromised because its already a secondary consideration? 

 

Hopefully you can clarify this a little because I'm interested.  

 

It seems to me that the drive to find hitters as a primary function of advancement, should in theory increase it. Multi Positions opens more doors so you can find them landing spots easier. 

 

When you say that it requires an innate skill and athleticism. I believe that skill and athleticism is already there. You will find some Victor Martinez types in dugouts but the majority of the rest are athletic and drafted because they are athletic. The first thing a scout does is whip out the stopwatch and radar gun. I don't think the ability to play multi positions is a rare gift you are born with. I believe the athleticism to be drafted is the rare gift you are born with.  

 

Position switches happen all the time at the major league level and the simple fact that it happens all the time shows that it doesn't take innate skill. The reason players switch positions is usually out of the necessity of keeping a bat in the lineup like I think you are suggesting.  

 

The problem is that the position switch becomes permanent when the addition of a 2nd position should mean flexible. Nick Castellanos is a 3B one day and then an OF the next day, and all traces of prior 3B is wastefully dumped into the bottom of the sea like it never existed. That is the standard way a position switch is conducted by the old school teams. The Dodgers and Cubs said screw that.

 

The Dodgers say Manny Machado can play both SS and 3B... The Orioles say he can only play one or the other. The Dodgers are able to get their best bats in the lineup every day. The Orioles live and die with a chosen 9.  

 

 

[jkcarew]

 

When you say that it requires an innate skill and athleticism. I believe that skill and athleticism is already there. You will find some Victor Martinez types in dugouts but the majority of the rest are athletic and drafted because they are athletic. The first thing a scout does is whip out the stopwatch and radar gun. I don't think the ability to play multi positions is a rare gift you are born with. I believe the athleticism to be drafted is the rare gift you are born with.   

I think we probably disagree one the "I don't think the ability to play multi positions is a rare gift you are born with" premise.  And, based on that, we'll arrive at different spots.

 

I think the ability to play multiple positions at the major league level (as opposed to the minors or college, etc.) IS a rare gift.  Dozier would be a great example of this.  Despite the fact that he played SS pretty much his whole life, he was moved off SS at the major league level....after everyone saw him play it at the major league level.  I would contend that that was not arbitrary...it was done because the Twins decision-makers didn't want the ball being hit to Dozier when he was playing SS.  They moved him to a spot where average range, average arm, good hands, would produce acceptable major league results.  So, it doesn't matter that Dozier "can" play multiple positions on the infield.  Major league managers don't think he can. (And the trade market bears this out; if scouts thought his skill-set translated to 3B or SS, it would be reflected in his trade value.)  Simply put, the standard by which a player needs to perform defensively notches up (significantly) at the major-league level.  And there is not a big supply of people in the universe that can meet that standard...and at the same time hit major-league pitching.  In fact, it goes the other way...there are many players...considered great athletes and high draft picks, that end up career minor leaguers because it's deemed that they can't play sufficient major-league defense at any position other than 1B or maybe LF...despite being among their organizations top hitters.  'Athletic' is a relative term that has a different meaning in the major leagues...at least up to now.   So, I guess I would conclude, on this part of it, that what you are suggesting, while worth striving for, is not that easy or attainable until such time that the type of defense that Brian Dozier can deliver at SS or 3B...or that Rosario can deliver at 2B/3B...or Sano can deliver in the OF...or Miguel Cabrera delivered at 3B...or Brent Rooker can deliver in the OF, is considered desirable on a regular basis in the major leagues.

 

The other part of your argument, I think I agree more with....

If you have a guy that is any every-day hitter and meets your defensive standard at multiple positions, (they exist), I don't know why you wouldn't be willing to move that player around day-to-day depending on the pitching match-ups, rest/health, whatever.    

[Jack Goin]

Trevor played SS, 3B, & 2B in the Minor Leagues before cracking the big leagues in 2010. Once in the big leagues he played LF, RF, & 1B.

[Jack Goin]

Dozier played SS, 2B, & 3B in the Minor Leagues.

[Jack Goin]

Max Kepler = LF, CF, RF, 1B.

 

Mitch Garver = C, 1B, LF

 

Chris Taylor had no OF experience until he reached the big leagues.

[Jack Goin]

 

I think we probably disagree one the "I don't think the ability to play multi positions is a rare gift you are born with" premise.  And, based on that, we'll arrive at different spots.

 

I think the ability to play multiple positions at the major league level (as opposed to the minors or college, etc.) IS a rare gift.  Dozier would be a great example of this.  Despite the fact that he played SS pretty much his whole life, he was moved off SS at the major league level....after everyone saw him play it at the major league level.  I would contend that that was not arbitrary...it was done because the Twins decision-makers didn't want the ball being hit to Dozier when he was playing SS.  They moved him to a spot where average range, average arm, good hands, would produce acceptable major league results.  So, it doesn't matter that Dozier "can" play multiple positions on the infield.  Major league managers don't think he can. (And the trade market bears this out; if scouts thought his skill-set translated to 3B or SS, it would be reflected in his trade value.)  Simply put, the standard by which a player needs to perform defensively notches up (significantly) at the major-league level.  And there is not a big supply of people in the universe that can meet that standard...and at the same time hit major-league pitching.  In fact, it goes the other way...there are many players...considered great athletes and high draft picks, that end up career minor leaguers because it's deemed that they can't play sufficient major-league defense at any position other than 1B or maybe LF...despite being among their organizations top hitters.  'Athletic' is a relative term that has a different meaning in the major leagues...at least up to now.   So, I guess I would conclude, on this part of it, that what you are suggesting, while worth striving for, is not that easy or attainable until such time that the type of defense that Brian Dozier can deliver at SS or 3B...or that Rosario can deliver at 2B/3B...or Sano can deliver in the OF...or Miguel Cabrera delivered at 3B...or Brent Rooker can deliver in the OF, is considered desirable on a regular basis in the major leagues.

 

The other part of your argument, I think I agree more with....

If you have a guy that is any every-day hitter and meets your defensive standard at multiple positions, (they exist), I don't know why you wouldn't be willing to move that player around day-to-day depending on the pitching match-ups, rest/health, whatever.    

This about hits it on the head.

[USAFChief]

 

I think we probably disagree one the "I don't think the ability to play multi positions is a rare gift you are born with" premise.  And, based on that, we'll arrive at different spots.

 

I think the ability to play multiple positions at the major league level (as opposed to the minors or college, etc.) IS a rare gift.  Dozier would be a great example of this.  Despite the fact that he played SS pretty much his whole life, he was moved off SS at the major league level....after everyone saw him play it at the major league level.  I would contend that that was not arbitrary...it was done because the Twins decision-makers didn't want the ball being hit to Dozier when he was playing SS.  They moved him to a spot where average range, average arm, good hands, would produce acceptable major league results.  So, it doesn't matter that Dozier "can" play multiple positions on the infield.  Major league managers don't think he can. (And the trade market bears this out; if scouts thought his skill-set translated to 3B or SS, it would be reflected in his trade value.)  Simply put, the standard by which a player needs to perform defensively notches up (significantly) at the major-league level.  And there is not a big supply of people in the universe that can meet that standard...and at the same time hit major-league pitching.  In fact, it goes the other way...there are many players...considered great athletes and high draft picks, that end up career minor leaguers because it's deemed that they can't play sufficient major-league defense at any position other than 1B or maybe LF...despite being among their organizations top hitters.  'Athletic' is a relative term that has a different meaning in the major leagues...at least up to now.   So, I guess I would conclude, on this part of it, that what you are suggesting, while worth striving for, is not that easy or attainable until such time that the type of defense that Brian Dozier can deliver at SS or 3B...or that Rosario can deliver at 2B/3B...or Sano can deliver in the OF...or Miguel Cabrera delivered at 3B...or Brent Rooker can deliver in the OF, is considered desirable on a regular basis in the major leagues.

 

The other part of your argument, I think I agree more with....

If you have a guy that is any every-day hitter and meets your defensive standard at multiple positions, (they exist), I don't know why you wouldn't be willing to move that player around day-to-day depending on the pitching match-ups, rest/health, whatever.    

I would add that IMO, it's much much easier for someone capable of playing MLB quality infield to play the outfield, than the reverse.

 

Converting ground balls into outs is a lot more difficult than converting fly balls into outs.

[Jack Goin]

Bellinger played OF in HS as well as 1B & pitcher.

 

Austin Barnes converted to catcher at ASU. He played C & 2B in college and was a middle infielder in HS.

 

Grandal first played 1B in the big leagues with SDP.

 

Hernandez played all over immediately in pro ball. THAT IS UNUSUAL.

 

The Dodgers target these players more than they create them. It has to do with chaining WAR.

 

Doug Fearing is/was in charge of their analytics department. He co-wrote this a couple years ago. It helps explain why they do this.

 

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/The%20value%20of%20flexibility%20in%20baseball%20roster%20construction.pdf

[Riverbrian]

Trevor played SS, 3B, & 2B in the Minor Leagues before cracking the big leagues in 2010. Once in the big leagues he played LF, RF, & 1B.

Yes he did. And if capable he could have played them more. However he was a by all practical purposes a fixture at 3B.

 

Hey Jack, do you have any defensive metric findings that would apply to the conversation?

[Platoon]

Bellinger played OF in HS as well as 1B & pitcher.

 

Austin Barnes converted to catcher at ASU. He played C & 2B in college and was a middle infielder in HS.

 

Grandal first played 1B in the big leagues with SDP.

 

Hernandez played all over immediately in pro ball. THAT IS UNUSUAL.

 

The Dodgers target these players more than they create them. It has to do with chaining WAR.

 

Doug Fearing is/was in charge of their analytics department. He co-wrote this a couple years ago. It helps explain why they do this.

 

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/The%20value%20of%20flexibility%20in%20baseball%20roster%20construction.pdf

IIRC Terry Steinbach was a second basemen in high school, and moved to third for the Gophs. I don't think he was drafted as a catcher.

[Riverbrian]

Bellinger played OF in HS as well as 1B & pitcher.

 

Austin Barnes converted to catcher at ASU. He played C & 2B in college and was a middle infielder in HS.

 

Grandal first played 1B in the big leagues with SDP.

 

Hernandez played all over immediately in pro ball. THAT IS UNUSUAL.

 

The Dodgers target these players more than they create them. It has to do with chaining WAR.

 

Doug Fearing is/was in charge of their analytics department. He co-wrote this a couple years ago. It helps explain why they do this.

 

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/The%20value%20of%20flexibility%20in%20baseball%20roster%20construction.pdf

Thank You. I will be reading it all tonight.

[Jack Goin]

Yes he did. And if capable he could have played them more. However he was a by all practical purposes a fixture at 3B.

Hey Jack, do you have any defensive metric findings that would apply to the conversation?

I don’t understand your point with Plouffe. He played 2B & 3B because even though he was a SS, you never know what position they might be able to fill in at the ML level in an emergency. That was always something we did in the minor leagues, and I’m pretty sure most clubs handle it the same way. The only guy I really remember screwing that up with was Span. He had never played RF in the MiL and then needed to play RF in the big leagues. Everyone else had played around enough to be comfortable.

 

Polanco has played enough SS but moved more to 2B in 2016 because we had Escobar & Nunez but there was a chance we could trade Dozier. When we traded Nunez instead he shifted back to SS. No big deal.

[Riverbrian]

 

Bellinger played OF in HS as well as 1B & pitcher.

 

Austin Barnes converted to catcher at ASU. He played C & 2B in college and was a middle infielder in HS.

 

Grandal first played 1B in the big leagues with SDP.

 

Hernandez played all over immediately in pro ball. THAT IS UNUSUAL.

 

The Dodgers target these players more than they create them. It has to do with chaining WAR.

 

Doug Fearing is/was in charge of their analytics department. He co-wrote this a couple years ago. It helps explain why they do this.

 

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/The%20value%20of%20flexibility%20in%20baseball%20roster%20construction.pdf

 

Thank you Jack! You have provided a lot of substance to this discussion and I appreciate it. 

 

This report you provided was published in March, 2013, which was actually before the arrival of Friedman in LA and the arrival of Maddon in Chicago, I always assumed they were the main reason why the Dodgers and Cubs shifted this direction as hard as they did but... maybe not? 

 

I'm sure that there were details that went straight over my head but based on what I was reading, it sure seems to reflect most everything that I've been trying to express lately. I don't have the ability to build a statistical model to present my opinions better but "Roster Construction" and "Playing Time Allocation" have been a couple of things that I have been driving everybody crazy with around here.. I find myself repeating over and over again in search of answers. Ultimately, I want to be fair to all in my opinions. 

 

As time as gone by from the date of this report, it sure looks like the Dodgers haven't turned away from the ideology and have actually increased the application of and it doesn't look like they are not going to stop either. 

 

You were with the Twins from 2009 to 2017 in a variety of roles, including the position of director of research. You were the pioneer of statistical research and functional analytics within the organization, you were the guy responsible for contributing new thinking to what (I assume) was a more traditional operational model. Basically... I assume you were the guy who had to walk into a room full of people and open some eyes to things they hadn't thought about before.   

 

You were in your position during the time of Freidman, Maddon in Tampa and when they took their new approaches with them to the Cubs and Dodgers. I know you had to be aware of it while it was happening and I assume it must have been discussed.

 

What was your opinion as it was happening and your opinion today? 

What was the opinion of the others in the room?

Was there resistance? Open mindedness? Indifference?

Were the discussions difficult or frustrating?Or Curious and Intriguing? 

Or was it something that was just stashed away for further study in anticipation of more data?  

 

Thanks Again Jack... I can't tell you how much I appreciate your contributions to the discussion. 

[Riverbrian]

 

I think we probably disagree one the "I don't think the ability to play multi positions is a rare gift you are born with" premise.  And, based on that, we'll arrive at different spots.

 

I think the ability to play multiple positions at the major league level (as opposed to the minors or college, etc.) IS a rare gift.  Dozier would be a great example of this.  Despite the fact that he played SS pretty much his whole life, he was moved off SS at the major league level....after everyone saw him play it at the major league level.  I would contend that that was not arbitrary...it was done because the Twins decision-makers didn't want the ball being hit to Dozier when he was playing SS.  They moved him to a spot where average range, average arm, good hands, would produce acceptable major league results.  So, it doesn't matter that Dozier "can" play multiple positions on the infield.  Major league managers don't think he can. (And the trade market bears this out; if scouts thought his skill-set translated to 3B or SS, it would be reflected in his trade value.)  Simply put, the standard by which a player needs to perform defensively notches up (significantly) at the major-league level.  And there is not a big supply of people in the universe that can meet that standard...and at the same time hit major-league pitching.  In fact, it goes the other way...there are many players...considered great athletes and high draft picks, that end up career minor leaguers because it's deemed that they can't play sufficient major-league defense at any position other than 1B or maybe LF...despite being among their organizations top hitters.  'Athletic' is a relative term that has a different meaning in the major leagues...at least up to now.   So, I guess I would conclude, on this part of it, that what you are suggesting, while worth striving for, is not that easy or attainable until such time that the type of defense that Brian Dozier can deliver at SS or 3B...or that Rosario can deliver at 2B/3B...or Sano can deliver in the OF...or Miguel Cabrera delivered at 3B...or Brent Rooker can deliver in the OF, is considered desirable on a regular basis in the major leagues.

 

The other part of your argument, I think I agree more with....

If you have a guy that is any every-day hitter and meets your defensive standard at multiple positions, (they exist), I don't know why you wouldn't be willing to move that player around day-to-day depending on the pitching match-ups, rest/health, whatever.    

 

While reading your well thought out response, it has occurred to me that I really don't disagree with your overall point. I have used a cute less professional term "willy nilly" in this thread to say what you are saying. I don't think the execution should be reckless. The player can't be a defensive mess when playing a different position and must at least meet a certain standard that will be hard to define on paper in a forum like this, other than to say "somewhat capable". I think we are in agreement and not far off in our opinions. I'm believing that the you can gain more by getting your best bats in the lineup than you would potentially lose with what could be a slight down tick in defense. 

 

We might disagree on one small thing that neither you or I can prove or refute. I still believe that there are many positional flexible players on rosters across MLB that have not been identified as candidate because of (I assume) outdated conventions leading to the unwillingness to fully try to identify.  

 

I hate going back to Brian Dozier as the example because it is quite possible that Brian Dozier is indeed a 2B only based on his particular skills but... Brian Dozier has never been tried in the OF so how do we know? Again, I don't want to focus on Dozier but I do want to focus on the idea that this hasn't been explored to all the potential possibilities due outdated conventions that may be unnecessarily limiting. 

 

Chris Taylor was never tried in the OF before until he was tried in the OF last year and ended up starting in CF during the world series. 

 

Ian Desmond played maybe 1 game in the OF before signing with the Rangers to become their starting CF. The Angels slammed Howie Kendrick into the OF after significant time of never playing past the dirt. Also Dee Gordon, Ryan Braun just off the top of my head. 

 

I believe there are others but I absolutely respect what you are saying. 

 

P.S. I will be watching the Dodgers like a hawk. If Brian Dozier starts 1 game at a position besides 2B... I'm gonna be standing on a table shouting and pointing.