On Sheffield Starting, Murphy

by Sam Page on Apr 8, 2009 8:39 AM EDT

With Sheffield taking fielding practice this week and this piece being posted, I fear the idea of starting Sheffield and putting Murphy at second will eventually gain traction. Last year, according to Minor League Splits, Murphy was -2 Runs/150 games at third. While he was +1 run at secondbase in limited playing time, he would more likely be between -2 and -5 at second in the majors. Given his offensive potential, that's not a bad deal. But who replaces him?

Maybe F-Mart in 2,000 years, but Gary Sheffield would be the popular candidate in the short term. The last time Sheffield played the field regularly was in 2005 for the Yankees, so he's probably not exactly sharp out there. Not to mention his -26.8 UZR that year.

The point being, giving Sheffield anything resembling a full-time job in the field would be disastrous. And moving Murphy to accommodate him would be full-blow defensive suicide.

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Why...

Does it have to repeated again and again that the Mets aren’t doing anything to move Daniel Murphy for Sheffield? Minaya and Manuel have said again and again that the only position Sheffield would play is right field.

Now if Murphy is slumping and Church and Sheffield aren’t will Murphy sit for Church to play left? Yes. But right now there is no stated plan to have Sheffield take playing time from Murphy.

by Major on Apr 8, 2009 8:52 AM EDT reply actions

Why would Sheffield play RF over Church?

Church is an infinitely better defensively; if Murphy struggles, Church stays where he is.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Apr 8, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Because historically Church is not good against lefties.

by Lunkwill Fook on Apr 8, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions

And

Sheffield is a Proven Veteran™ and a Colossal Douche™.

by Eric Simon on Apr 8, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions

Yes, but he’s a RIGHTHANDED Proven Veteran and Colossal Douche!

by Lunkwill Fook on Apr 8, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions

you're answering the wrong question

why would Church PLAY LEFT FIELD in that situation?

by JoshNY on Apr 8, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions

It would suck in hte short term

But in all honesty we’d be so much better off with Murphy at 2nd in the long run, because of both his bat and the lack of second base options we have, that I’d be willing to close my eyes and pretend Sheffield isn’t awful.

by Gina on Apr 8, 2009 9:02 AM EDT reply actions

I think we'd be better off in the long term moving Murphy to 2B.

But only, IMO, if we could play Nick Evans in left. I don’t want Gary Sheffield to start for this team. Ever. Unless (god forbid) there’s an injury.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Apr 8, 2009 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions

Well I'm assuming Martinez takes over left

And if for some reason he doesn’t it’s always easier to find left fielders than 2nd basemen.

by Gina on Apr 8, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah.

But Reese Havens could be here by 2010, to play 2B.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Apr 8, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions

where is Havens playing this year?

by JoshNY on Apr 8, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Savannah?

PSL seems like a big jump from such little professional playing time in Brooklyn

"What position do you play?"
"I bat third."

by Preach19 on Apr 8, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions

But he's an advanced prospect

he’s 22, faced great college competition, and has an advanced approach at the plate.

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Apr 8, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Who could be

and I hope he is but I wouldn’t say it’s likely, plus there’s the chance Havens could be moved to catcher.

by Gina on Apr 8, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Timing

I can’t see the Mets shifting Murph to second in middle of the season. Maybe as Martinez develops and they get closer to the end of Castillo’s contract they will start to shift him to 2B. But now doesn’t seem to be a good time.

by Reg Dunlop on Apr 8, 2009 9:43 AM EDT reply actions

Agreed

If there was ANY thought of playing Murphy at 2nd, he would have played a couple games there during spring training. Tatis, at this point, is more likely to play 2nd.

by Lunkwill Fook on Apr 8, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah

I hope — I also hope Murphy’s not considered our ‘1B of the future,’ as all the papers seem to indicate.

by jasondg on Apr 8, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions

THAT I would dislike.

I like Murph, don’t get me wrong. But he won’t hit enough to justify being there.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Apr 8, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions

here's the problem with regards to that, as I've mentioned before

The Mets have had a lot of success in the past with 1Bs who didn’t hit for a lot of power. Ed Kranepool for EONS, Keith, Magadan, Olerud, Zeile, Mientkiewicz. Dave Kingman and (more recently) Mighty Mo and Delgado have really been the only exceptions. Now, the key here is, Keith and Olerud especially were tremendously valuable in other ways, with high OBP and great defense. Kranepool… well, he wasn’t great, but he was the man with the Mets forever, and he didn’t keep them from winning in 1969. But because they’ve had those guys in the past, I’m concerned that there’s a belief (maybe subconsciously) in the organization that 1Bs don’t need to hit with a lot of power, and that’s all well and good if they do other things really well, but even if you’re hitting .320, if you’re only hitting 15 HR and you’re a butcher in the field, you’re not a very good 1B probably

by JoshNY on Apr 8, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions

wait

they had success with Mientkiewicz? Heh.

Recall also that with Olerud (and Zeile), the Mets were fortunate to have a catcher who hit 35-40 HR, and a 2B with pretty solid power.

by jasondg on Apr 8, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions

heh

OK, but I mean, Mientkiewicz illustrates what I’m saying because he’s the type of guy they looked to after Zeile retired and the Piazza-at-1B experiment was a failure.

And yes, that’s the thing, and they had a C with power in the Hernandez era as well. Getting power from other positions has made the Mets able to succeed without a lot of power from the 1B. That’s not the same as being able to categorically say “you can be successful without a power-hitting 1B” and I’m concerned that that’s the attitude the Mets have.

by JoshNY on Apr 8, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I have that attitude, but it's not based on history

If you can get that power from other positions, you can do without a big HR threat at 1B. But replacing Delgado with Murphy means we’d need a big bat in LF next season, and I don’t think that’s going to happen.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Apr 8, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

You can do without it

But if you have the resources to get it, which you would think we would, there’s no reason to go without it. The problem seems to be that the front office doesn’t seem to think that way.

by Gina on Apr 8, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions

I also think

You have to look at it this way: the Mets don’t have a powerful corner OF situation right now, so power at 1B is extra critical. But if they were to go out and get someone like Jason Bay or Matt Holliday this offseason, or F-Mart develops into a legit 25+ HR guy in a corner spot, lacking some power at 1B would be acceptable if you’re still getting overall offensive production. Part of the benefit the Mets have right now, is that they have tremendous power in CF, which reduces the need to get great power from the more traditional corner spots.

by Mark Himmelstein on Apr 8, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't get all the fuss

Church and Murphy are going to be the starters until Sheffield proves that he can outproduce one of them or injury. I think that’s pretty obvious. I don’t see Sheffield being “the guy” in either corner slot unless he’s either hitting like Gary Sheffield of old or Murphy or Church prove they can’t hit enough to be a regular. I think Manuel is gonna rotate Sheff in and out, but ultimately Church and Murph will get the majority of the PAs.

by cjmulrain on Apr 8, 2009 10:23 AM EDT reply actions

I don't think it's that unlikely that Sheffield can/will outproduce one of them offensively

My worry is that he’ll get playing time over one of them because of that despite us being so much worse off defensively with him out there instead.

by Gina on Apr 8, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah

I think what it comes down to though is that having Sheffield is going to be a test for Jerry Manuel. I don’t usually give managers a ton of credit one way or the other, but this is one situation where the responsibility is on him. He hasn’t been given any studs for his corner OF positions (unless you count Murphy’s 136 studly ABs), but he has lots of above replacement level fodder. He’s going to have to tinker and get the most out of what he has. If it gets to the point where people on Amazin’ Avenue are able to make fun of his decisions out there, that will be problematic. But if he does push the right buttons, it could transform the offense from a good one to a complete one.

by Mark Himmelstein on Apr 8, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions

For the record

In that fangraphs article, I think Mr. Cameron is trying a bit to hard to be innovative, and in this case the traditional model of 2B is more correct than the one he’s proposing. Maybe 2B is not as important defensively as its been figured in the past, but it requires a different set of skills to be good there. I do think you want to go with shorter guys with stronger bases at second. Guys who can get lower to the ground quicker. Guys whose legs can take hard slides. Guys who are more mobile and can start and stop on a dime. It makes more sense for a third baseman to be a bit bigger and stronger. The length and wingspan helps on those reaction plays, and a stronger arm is required on long throws. I get where he’s coming from, there’s definitely a height-revolution that’s gone on at SS, but I think it makes more sense there. Its still hard to teach a taller SS, but it pays off a bit more when it works out, and you don’t have to worry quite as much about hanging in on double plays, since the SSes momentum is carrying them towards first.

With Murphy, the double play is my biggest long term concern. I think he can be taught a lot of the footwork, and to stay low to the ground. I can live with middling range, especially with Reyes flanking him. However, he’s got such skinny legs, I’m just not sure they could handle the punishment of being an everyday 2B. I think its worth experimenting with as he goes along in his career, but its not something to expect to become a longterm solution.

by Mark Himmelstein on Apr 8, 2009 1:53 PM EDT reply actions