Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't believe MLB managers put the utility infielder at third where he has barely played and moving the starting third baseman instead of putting him at 2nd. I also disagree with what is valued more where. I certainly believe that range and error rate are more appreciated at 2nd than at third.
|
Back to MLB managers, again...
For one, in near every scenario, that kid would be playing third base. They aren't going to waste a near-HOF type of arm at second base.
You can disagree with me on what is valued more, but if you think range is more valuable at second than third, we're not going to agree on much of anything. Second base is the easiest position to play in the infield outside of first. Obviously, errors are bad anywhere -- but range is FAR more valuable at third base than second considering any ball hit down the line is a double if you don't range to it. This is not the case at second base.
Regardless of whether you disagree with me or not, there is nothing inherently wrong with what the AI did -- you just don't agree with it. Others will. That's baseball.
If you don't like what happens, as said previously -- manage the games yourself. You obviously don't like what the AI managers do in thousands of situations...
You must really think Buck Showalter is an idiot starting a guy with no second base experience and DHing his utility infielder then... (see Steve Pearce and Jimmy Paredes.)
There is NOTHING wrong with the AI in this instance.