Cardenas Is More Valuable at 3B
Hi, everybody, I've been a lurker around here for a while, but there's something that I've seen repeated enough, that I'm coming out of hiding to set things right.
I keep reading something like the following: The A's should hold off on moving Adrian Cardenas to 3b because he's a much more valuable prospect at 2b.
This belief comes from a combination of conventional thinking and the fact that there are far fewer quality 2b prospects in the minors right now than 3b prospects. In reality the answer is quite the opposite--Adrian Cardenas is much more valuable to A's at third--for a couple reasons.
1. The assumption that it is more difficult to play 2b than 3b is wrong, or at least very debatable. In the era of VORP, we've been taught to think of value relative to average offense for the position, i.e. since 2b as a whole hit worse than 3b as a whole, we assume 2b are better defenders. This has more to do with a combination of an excellent generation of 3b and a tendency for modern managers to tolerate worse hitters at 2b than a difference in difficulty between the positions. There's a different skill set required--2b need more range, 3b need better hands and a stronger arm--but 2b isn't really any harder than 3b.
Probably the biggest innovation we saw this year among the sabermetric community was an emphasis on positional adjustments based on difficulty in playing the position over relative-to-average-hitter-at-position adjustments, like VORP. Mostly pioneered by Tom Tango, position adjustments conclude that 2b and 3b (and CF) are equally difficult to play. So, assuming that Cardenas is an equally good defender at 3b as 2b (admittedly a big assumption), then he's equally valuable at either place in an absolute sense.
2. The A's, unlike virtually every other team in baseball except for those lucky enough to have an Utley or Pedroia, are much better off at 2b than 3b.
Mark Ellis may continue to have injury problems, and he's not a great hitter, but he's signed to a very reasonable contract for a while, and is such a good defender that even when he's hitting as badly as he was last year, he's an average player. We all know about Jemile Weeks, who is currently tearing it up in high A, and he looks like a decent bet to be the 2b of the future once Ellis steps out of the way. In addition, they have Patterson*, Petit and Pennington in AAA, all acceptable short-term fill-ins.
And, as you may have realized by now, there's not much at third. Chavez isn't walking through that door, Garciapparra is held together with duct tape, and Hannahan, well, I think Hannahan gets a bad rap around these parts--he's a good enough defender that he's far from a sink hole--but you'd much rather have him as your Plan B (or C) in AAA than someone who has to play 120 games a year.
*I think Patterson is also very undervalued around here. He's showed he can hit AAA pitching well enough to play a corner outfield spot there, and that's good enough to be fringe-average at 2b in the majors even with poor defense. He hasn't looked great in his couple chances, but give him time to settle in, and he'll do just fine. He's much better than Petit.
The A's situation at 3rd is so dire that people are salivating at the idea of Neil Walker, Josh Fields and Allen Craig (hint: those guys suck). If Cardenas is the 3b of the future, then we don't have to worry about only targeting a 3b in a possible deal for Holliday (not that that would be a good idea anyway) and turning down a chance to get someone like Austin Jackson, Jordan Schaefer, or whoever the most talented player available is.
Moreover, 2b are generally undervalued, so it's much easier to find a decent one for cheap than a 3b if Weeks doesn't pan out and/or Ellis doesn't get back to his old self.
Basically, every fact about the current situation in Oakland says we're fine at second and in desperate need of a third baseman, and it's not like we're talking about moving a SS to 1b to fill a need. Instead, it's more like moving a LF to RF. Taking all of this together, Adrian Cardenas should be the A's 3b of the future.
Now, if only we could find a shortstop.
5 recs |
38 comments
Comments
I have played both 2B and 3B
And while I was more comfortable at 2B, I found 3B to be much easier to me.
One reason why there might seem to be more 2B prospects than 3B prospects is because you can move 2B prospects to 3B, but not nessisarily 3B prospects to 2B. They require different fielding skillsets, to be honest, but a 2B is more likely to already have the skillset nessisary for 3B than a 3B to have a 2B Skillset.
Offensivly, Corner Infielders are expected to hit more than Middle Infielders. True or not, that is important when considering value. Cardenas has more value to another team if he is a 2nd Baseman than a 3rd Baseman.
As for Patterson, I don’t know what we should do with him. We’re not putting him in Left Field, he’s terrible defensivly at 2B, and he does not have the arm to play 3B. And while he has hit at AAA, he hasn’t put it together at all in the majors. Then again, he can’t be worse than Rajai offensivly, can he?
Don't believe in yourself.
Believe in Me who believes in You.
by Zonis on Jun 8, 2009 7:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cardenas
When is it time to start getting Cardenas some reps at 3B? The depth chart at 3B in July will be Ellis, Kennedy, Petit, Pennington, Cardenas, Weeks… tons of depth.
Will Cardenas really lose value if he’s moved to 3B right now? Are the A’s shopping Cardenas for a semi-quality 3B? Andy LaRoche (Is Pedro Alvarez ready)? Mark Reynolds? Alex Gordon?
by Colorado Fan on Jun 8, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
errrr
The depth chart at 2B in July will be Ellis, Kennedy, Petit, Pennington, Cardenas, Weeks… tons of depth.
by Colorado Fan on Jun 8, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tons of old, injury prone and subpar depth
Weeks is the only real long term possibility there and he is only in A+ ball.
by DeJay on Jun 9, 2009 3:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pedro was too busy electioneering to get ready
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 9, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same here.
i love the simplicity of 3rd base as opposed to 2nd.
Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!!
by naq92 on Jun 8, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I find I lose less time to footwork and transfers
at 2B – especially on a slow field (which I think includes most public parks). Having to make a long throw from third means I need to set myself up better to get the runner in time. I used to play a lot of tennis so I think ranginess comes easier to me. Of course, I’m mostly terrible at both positions.
by scromulus on Jun 8, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have played both 2b and 3b too
and I found 2b to be much easier for me. It’s going to be different for different people—I don’t see why your anecdotal evidence should count for more than mine.
Here’s a study that says that 2b is, at most, 1/1.5 runs/150 harder to play than 3b. That’s nothing.
As for 3b are expected to hit for more than 2b, that’s an argument based on the VORP mindset, which is a reasonable point of view, and one that hasn’t been given up, but most of the smartest people in sabermetrics now disagree with it. And even if that’s true, the simple fact is we have no one at 3rd and plenty at 2nd, which trumps the difference in the average hitter at the two positions (about 30 points of SLG).
I agree that Cardenas is more enticing to most other teams as a 2b, but, first of all, there’s absolutely no reason to trade him, and, second of all, if he’s moved to 3rd, why would other teams assume he couldn’t be moved back to 2b, where he’s already adequate?
My worry is that he just won’t be that good at third.
by Elston Gunn on Jun 8, 2009 7:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cardenas is more valuable as a second basemen
It’s not because of the defensive difficulty of the different positions, but rather the offensive expectations at each position. A second basemen who can hit .290/.360/.440 is a very good player and provides better offensive output than most teams will get from that position. A third basemen who puts up those numbers would be average to slightly below because more teams get better production, especially in the power department, from that position.
As far as his value to the A’s that refers to when he is in Oakland. Obviously an average or slightly mediocre third basemen is better then a great back-up second basemen, so if when he makes it up the A’s are getting worse raw production from 3B than 2B as they are now a switch should be considered. Right now Cardenas plays for Midland, and to move him would diminish his value.
by DiegoAsFan on Jun 8, 2009 7:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
there's no difference
MGL on this issue.
An average player at 3b costs 7 runs more than an average 2b (i.e. harder to find), and they hit 8 runs more. That is, Adrian Cardenas, average 3b, is just as valuable as Adrian Cardenas, above-average 2b. There’s no difference people.
And I think you’re ignoring that Cardenas is going to have to learn to play 3b. You can’t just throw him there and assume he’ll be fine. You have to give him time to learn before he hits the bigs. Also, why are we so concerned about his value to other teams?
by Elston Gunn on Jun 8, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
Cardenas, above average 2B is only “extra” valuable, so to speak, compared to average 3B Cardens, only if he’s opening up a spot for a better 3B vis-a-vis who would be playing 2B. It’s not the position he’s at that matters so much, it’s who fills the other slot that really matters.
My only concern would be the same as yours – that for whatever reason he’d just be a butcher at third.
by walk off bunt on Jun 9, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just my opinion - re: his value to other teams
but if Cardenas isn’t part of the A’s plans at 3B (and I’d guess he’s far down that list since he’s not playing 3B) and he’s not part of the A’s plans at 2B (again, it’s my guess, since it seems that Jemile Weeks will jump him) then his value is mostly towards other teams.
I agree though, that it doesn’t seem like a terrible idea to try him at 3B.
still Swish Fan #1.
by ChrisCEIT on Jun 9, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hear you, but...
A second basemen who can hit .290/.360/.440 is a very good player and provides better offensive output than most teams will get from that position. A third basemen who puts up those numbers would be average to slightly below because more teams get better production, especially in the power department, from that position.
If that is average to slightly below average production why can’t we cheaply trade for such a commodity? I tend to side with Elston’s point on this issue, which is that an elite class of 3B prospects have skewed the statistical analysis. The A’s would be thrilled for someone that is a good bet for .750 ops at 3B, no?
As for the defensive argument, I think everyone is making good points. I agree the skillset required to play 2b is rarer than that of 3b, but clearly the two positions are equally hard to excel at (close to anyway).
I definitely agree its time to A) promote Cardenas and B) put him at 3B in Sacto for the next month to evaluate. Im sure he would re-double his efforts to improve his defense at the position in these circumstances – i.e. knowing that he could crack the majors. It would be the perfect test. And seriously if his defense is average give or take a few, he’d only have to OPS .800+ at AAA for me to think its worthwhile (assuming we dont tank in the next month).
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.
I miss Chad God
by ChadGod on Jun 8, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what's with the love for ellis and hate for hannahan?
so ellis is loved because he’s great at D, but sucks at O. Hannahan is hated because he sucks at O, but is loved at D. Is there that much an expectation for a 3B/2B in O that justifies this love-hate relationship?
by rollierollieOxenfree on Jun 8, 2009 10:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
good point
Comparing Hannahan’s defense to Ellis’s though…that is where you went wrong imo. Unless you think the A’s front office is also guilty of this supposed misconception.
I miss Chad God
by ChadGod on Jun 8, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference...
…is that Hannahan is decent on defense, whereas Ellis is legitimately one of the top 5 defensive players in all of baseball.
by rageon on Jun 9, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hannahan is better than decent on d.
He’s good enough IMO to be a fringe-average regular. But the rest of your point stands. Ellis is as good a defender (when healthy) as Evan Longoria is a hitter. Hannahan is more very good than excellent.
by Elston Gunn on Jun 9, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna disagree on this.
Hannahan’s just too bad a hitter. His career line is .223/.312/.349, and even those modest numbers are being held aloft by his 144-AB 2007 in which he hit .278/.369/.424.
Ellis is so good because, as you said, “Ellis is as good a defender (when healthy) as Evan Longoria is a hitter,” AND because for his career he’s hit .264/.335/.404, which is pretty acceptable from second even for an averagish defender.
Hannahan’s not a bad guy to have on the bench, but he should never get more than 200 AB in a season.
by walk off bunt on Jun 9, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't think we're too far apart
I don’t think it’s fair to just throw out his best strech of hitting, but, yes, he’s a bad hitter. Fringe-average may be a bad way to say it, but all i’m saying is that he’s not 2008 Wily Taveras or anything—he’s not an embarassment to have out there.
As you say, Ellis is in a different league. When he’s playing at his career norms, he’s not average, but one of the very best second basemen in baseball. But Hannahan can be a worse hitter and a worse defender and still be acceptable for short streches of time. Though, again, let’s just say you’re probably not going to win the AL East with him playing 120 games.
by Elston Gunn on Jun 9, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hannahan doesn't just suck at offense.
He is an utter trainwreck of a disaster of a catastrophe at offense.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Jun 9, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ellis has had semi-decent offensive numbers, and stellar defense in the big leagues
maybe not overall, but 06 was certainly a good season..
Hannahan has very good defense, but is a much worse hitter at a position that is traditionally fielded by better hitters than at 2B.
witty remark
by dtownmbrown on Jun 9, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see why you wouldn't want to teach a prospect two positions.
Think how much Swisher’s value was increased by playing 1B to go along with “three” OF positions. Now the A’s are trying to do something similar with Doolittle. Of course, learning multiple infield positions is more difficult than being a 1B/Corner OFer, as the Barton/Carter experiments have shown us, but Cardenas by most accounts has an excellent arm to go along with unspectacular range, suggesting he could be a decent 3B as opposed to a meh 2B.
I also think that organizational need should be a determining factor in where Cardenas ends up:
If Cardenas is on the A’s in 2010 the need is much greater at 3B (assuming that Ellis is more likely to be healthy than Chavez, and the A’s still have Patterson and Pennington hanging out in AAA).
If Cardenas isn’t on the A’s untill 2011 then his position of greatest impact is in part determined by Weeks’ progression. Although again, Ellis has an option.
Finally, the market for FA 2B is much more favorable than that for 3B over the next few years: Hudson, DeRosa, Iwamura, Kennedy, Sanchez and Polanco vs. Beltre, Glaus and Lowell. I don’t think the A’s will go the FA route at either of these positions, but the general scarcity of HR-hitting 3Bs creates an extra incentive to see if Cardenas can do well there.
by scromulus on Jun 8, 2009 11:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Woops, DeRosa plays second and third.
But Lowell is 80 years old, and Glaus and Chavez wouldn’t have a shoulder to throw from even if they were cyborgically mutated into the same person.
by scromulus on Jun 8, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great article.
I was reading Tango’s article a while back and briefly mused on the subject. You did a great job of flushing it out.
In play, run(s)! Talk dirty to me gamecast, talk dirty. - Nevermoor on FK
by designatedforassignment on Jun 9, 2009 1:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Outstanding first post.
Easy on the eyes, and very well penned. Keep ’em coming.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Jun 9, 2009 9:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate this post
Not that I entirely agree with the argument, but it was thoughtfully stated.
by eastbayexpat on Jun 9, 2009 11:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I join the others in praising this post.
Curmudgeon that I am, I was all ready to bristle when you said you came “to set things right”.
But no, it was a well-presented argument, clearly communicated without jargon and obscure acronyms, and without attitude.
Well done.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Jun 9, 2009 2:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very interesting perspective.
My only quibble is that I’m not as confident in you are with Ellis. He’s starting to get old enough that his defense is going to fall off a cliff soon, and with his injury history, it may happen sooner rather than later. Still, Weeks is indeed in the pipeline as well, and third base is a wasteland.
Help me understand something, though. Even if second base isn’t harder to play than third base, doesn’t a second baseman who mashes the baseball have more market value than a third baseman who does? Statistics aside, what could we get more back for if we had to trade Cardenas? One who mashes at second, or one who mashes at third?
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Jun 9, 2009 3:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Regarding the market value
You’d have to figure you are correct, but that should be only temporary as the current 3Bmen out there start to tail off. Seems like it is already happening.
I miss Chad God
by ChadGod on Jun 9, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
read the MGL link I posted in the thread above
The basic conclusion of it is that while the average 3b hits better than the average 2b, the average 3b is paid equally more. Therefore, teams value average 3bs more than average 2bs to a degree commensurate with the difference in hitting ability.
by Elston Gunn on Jun 9, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's great for post-arbitration players.
Cardenas is going to be underpaid regardless of when he’s traded by the A’s, though. The demand for his services as a second baseman are still going to be greater due to the paucity of them in the market.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
by jeepers on Jun 10, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The positions are just not the same
and require a different set of skills to play each. 3B requires a stronger arm, the ability to react to and field bunts, guarding the line, covering foul territory, etc. 2B requires double play pivots, handling throws from the catcher on SB attempts, going back on pop-ups more often, taking more cut-off throws, etc.
But with Cardenas, I believe the biggest concern has been arm strength. If you can’t make the throw across the diamond, you’re not much use at 3B. This is also the reason Chase Utley is not a third baseman.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
-Wayne Gretzky"
-Michael Scott
by scatterbrian on Jun 9, 2009 4:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
First of all, good post; thanks
My perspective is that it doesn’t need to be an “either/or” with Cardenas. He could come up as a 3Bman, where we need help and don’t have it ready, and then 2 years later shift over to 2B if the need is there, if he can excel there, if the A’s sign or trade for a quality 3Bman, etc. Getting him ready for both, and seeing how he handles both, seems like a good idea to me.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jun 9, 2009 6:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i agree with this
i’m mostly arguing against the idea that he shouldn’t start working out at 3b because it makes him a weaker prospect. ideally, he’ll be able to handle both, as needed.
by Elston Gunn on Jun 9, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 























