Platooning---A vanishing practice?

[Fuzzy Bear]

It seems as if teams don't platoon players as much as they used to.

The only position I see any real platooning at is at Catcher. Even there, I see more backups giving the #1 guy a rest as opposed to an honest platoon arrangement.

I remember when Bobby Cox platooned Iorg and Mullinicks at 3B in Toronto. He platooned Harper and Butler in Atlanta. I don't see much of this anymore; not many teams try to build a platoon combination when they're short a regular at a position.

Has platooning declined, or am I missing something?

[SmedIndy]

Could the 11 and 12 man pitching staff curtailed this practice?

Come to think of it, a few guys who were platooned earlier in their career (Klesko, Nixon) aren't now.

[BuzzBuzzard]

I am not convinced the end of the platoon is bad. If a guy is not good enough to play all 162 (or close to), then why let him play 81?

[Slippery Pedro]

Arbitration may be to blame?

These days, if you get 350 ABs and hit 17 HR with 65 RBI, and you've been in the league 5 years, you can get a $4 million contract.

Most teams can't afford to have 4 or 5 guys on the bench making $15-20 million a season between them.

It's much more affordable to have 8 starters (even if one or two can't hit both LH and RH pitching) and have a bunch of cheaper guys (who are cheap because they suck) on the bench.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

May be just as well. I've noticed a lot of players learning how to drive the ball to the opposite field, though -- to very good effect.

Platooning would SEEM to be more of a factor for dead-pull hitters, and those guys (usually big sluggers like Jim Thome) would normally be platooned anyway, if the team could do so.

There have been many instances where platooning was just dumb: McCovey/Cepeda come to mind.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro

It's much more affordable to have 8 starters (even if one or two can't hit both LH and RH pitching) and have a bunch of cheaper guys (who are cheap because they suck) on the bench.

They're cheap because they're young, or they're older and have decided to stay in the game for a lower salary (like Dunston), not because they suck.

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Could the 11 and 12 man pitching staff curtailed this practice?


Smed,

Could the 12th man on a staff be the second gunman on the grassy knoll too??:p

[Slippery Pedro]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
They're cheap because they're young, or they're older and have decided to stay in the game for a lower salary (like Dunston), not because they suck.

Gerald Williams is not young, or cheap, and, well, momma always said if you don't have anything nice to say..................back on topic:

If they're young, they should be in the minors playing FT. Guys on the bench now, are more like the Clay Bellingers of the world, who will never start for you, and should never be part of a platoon.

[sweaver]

Platooning, like any strategy, has its cycles. Right now we are in a down cycle.

Most mid-level players would benefit from platooning, or at least their teams would. Almost every hitter has a platoon differential, and could see some benefit from some type of platoon.

How many platoons are there right now? I don't think the Reds have any. Rios and Wilson are supposed to be platooning in RF for the Pirates.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro


Gerald Williams is not young, or cheap, and, well, momma always said if you don't have anything nice to say..................back on topic:

If they're young, they should be in the minors playing FT. Guys on the bench now, are more like the Clay Bellingers of the world, who will never start for you, and should never be part of a platoon.

If they're young platooning would help them "break in" to the majors if they aren't annointed as stars. If you get 300 to 400 ABs, it's better than rotting on the bench or going down to the minors where there's nothing left to prove.

The Cubs need to find ABs for Rosie Brown and Bellhorn and Stynes so they don't get rusty, and when Hill comes up they may want to split time at first between Hill and DeShields so he can break in a bit.

Not every team has eight regulars and scrubs. Many teams have guys who could benefit from half-time play.

[Rauseo]

The redsox have been platooning considerably over the last few years, and have gotten some good production to show for it. This year they are only using 1 platoon however Ricky, and Daubach at DH/LF. Though I do wish they would return to platooning Nixon, he just cant hit LHP. John Lowenstien anyone.

[droog28]

Maybe because the talent is so spread out among the enormous number of teams, the depth of each team is such that platooning competitively is not possible. I think the Yankees platooned themselves right out of a championship against the D-Backs. However, platooning right handed batters against the likes of the Big Unit is a smart move, and if you have guys who never see action during the season, you shouldn't expect them to perform when they do actually see playing time.

[LeGrandOrange]

The Mariners still platoon, Mark McLemore still can't hit LHP's that well, and Sierra (when Edgar is healthy) or Relaford get extra playing as a result. We have a utility-platoon of McLemore and Relaford as well, which is also a great thing to have.
Consequently, we've got another great 20 game start, maybe teams should take notice of our setup. :seamhead:

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
I am not convinced the end of the platoon is bad. If a guy is not good enough to play all 162 (or close to), then why let him play 81?

I'm not saying that the decline of platooning is bad or good. I AM saying that platooning is a viable strategy in certain instances for several reasons:

(A) It enhances the team by putting the best performer available on the field and at the plate in a given situation when you have players with incomplete skill bases (e. g. all-hit-no-field vs. glove guy, hits lefties but not righties or vice versa, problems with durability and stamina).

(B) It enhances the player by focusing on what he CAN do, rather than what he can't do. Most successful managers focus this way.

(C) It maximizes the availability of talent both through a team's roster, and players on other rosters gathering dust, who CAN do something, and are available.

(D) It gets more of the roster involved.

Platooning has its limits, but it represents a proactive way to solve roster problems, often with limited $$$. The key to successful platooning, I think, is to build your platoon around players with outstanding skills in one area even if they are weak in another (Jose Canseco and Tom Goodwin could be a stick/glove platoon. There are any # of possible righty/lefty platoons for offense.) What is ineffective, I think, is platooning righty and lefty players with the skill base of, say, Thomas Howard, who doesn't do any one thing well enough to be a star. Platooning should lead to monor star-level play in at least one facet of the game at all times. (Canseco would be a trip in the field, but he can hit.)

I agree that a lot of the posts have good ideas as to why platooning appears to have declined, and I'm happy to see that others have noticed it, too. I think that intelligent platooning could still be used to help some of the "small market" teams maximize their talent base, and talent level on the field.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
I'm not saying that the decline of platooning is bad or good. I AM saying that platooning is a viable strategy in certain instances for several reasons:Certain instances maybe, but not as a long term strategy. Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I don't see platooning as good managerial practice in any way.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Certain instances maybe, but not as a long term strategy. Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I don't see platooning as good managerial practice in any way.

I think platooning does help get the roster involved, it helps players take advantage of strength, and it does help people break into the bigs.

You can over-do it, but I think it's sound and valid, as long as you don't do it in a knee-jerk fashion, and allow your young players to develop skills against their supposed platoon weakness.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


I think platooning does help get the roster involved, it helps players take advantage of strength, and it does help people break into the bigs.

You can over-do it, but I think it's sound and valid, as long as you don't do it in a knee-jerk fashion, and allow your young players to develop skills against their supposed platoon weakness.

This was the strategy of the great Yankee teams of 1949-53 (five consecutive World Championships). They won platooning Bauer and Woodling, by substituting Gil McDougald at 2B, SS, and 3B, and by starting and relieving with Allie Reynolds. They had a declining DiMag, a young Mantle; Berra and Rizzuto were their big stars, but there weren't an overabundance of HOFers in their prime.

I certainly agree that platooning has its limits. I have more faith in a Casey Stengel platoon than a Lloyd McClendon platoon. :D