Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic
  • Is it Time to Give Brian Anderson His Job Back?


    Matthew Trueblood

    In the Brewers' superb defensive lineup, the closest thing to a weakness has been the hot corner. It might be time to rethink the way the team divides the duties of their two top options at that spot?

    Image courtesy of © Jeff Hanisch-USA TODAY Sports

    Brewers Video

    For as long as there have been baseball teams, there has existed the notion of the defensive replacement. Teams find a way to get good bats into their starting lineup, but late in games (especially close games, and especially those close games in which they have a lead), managers love to remove a bat-first position player and bring in a good fielder--even if it comes at the cost of some late scoring opportunities.

    This is how baseball teams always think, really. Because the sport does not allow players who leave the game to re-enter it, teams try to start their best players, and players have come to think of starting as a major privilege. Unlike in, say, the NBA, there is very little honor attached to coming into games off the bench, especially now that pitchers no longer hit and the opportunities for pinch-hitting are drastically reduced.

    In that way of thinking, Andruw Monasterio has usurped Brian Anderson, who started the season in a timeshare with Luis Urias as the Brewers' third baseman. Monasterio has been an unexpected but indispensable offensive contributor for the team, and as Anderson has battled both injuries and inconsistency, he's been deprioritized. 

    On the other hand, though, Monasterio is a poor defender, on a team that emphasizes defensive excellence as much as any in baseball. The Brewers are second in MLB in Defensive Runs Saved (DRS), at 46, and they're markedly above-average at catcher, first base, second base, shortstop, center field, and right field. The team's pitchers aren't fielding aces, and they've knowingly traded some defense for the much-improved production of Christian Yelich in left field, but otherwise, their weakest defensive link is third base. Even then, they're better than average, but only narrowly.

    It's Monasterio costing them a better rating there. He's been a bit better at second base, but his hands aren't soft enough for that spot, and his arm has gotten oddly erratic when he's played third. Anderson, by contrast, has shown really good range at third, and his arm is fine. He hasn't moved well enough to field bunts effectively, but the bunt is such a small part of the modern game that it hasn't hurt him. Anderson is four runs better than Monasterio at third, according to DRS, in about 50 percent more innings there.

    Since his scorching start, though, Anderson has collapsed at the plate. He's running a weak 86 wRC+ for the season, and since May 1, it's even uglier. In 239 plate appearances over that span, he's batted just .210/.301/.324. Meanwhile, Monasterio has rescued the anemic offense, stabilizing the bottom of the batting order. He has a 96 wRC+ on the year, and he makes up for his lack of power by bringing a .340 on-base percentage to lineup positions where teams often take a number more like .310.

    That's what Monasterio has become the starting third baseman for Craig Counsell. Anderson has entered three of his seven games since coming off the injured list as a late-game substitution, often with an eye toward having him play third base for the final inning or two. It's the traditional usage of players like these.

    Let's turn it on its head, though. Imagine that, instead, the Brewers started Anderson, but sought the first opportunity they could get to advantageously swap in Monasterio. Neither guy should be batting in the top five or six lineup spots for this team right now, anyway, thanks to the additions of Mark Canha and Carlos Santana to the mix ahead of the trade deadline. By starting Anderson, Counsell could steal an inning or two of defense before even having to accept the tradeoff of an at-bat from the struggling veteran. 

    One edge that this way of thinking gives, in most cases, is that relievers tend to strike out more batters (and thus, induce fewer ground balls) than do starters. In theory, your defense-first player should be the starter, because you can hide them at the bottom of the batting order to minimize their damage there and you maximize the chances that they'll have a defensive impact. The Brewers are no exception to this, though the gap is smaller than for most teams. It's just 0.3 percentage points of difference, with starters allowing ground balls in 29 percent of opponents' plate appearances and relievers allowing them 28.7 percent of the time. 

    This little bit of creative roster usage is even more valuable if your bat-first player hits relievers especially well. Unfortunately, that's not the case with Monasterio. Both he (.554 OPS) and Anderson (.582) have dreadful numbers against relievers this year. Still, on balance, it makes sense to start Anderson, and to bring in Monasterio when an opening presents itself. If there's a particular mid-game pitching matchup that Counsell feels would favor Monasterio, that's the moment to make the change. Otherwise, it can just happen if the team falls behind by a run or two, thereby raising the urgency of creating some offense and lessening the impact of team defense.

    Teams think about these substitutions from the perspective of minimizing regret and maximizing momentum. They sub in defensive whizzes late to protect leads, because they hate and fear the feeling of blowing a late lead. On balance, however, they'd do better to start with the defense-oriented player and tactically deploy the superior hitter. The Brewers have a good enough manager to entrust him with that kind of roster usage, and they ought to go for it.

    Think you could write a story like this? Brewer Fanatic wants you to develop your voice, find an audience, and we'll pay you to do it. Just fill out this form.

    MORE FROM BREWER FANATIC
    — Latest Brewers coverage from our writers
    — Recent Brewers discussion in our forums
    — Follow Brewer Fanatic via Twitter, Facebook or email

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Featured Comments

    I've often wondered about this. Why do teams prioritize scoring in the first 2/3rds of the game and then defense for the final 1/3rd? Why not the opposite?

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

    I've often wondered about this. Why do teams prioritize scoring in the first 2/3rds of the game and then defense for the final 1/3rd? Why not the opposite?

    Because most good teams have a good bullpen which is used when they are ahead, making scoring difficult.  This works two-fold, in that you want a lead early so you get to emply your shutdown relievers at the endgame AND the other team does not get to use its shutdown relievers.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 minutes ago, Oxy said:

    Because most good teams have a good bullpen which is used when they are ahead, making scoring difficult.  This works two-fold, in that you want a lead early so you get to emply your shutdown relievers at the endgame AND the other team does not get to use its shutdown relievers.

    Oh, I get the reasoning, I should have specified "why is the opposite used so rarely?" It seems to me there are specific cases where using the opposite approach is beneficial, like having a groundball pitcher on the mound with the expectation your defensive third baseman will bat twice and then exit the game, even if that starter is still in the game for an inning or two. You get the bulk of that starter's innings with the best defensive alignment possible but also try to minimize that defensive player's offensive liability.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The bigger question is why the Brewers traded Urias with a questionable starter in Monestario and another third baseman struggling as badly as Anderson.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 minutes ago, brewers888 said:

    The bigger question is why the Brewers traded Urias with a questionable starter in Monestario and another third baseman struggling as badly as Anderson.

    Because at the time of the trade he had hit for a 59 wRC+ in MLB and an 84 wRC+ in AAA.

    It appears as though the Brewers didn’t believe he’d be worth his Arby’s number this offseason, and they had two 3B who were outperforming him already on the roster, so they traded him for a talented arm.

    It’s cool that Luis hit two grand slams, but he had a 45 wRC+ with Boston before that, and even then he had three days off before the first grand slam, then a day off after, then another day off after the second one so he isn’t even playing every day.

    • Like 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

    Because at the time of the trade he had hit for a 59 wRC+ in MLB and an 84 wRC+ in AAA.

    It appears as though the Brewers didn’t believe he’d be worth his Arby’s number this offseason, and they had two 3B who were outperforming him already on the roster, so they traded him for a talented arm.

    It’s cool that Luis hit two grand slams, but he had a 45 wRC+ with Boston before that, and even then he had three days off before the first grand slam, then a day off after, then another day off after the second one so he isn’t even playing every day.

    Yeah. If the team isn't going to use a guy and will decline retaining him in the offseason, may as well trade him.

    And given the Monasterio/Anderson duo, I think that was a pretty reasonable decision.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Monastario's current season is nearly a cookie cutter of Urias' MLB norms; both in batting and fielding. 

    Urias:

    .235 .333 .390 .723 98

    Monastario:

    .258 .340 .365 .705 94

    94.8% vs 94.6% fielding percentage at 3B and similar D-WAR.  Yes, not the best metrics, but I was too lazy to look up the advanced D-metrics.  Plus, the eyeball test seems to say the same. Feel free to prove me wrong with your favorite D-metric. 😉

    Both turned 26 years old this year (4 days apart even).  

    Given the aforementioned upcoming arbitration and Luis' injury history, it seems smart to me to go with Andruw over Luis. 

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    27 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

    Yeah. If the team isn't going to use a guy and will decline retaining him in the offseason, may as well trade him.

    And given the Monasterio/Anderson duo, I think that was a pretty reasonable decision.

    The Monasterio/Anderson duo is exactly why you keep depth in Urias who was one of the better performers on this team last season. Using this years stats when Urias got hurt before the season and had limited at bats as a reason to give him away is strange when he has a few years of at least decent performance.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, brewers888 said:

    The Monasterio/Anderson duo is exactly why you keep depth in Urias who was one of the better performers on this team last season. Using this years stats when Urias got hurt before the season and had limited at bats as a reason to give him away is strange when he has a few years of at least decent performance.

    But if the team isn't going to offer him arbitration and has no plans to give him another legitimate shot this season because they feel they have equivalent players already on the roster, may as well get the prospect back. 

    Is that the decision I would have made? I'm not sure. But I also think it's a reasonable place to land on a decision.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

    Monastario's current season is nearly a cookie cutter of Urias' MLB norms; both in batting and fielding. 

    Urias:

    .235 .333 .390 .723 98

    Monastario:

    .258 .340 .365 .705 94

    94.8% vs 94.6% fielding percentage at 3B and similar D-WAR.  Yes, not the best metrics, but I was too lazy to look up the advanced D-metrics.  Plus, the eyeball test seems to say the same. Feel free to prove me wrong with your favorite D-metric. 😉

    Both turned 26 years old this year (4 days apart even).  

    Given the aforementioned upcoming arbitration and Luis' injury history, it seems smart to me to go with Andruw over Luis. 

    Thats a fair opinion but I would take Urias over Monasterio both in the present and going forward due to having a longer track record. If we are dumping players over a 5 million dollar salary we have bigger issues going forward.

    At best Monastario is unproven and Anderson hasn't hit in months so keeping Urias around in a pennant race as at least an insurance policy was probably the right thing to do unless you really believe that Blalock is some uncovered gem and even if that is the case they have weakened the depth for this years team.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In regards to the premise of starting your best defender first... I think the point is the loss of flexibility.  

    If Monastario is clearly the better overall player (O and D combined), you want him in there the most.  Then you replace him when his offensive contribution is minimized (i.e. late in the game when it is unlikely for him to hit again).

    If you do the opposite, you are forcing an early switch (i.e. 3rd inning when they come to bat) and lose a player for the rest of the game when you might want to use them for the best situational play. 

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

    But if the team isn't going to offer him arbitration and has no plans to give him another legitimate shot this season because they feel they have equivalent players already on the roster, may as well get the prospect back. 

    Is that the decision I would have made? I'm not sure. But I also think it's a reasonable place to land on a decision.

    When you have as big of a question mark as this team does at third base both now and going forward I believe its a mistake giving away the potential answer especially over 5 million.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, brewers888 said:

    Thats a fair opinion but I would take Urias over Monasterio both in the present and going forward due to having a longer track record. If we are dumping players over a 5 million dollar salary we have bigger issues going forward.

    At best Monastario is unproven and Anderson hasn't hit in months so keeping Urias around in a pennant race as at least an insurance policy was probably the right thing to do unless you really believe that Blalock is some uncovered gem and even if that is the case they have weakened the depth for this years team.  

    I'm guessing Toro would be the insurance policy.  But I do think it was more than the arbitration number next year.  He certainly fell out of favor... whether it was injuries, attitude, or ??

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Monasterio had a pretty terrible August. I would be running something like a 50/50 platoon there. I hope Monasterio can have a good career but realistically odds are he's not a long term solution. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    20 minutes ago, brewers888 said:

    When you have as big of a question mark as this team does at third base both now and going forward I believe its a mistake giving away the potential answer especially over 5 million.

    For the rest of this year they have Toro, Black, Devanney and Dorrian as 3B options in AAA.

    Of course Urias has an established MLB track record and none of those guys aside from Toro do, but with Luis’s performance thus far in 2023 there’s no guarantee he’d return to those 21-22 numbers, just as Willy or Rowdy or Tyrone haven’t been able to replicate their 21-22 success in 23.

    Even with no moves, they will likely open next year with organizational 3B depth something like…

    MLB: Monasterio
    AAA: Black
    AA: Wilken
    A+: Adams
    A: Bitonti/Baez

    The no third baseman storyline looks to be wrapping up shortly too.

    • Like 2
    • Love 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    clancyphile
  • Brewer Fanatic Contributor
  • Posted

    1 hour ago, sveumrules said:

    Because at the time of the trade he had hit for a 59 wRC+ in MLB and an 84 wRC+ in AAA.

    It appears as though the Brewers didn’t believe he’d be worth his Arby’s number this offseason, and they had two 3B who were outperforming him already on the roster, so they traded him for a talented arm.

    It’s cool that Luis hit two grand slams, but he had a 45 wRC+ with Boston before that, and even then he had three days off before the first grand slam, then a day off after, then another day off after the second one so he isn’t even playing every day.

    There is also the fact that this guy by the name of Tyler Black is doing pretty well at the hot corner - tearing the cover off the ball and avoiding the injured list.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "Monasterio has been an unexpected but indispensable offensive contributor for the team"

    Pretty sad that this is true considering Monsterio is below average offensively.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    12 minutes ago, timpep said:

    "Monasterio has been an unexpected but indispensable offensive contributor for the team"

    Pretty sad that this is true considering Monsterio is below average offensively.

    Noting that OPS+ (where he is slightly below average at 94) is a positionless metric.  Where WAR considers him playing at 3B (excluding Ohatani and other people that don't play 3B).  His current bWAR of 0.8 in 200 PAs would mean he is about a 2.0 bWAR player for the year. 

    Not lights out, but still a tick above average.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, sveumrules said:
    4 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

    I'm guessing Toro would be the insurance policy.  But I do think it was more than the arbitration number next year.  He certainly fell out of favor... whether it was injuries, attitude, or ??

     

    I remember mentioning on here after Urias was dealt that it wouldn't shock me if he had some good moments in Boston, but that it wouldn't necessarily mean he would've had those moments here, had he stayed. I think it was time.

    Anderson is clearly the best defensive option at 3B, but the really ugly ABs he's turned in, followed by the IL stint, followed by a lot of inactivity doesn't bode well for him suddenly getting back to being the hitter he was in April & May. I'm guessing with Monasterio (probably) needing a little breather we'll see Anderson a time or two, and if the struggles continue then it becomes a tough call of do you want to jettison the best defender at the position, in favor of someone (Black) who puts up ABs well beyond his years but might be a coinflip with the glove? If it becomes an either/or between those two they may just wait until 9-1, add Black & keep 'em both.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

    Noting that OPS+ (where he is slightly below average at 94) is a positionless metric.  Where WAR considers him playing at 3B (excluding Ohatani and other people that don't play 3B).  His current bWAR of 0.8 in 200 PAs would mean he is about a 2.0 bWAR player for the year. 

    Not lights out, but still a tick above average.

    Almost every mlb 2nd basemen with enough at bats to qualify for leaderboards already have that 2war. But that's not really relevant to a quote dealing entirely with his offense. A tick below average, but still better than anything else we've got.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, brewers888 said:

    Thats a fair opinion but I would take Urias over Monasterio both in the present and going forward due to having a longer track record. If we are dumping players over a 5 million dollar salary we have bigger issues going forward.

    At best Monastario is unproven and Anderson hasn't hit in months so keeping Urias around in a pennant race as at least an insurance policy was probably the right thing to do unless you really believe that Blalock is some uncovered gem and even if that is the case they have weakened the depth for this years team.  

    Why do you do this? Why do you change the conversation ENTIRELY from "if we're not going to use him this year and then not offer him arbitration, it makes sense to trade him," and turn that into, 'we're dumping players over 5M.'

    You're framing it like we're trading Contreras over 5M or we're making a decision to a player who've clearly our best option, but we just can't swing that 5M.

     

    No, we're trying to find the best value. Urias didn't offer it...and when a players legs start to go in this sport, it's not a good sign. Urias has dealt with quite a few leg injuries.


    I'm also a Monasterio fan and I don't trust the defensive metrics at this point. He's a rookie, we have him for 6 more years(or control for 6 more years). 

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    BA gets his job back every single time he stops announcing darts and foosball tournaments and decides to show up to the ballpark.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...