If it weren’t for that pesky First Amendment I’d campaign for a law that forbids partisans of any baseball team from suggesting personnel moves until a good ten days after the World Series ends, because almost anything that comes out in that vein is reactionary and fairly stupid. As soon as the Yankees were eliminated there were people talking about trading Nick Swisher, which makes no sense. Lately a certain brand of Phillies people are trying to pass off this kind of baloney:
Utley made a couple of bad plays at second in the playoffs and now people are trying to argue that he’s no good at second anymore. Meanwhile back in the world of the reality-based, he’s still pretty obviously the best second baseman in the National League. Sure he got hurt this year, but by just about every measure he was just as good defensively in 2010 as he’s ever been.
Chase Utley has been haunted by one injury after the next. His defense at second base has gone from acceptable to poor. His offensive production is deteriorating at troubling speed.
So exactly what was so outrageous again about the notion of moving Utley to the outfield earlier in his career?
While far less than a populist view, the Utley-to-the-outfield initiative was advanced by the enlightened. Loosely based on the Alfonso Soriano-Robin Yount model, the idea was to provide full protection of Utley as a power hitter by minimizing his inning-to-inning physical stress. Naturally, it was shouted down. The best thoughts usually are.
Utley made a couple of bad plays at second in the playoffs and now people are trying to argue that he’s no good at second anymore. Meanwhile back in the world of the reality-based, he’s still pretty obviously the best second baseman in the National League. Sure he got hurt this year, but by just about every measure he was just as good defensively in 2010 as he’s ever been.
Perhaps there will come a time when moving him to the outfield makes sense. That day, however, is not today.