Andy LaRoche: Backup shortstop?

by Vlad on Nov 10, 2010 6:27 PM EST

As reported by Jen L. , LaRoche is seeing time at all four infield positions in winter ball this year. The same story included an interesting quote by Huntington on the subject and how LaRoche's play at short may determine his ability to keep his roster spot:

"I don't want to say it's make-or-break for Andy, but this offseason is very important for him as we go through the evaluation process. There is still ability in there, and he has a willingness to bounce around and play second and short. Can he be serviceable there? Can he be a middle utility guy? Can he be that bat off the bench? Those are questions that we have to answer, compared to the internal and external options this offseason."

Emphasis mine. That sentiment reminds me of the remarks made about Brandon Moss as a CF option last winter. When Moss was unable to beat out John Raynor in spring training, he lost his grip on his roster spot. Will LaRoche's chances for 2011 hinge on a similar competition with Diaz and Ciriaco next March? His hitting in winter ball doesn't inspire much confidence in him earning a slot with the bat, so it may come down to a duel with gloves at sunrise.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't want to give up on the kid, but I'm losing my confidence regarding him being on the team.

by bluecheer on Nov 10, 2010 6:30 PM EST reply actions

I met Huntington at the HOF Club for Rocco’s in August (I think). He was very open even with the random collection of fans talking to him. Someone asked him about Andy and he said something fairly similar to that. He made it very clear that he was on the bubble, but said he was willing to do everything they asked of him. I got the impression that giving SS a try was Andy’s own idea. Huntington said they wanted to focus his practices on 2B first and go from there.

by ElDuce on Nov 10, 2010 7:26 PM EST reply actions

hard to see him being able to make SS

he never had the speed…

by BurgherKing on Nov 10, 2010 7:27 PM EST reply actions

Plus, he doesn’t hit well enough to be Mario Mendoza.

by WTM on Nov 10, 2010 7:38 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t agree, but whatever. With the major league roster, Huntington’s gonna go with his gut whether it says Eveland in the rotation or D young at 2B. A lot of decisions won’t make sense.

by Adam Reynolds on Nov 10, 2010 9:06 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Andy

I suspect the Pirates will do whatever they can to give him one more year.

That, of course, is if he’s healthy.

He would be a terrible option as a back-up as ss. But maybe the other IF positions he’d be okay with spot duty.

by Bernie6 on Nov 10, 2010 9:31 PM EST reply actions

Given his bat right now

It’s hard to want him anywhere. But I suppose keeping him makes more sense than buying another Crosby. He hit like crazy last spring; presumably the underlying talent that did that hasn’t vanished. But I wonder if he’s been playing hurt for 6 straight months, and is going to get about 6 weeks off before ST and another long slog of playing hurt (and ineffective).

by JRoth95 on Nov 10, 2010 10:01 PM EST reply actions

If he's hurt...

he shouldn’t be playing winter ball in Mexico.

by Thunder on Nov 11, 2010 7:49 AM EST up reply actions

Well yeah

I think he’s so worried about his future that he’s playing hurt – not so hurt that he can’t play in the field (maybe), but definitely too hurt to be able to hit.

by JRoth95 on Nov 11, 2010 11:44 AM EST up reply actions

+1

by Bill Coyne on Nov 11, 2010 11:52 AM EST up reply actions

3rd to short?

I don’t see the wisdom of moving a player from third, if that’s what you call LaRoche, to short. If a guy goes from short to third, fine, but the differences required in range are too great to go the other way with success. If LaRoche is going to be a utility player, I don’t see much value there. He’s not much of a hitter and a so-so fielder at best. Look, the bottom line is that if he can’t play his way into the Bucs’ infield, why keep him? Use his roster spot for something else, anything else.

by NY Jim on Nov 11, 2010 7:15 AM EST reply actions

ya gotta have some bench players Jim

by white angus on Nov 11, 2010 7:53 AM EST up reply actions

True...

but i think there are a lot more interesting options than LaRoche. Especially if he is injured…which is what i expect. The guy can hit the ball hard in batting practice anymore. Either someone totally ruined his swing…or his back is more of a problem than he is letting on. So unless the choice for the bench spot is between him and Aki,,,give it to the other guy

by Bill Coyne on Nov 11, 2010 8:43 AM EST up reply actions

IMO, you give it to a guy who can play multiple positions

and if Laroche can play around the infield, like crosby, then he could be ideal

by white angus on Nov 11, 2010 8:55 AM EST up reply actions

Crosby...

is a much better defender than LaRoche. I think he is way to slow to play SS or 2B. I think the definition of “play” is important. If he proves himself to be a valuable defensive player I agree with you. However if he can just simply fill a role…like Doumit…then he definitely doesn’t deserve a spot.

by Bill Coyne on Nov 11, 2010 11:06 AM EST up reply actions

We don’t have a decent starting shortstop, but we’re looking at an extreme project for the backup spot?

by Adam Reynolds on Nov 11, 2010 11:37 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

I think he's a project now

and if he’s still an “extreme project” by April, he wouldn’t make the team. I don’t see any harm in giving him an offseason to try and do it.

by Mr. E on Nov 11, 2010 4:21 PM EST up reply actions

I wouldn’t rule out his ability to be a back-up/emergency SS. Of course he needs to show he can hit more like the end of 2009 and the first part of 2010 than since then. The two times he would play SS would be as a late-inning sub after the SS is pinch-hit for and as a “Sunday starter” to give the SS a rest. In the former case you can survive if you have a strikeout pitcher on the mound like Hanrahan. In the latter case he should play when a guy that tends to give up fly-balls (Ohlendorf) or strikes out more batters than average (McDonald) is pitching and avoid starting him when a guy like Maholm or Duke is pitching. It’s better than using a roster spot for a light-hitting middle-infielder like we’ve had in recent years (again, it is all contingent on him hitting again as most of last year he was very light-hitting).

And I don’t think he would be in Venezuela playing everyday if he was injured (I think what happened is that he was injured in May, that messed up his swing as anyone that’s had back problems can understand, and then when he was healthy again he wasn’t able to get his swing back only playing once a week or less).

by TNbucs on Nov 11, 2010 9:55 AM EST reply actions

In the former case you can survive if you have a strikeout pitcher on the mound like Hanrahan

You know what this is going to do? Destroy the stats of Meek and Hanrahan, and take away two big trade chips!

by BurgherKing on Nov 11, 2010 10:30 AM EST up reply actions

by Adam Reynolds on Nov 11, 2010 11:30 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

We’re not talking about a regular occurrence—I would guess 8 times out of 10 when they’re preparing to bring in the closer they’ll be setting up their best defense. But on rare occasions they will have just gained the lead but at the cost of taking out a better defender. I can’t imagine the effect on a closer’s stats, especially a closer with the K ratio that Hanrahan has, would be meaningful. And besides, baseball people know to look beyond any stats that would be affected by a weak SS.

by TNbucs on Nov 11, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions