RIP Ernie Harwell

Ernie Harwell died today, and few could write about him better than Joe Posnanski already did.

However, I will add one thing. A few years ago, Fox or ESPN (I don't remember which) had him on one of their baseball broadcasts. On the one hand, it was a way of honoring him while he was still around. It was a Tigers game, of course, but it was broadcast nationally, so more than just the fans in Michigan got to experience him. And that was a treat. The broadcasters themselves (might have been Joe Buck, Tim McCarver, Joe Morgan, Jon Miller, or maybe even Orel Hershiser or Rick Sutcliffe) were respectful and curious about what Ernie had seen and the stories he had to tell.

On the other hand, I couldn't help but feel that they were rolling out the grand old guy - Harwell would have been around 90 years old at this time - and paying him homage but not much else. "Tell the one about being traded for a minor league catcher!" "What was it like broadcasting the '84 team?" "How did you handle baseball during the summer of '68?" That felt wrong, that they were wasting his talent spinning yarns about the past when the team Harwell knew better than any of them was playing right there.

And I know it felt wrong because Harwell, in his own way, was pointing out that they were wasting his talents. He just wanted to call the damn game. He was gracious in the booth and answered the questions from the other guys, but as much as possible he just got back to the play-by-play he did so well. I got the sense that the guys in the booth didn't plan on having their jobs usurped, however briefly, by a 90 year old Hall of Famer, but Harwell did it anyway, and I loved every moment. No comments about an oddball fan or the sights in Detroit or the next camera angle or the off-day plans for the gang, just the play-by-play: straight, accurate, clear, and sounding like baseball.

All the best, Ernie.

Random Clicks: 3/28/10

Roaming the sidelines, and baby-stepping back into the blogosphere ...

Red Sox/MLB

Breaking down the Mauer signing.

Some thoughts on Sox prospect Josh Reddick.

Peter Gammons checks in on Spring Training.

Celtics/NBA

Rondo steals the record.

Breaking down the 2010 free agents.

Danny Ainge discusses the current situation of the Celtics.

Patriots/NFL

Class-act Joey Porter is making headlines.

Checking-in with Leigh Bodden.

The Red Sox's "revolving door" at shortstop

I live in North Carolina now, so happily I am removed from the constant barrage of media coverage of Boston sports. But some pervasive messages get through to me, even though I'm far more likely to hear about high school football players switching between UNC and NC State than about the Red Sox.

So the Red Sox have signed Marco Scutaro to be their new(est) shortstop, and the cliché in the media is that the Sox have a revolving door at short ever since Nomar was traded. (Dan Shaughnessy calls shortstop the Red Sox's "black hole," though I am not aware of Mike Lowell passing an event horizon and never being heard from again.) The signing itself has been analyzed in a lot of places, but I wanted to find out whether it's true that the Red Sox can't seem to find a shortstop.

The answer is, obviously, yes. In the past six seasons (since 2004), they've employed Orlando Cabrera, Edgar Renteria, Julio Lugo, Jed Lowrie, and Nick Green as their regular shortstops.

However, while it's true the Red Sox have used a lot of different shortstops, particularly when compared to other notable teams, no team has long-term solutions at each position. I checked it out, and I couldn't find any team that didn't have at least four different "full time" players at at least one position in those six seasons. In fact, half of all teams had at least one position where they used five different full-timers from 2004-2009:

• Baltimore: Left Field
• Chicago Cubs: Center Field
• Cincinnati: Shortstop
• Colorado: Second Base
• Florida: Catcher
• Kansas City: First Base, Right Field
• LA Angels: Center Field
• LA Dodgers: Third Base, Left Field
• New York Mets: Catcher, Right Field
• Oakland: First Base
• Pittsburgh: Right Field
• San Diego: Second Base, Center Field
• San Francisco: First Base, Center Field
• St. Louis: Third Base, Left Field
• Texas: Center Field, Right Field

And these hapless teams have had a position with a different full-time player each year from 2004 to 2009:

• Atlanta: Left Field
• Chicago Cubs: Right Field
• Milwaukee: Third Base
• New York Mets: Right Field
• New York Yankees: First Base
• Oakland: Left Field
• Tampa Bay: Second Base
• Texas: Left Field (note that of 18 possible full-time players in the three outfield positions since 2004, the Rangers have used 16)
• Washington: Left Field, Center Field
  

Looking over those names, I see no real relationship between positional instability and team success.

One argument you could make is that SS is a more important position than 1B or LF, and you'd be right. Bill James is spot on in his Defensive Spectrum; anyone can see that finding a competent catcher is a lot harder than finding a competent first baseman. (My kingdom for Joe Mauer.) By that measure, only the Marlins (catcher), Reds (shortstop), and Mets (catcher) match up to the Red Sox for inability to find a long-term solution in a key defensive position.

All the same, it hasn't stopped the Red Sox from a lot of success. So chill out, Boston media. I want a regular, healthy, productive player at each position too, and the lack of success hasn't stopped Theo from trying. But it's hardly anything to go all Chicken Little over.