Would you rather?

[Brian (Blue Jays GM)]

Hey guys,

So I beleve there are many different schools of thought we all subscribe to as far as building a roster. I'm looking to see what different perspectives you all bring to the table.

Also, feel free to post your own hypothetical scenarios and roster decisions to further the conversation.

My question is, would you rather fill a spot on your team with a player who starts at his position but is statistically among the worst starters, or a bench player who won't see as much playing time but will produce better results when he plays?

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Depends on how likely it is that the player will improve. But then again, I guess if the player sucks I don't have to start him. So I guess it also depends which categories I'm going for. Last year the Reds won the World Series despite being at the bottom of the league in batting average. If you know your team is consistently going to lose one of the rate stats (AVG or OPS, ERA or BB/9) then I think you have to consider starting a player even though he's below average for the boost he gives you in the counting stats, no matter how small that boost is. If you're a team that's average all around, however, it's a tougher call. If you're a team built to win AVG, OPS, ERA and BB/9, obviously you're only gonna start players who are good enough to help you there.