from Amazon
Thursday, December 18, 2008
2B v 3B
Great discussions at Fangraphs:
It seems apparent that when teams are sorting out where players who been deemed not good enough to handle SS should go, the overriding determining factor is body type, and specifically height. Tall players simply don’t go to second base, and short guys don’t go to third base regardless of their actual defensive abilities.
and I offer my two cents:
This is a fascinating discussion, and I’m glad it’s happening in more places now.
We all agree that you need a strong arm at 3B, and you need more speed at 2B. Do we necessarily agree that being taller, in and of itself, is important at 3B? All other things equal, sure. But, what if the guy 3 inches shorter has a stronger arm and weaker legs than the taller guy? Then what? Who plays 3B and who plays 2b?
It would seem that we should expect SOME tall weak-armed fast-legged players at 2B and SOME short strong-armed slow-legged players at 3B. After all, the player’s height is a secondary or tertiary consideration.
But, based on the players we actually see there, the height is a primary requirement. And, since we agree that we don’t really need a tall 3B, then the reasoning for it is that the teams use the height as a proxy. That even the tall guy can run down 90 feet in 4 seconds while the short guy does it in 4.2, then the team bias is to “mentally” add 0.2 seconds to the tall guy and subtract 0.2 to the short guy. (Numbers for illustration only. Illustration only made to speak in numbers instead of adjectives.) Similarly for 3B and strength.
The larger point is that we can’t necessarily accept that the teams have been able to find the proper equilibrium point between offense and defense at 2B/3B, especially since players are humans, and are not necessarily very accepting of moving around and learning and relearning positions, and being traded from team to team, so that both sides of the aquarium have exactly the same amount of water.