from Amazon
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Fielding differences in the positions
There are alot of threads in this blog regarding the relative differences in positions, insofar as fielding is concerned. Here is a recap:
I use UZR for players who played multiple positions, 2003-07. I’ve also done it in the past for 1999-03 to similar effect.
The ones I stand completely behind are the OF ones, relative to each other. Not only do I have an overwhelming amount of data there, the skillsets required to play the three positions overlap to a great deal. And the result there is that the average fielder in CF is +1.0 wins better than the average fielder in the corners (who themselves are fairly even). Managers are smart here in that, over a long period of time, you will find that the offensive runs created are about +1.0 wins higher by the corner OF than the CF. So, we’ve got great equilibrium here (though not necessarily every year).
For the IF (2B,SS,3B), relative to each other, I’m not as strong on those, since selective sampling issues will rear its ugly head here. Guys go SS to 3B and SS to 2B, but they don’t necessarily go 3B to SS. There’s a period of adjustment (familiarity) since the skillset don’t necessarily overlap. That said, 2B and 3B are very close, and any time we see how SS do at 3B or 2B, they do not standout as one would expect. The net result is about a 0.5 win gap between SS and 2B/3B.
Now, the dangerous part: comparing these three IF positions to the three OF positions. Since almost all moves are IF to OF, we have the familiarity issue. And, the skillsets required are not close to the same. And of course, selective sampling.
But, we do have one savior: firstbaseman. Alot of players move 3B to 1B and 2B to 1B. And the net result there is that those IF are +1.0 wins above 1B. And, we have alot of corner OF that move to 1B. The net result there is that the corner OF are +0.5 wins above 1B.
We do have some 2B/3B that move to LF/RF, and it’s somewhat consistent with the above pattern.
My method gives you the positional difference as so:
+1.0 C
+0.5 SS/CF
+0.0 2B/3B
-0.5 LF/RF
-1.0 1B
-2.0 DH
However, let’s say you don’t buy it. You buy the CF/LF/RF (as you should), and you can kind of buy the SS/2B/3B. But, you think that 2B/3B/CF should be even. If you do that, you get these kind of relative rankings, setting SS as “+0.75”:
+1.25 C (just forcing this one in)
+0.75 SS
+0.25 2B/3B/CF
-0.75 LF/RF
-1.25 1B
That could work. Now you have to accept that the 2B/3B is 1.5 wins ahead of 1B. The data doesn’t support that, but that’s what you get if you want to bring down the OF and up the other IF.
You have certain constraints that you have to deal with. The OF ones we know and we can live with and accept. The 1B should be worse than the corner OF. The SS should be a little better than the 2B/3B, but not that much better. Certainly not the gap as CF compared to LF/RF.
The last chart is really about as far as you can possibly go (catcher excluded).