Comments on: More 2B/3B stuff

By: M.Twain

M.Twain — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:59:43 +0000

Smaller guys tend to be more agile. Turning a double-play at 2B requires that agility.

By: David MVP Eckstein

David MVP Eckstein — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:13:47 +0000

Perhaps it is an issue of pure durability. The average 2B (min. 1000 innings) over the past 3 seasons started 277.3 games and played in 290.1. The average 3B (min. 1000 innings) over the past 3 seasons, however, started 263.6 games and played in 277.1. Despite the frailties of Ian Kinsler, Aaron Hill, Chase Utley and Rickie Weeks, 2Bs, on average, saw more time on the field than did 3Bs. Then again, 3Bs have had their share of injured played over the past 3 seasons in Joe Crede, Adrian Beltre, Mike Lowell, Aramis Ramirez and Troy Glaus.

It’s surely not a distribution based on “glove or bat.” While MLB 3B hitters (min. 500 PA) over the past 3 seasons hit .270/.341/.438 (.779 OPS) and 2B hitters (min. 500 PA) over the same 3 season sample size hit .278/.341/.416 (.757 OPS), the average 2B (min. 1000 innings) had only a +0.6 UZR/150 compared to a +0.8 UZR/150 for 3B (min. 1000 innings).

Any other postulations as to the reason for the distribution? Is it, as you suggest, something cosmetic, or is there something not quantified in the data at play? Does playing 2B, which requires a player to “go both ways” in making outs, require more althletic, healthier types at the helm than does 3B, which generally only requires a player to go to his left in making 80% of his plays? Does a stronger bat equivocate a stronger throwing arm?

http://gameofinches.blogspot.com/2010/02/skill-and-health-distribution-of-2bs.html

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:03:17 +0000

I think there’s an important issue missing here. Most of the guys who have seen a lot of time at both second and third have played a lot more at 2B in their careers (not Iwamura, but certainly most of the guys who have done this). Mostly, they’re utility players who played mostly at 2B and SS in the minors, and are out of position at third. This is because of the perception that 3B is the easiest position, meaning that teams are reluctant to move 3Bs to 2B. Assuming that experience matters, and also that the relative importance of different parts of the skill set matters, I would argue that it is quite likely that it is harder to find a good 2B who is also a good hitter than it is at 3B, and that wholesale conversion of marginal 3Bs into 2Bs isn’t going to work.

By: david h

david h — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:51:57 +0000

Perhaps it’s a comfort/injury thing (though not the injury rate explanation suggested by Jack F above, which I like). This is just wild speculation, but I’ll share my thought:

Pre-pitch positioning tends to get infielders into a bit of a crouch, ready to spring into action. At 2b, due to covering more ground, the player often has to get a bit upright, run to the ball, and then get back down to make the play. This could be a strain on a taller player’s back even if it doesn’t affect the amount of plays he is able to make. A shorter guy might not feel the effects as much.

At 3rd, the player gets low before the pitch and usually just reacts from that position to the ball without fully coming to a more upright running position.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:27:23 +0000

My bad, it looks like those selection issues are being addressed tomorrow

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:19:00 +0000

I like the explanation about range being needed for 2B and not really for 3B.

Dave makes the argument that guys UZR’s dont really drop when they move from second to third base. This could be because of a small sample size, but it is DEFINITELY affected by the huge selection bias that only certain players are picked to play both 2B and 3B positions.

By: lookatthosetwins

lookatthosetwins — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:59:04 +0000

I didn’t say that there were a ton of large shortstops out there, all i said was that there are some, and there basically weren’t any back in the day. These guys never would have been considered to play shortstop, whether they could or not. This obviously has something to do with the different health and conditioning that we have now, but I think it’s at least a small change in the thinking of scouts and coaches.

By: philosofool

philosofool — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:50:05 +0000

This is a great discussion. I keep seeking good answers and not finding them. So, as I proceed to offer explanations, bear in mind that I’m not convinced of any of them.

What’s wrong with the following explanation: guys with strong arms are more likely to have power bats? (Note, the converse needn’t be true.) Now, it might be that height is a common cause of each, but the reason we actually find better bats at 3B would be because better arms tend to make better bats, not because people are specifically selecting for size.

By: Teej

Teej — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:29:59 +0000

I would imagine that height tends to correlate fairly well with arm strength, so that colors the impressions of the people making these decisions.

If we have a short guy and a tall guy with exactly the same defensive skills (including arm strength and accuracy), maybe the height discrepancy leads to the notion that the taller guy has a better arm, even if it’s not true in this case. So while the decision to put the tall guy at third in this scenario isn’t based on a real difference in skill, but an idea that is generally true.

That’s about the best I can come up with.

By: lar

lar — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:02:23 +0000

I don’t know exactly if 2B get injured more often than other positions, but they do tend to play fewer games, from what I’ve found. It’s entirely likely, in my mind, that this is because they get injured more. Of course, maybe they play fewer games or get injured more because they’re smaller players… (and so on and so on)

A couple of weeks back, Joe Posnanski was talking about how the various positions were reflected in the HOF, and someone brought up the observation that 2B seem to play fewer games than other positions, and thus are unable to accumulate enough of the counting stats to make certain voters notice them.

I did a quick survey of 20th century players who had played more than 1000 games at any given position, and calculated the average games those players played over their career (including all positions). I also did this for players with 1200, 1300, and 1400 games played at a given position.

It holds pretty steady that long-time 2B play fewer games in their career than other positions, though the numbers change some as we limit the group more and more (ie, as we get into the really long lasting players)

You can see the numbers for each position at this link (be sure to read the comments, as I include more data down there):

http://wezen-ball.blogspot.com/2008/12/career-length-of-players-by-position.html

(there was also some good discussion about this point on the forums at Bill James Online)