This is a really interesting point. I did an extremely cursory comparison of performance by CFs that also played other positions in a given season using RZR (extremely cursory=clicked around for guys that played both in a given year and compared their performance at each position.) I didn’t actually see any evidence that OFs that play CF get more outs per chance in a corner.

However, CFs as a group (within said cursory examination) perform better than players in a corner (median RZR about .025 higher than than RF and .035 higher than LF.) They also have a greater number of chances per inning than the corners.

The increased value of CF defense, on this little study, seems to lie in it’s getting more action, and hence the greater value of reliability in each play. However, it’s hard to be sure that guys that usually play a corner and do center in a pinch would perform as well in center as they do in a corner.

These cases are of course easy. When teams actually move players, they seem, anecdotally, to be in cases where it is basically a push; Ichiro, for instance, seems to field just well enough in RF to precisely counter the change in replacement level from RF in CF. In these cases, the right thing to do is to move the player should it ever seem useful to do so.

It’s sort of paradoxical: a rule of thumb of good management is not to have guys playing positions they are overqualified for, because you lose value. The corollary, though, is not to be too slavish following the rule, because you don’t lose *a lot* of value. If there are other arguments in favor of the move — if you can regain the value at another position (because of a trade or because of payroll flexibility) or in the long run — go right ahead.

The other very interesting corollary is that *the variance in defensive value lost by such a move is greater than the lost value.* IOW, there are players who are perfectly adequate at a given position who, when moved one notch easier on the defensive spectrum, gain more defensive value than usual, and more, in fact, than the offensive value lost. The classic example is Albert Pujols, who can almost certainly play an adequate 3B but whose defensive numbers are so high at 1B that it’s unlikely he would just lose the average amount of D value if moved to 3B. Another example appears to be Nick Swisher, who actually hasn’t been bad in CF (somewhat below average, but not inadequate) but has played a ton better in RF.

If you think about it, *this has to be the case* or else there would never be any question as to what a guy’s best position would be (e.g., whether Dustin Pedroia and then Jed Lowrie could stay as SS). That it’s not always obvious where a guy should play pretty much proves Dave’s argument that the net loss in value as you move on the defensive spectrum is just a handful of runs per notch.

OH, BTW, .8 runs per play is for singles. Fielding Bible Plus / Minus actually reports bases in addition to plays (it’s the difference between their “enhanced” and basic totals), and you can count those as .25 runs. For a system like PMR that just reports plays, you can count an OF play as closer to 1 run.

I think that is where my problem with the argument comes in. It is more difficult to find a great defender who is good enough with the bat, than it is to find a guy that can hit. So you are losing runs in left field, although it may only be 5, and then you may lose runs in CF as well. So if the guy can play CF and hit it is more valuable as far as building a team long term. I see the value in having great defenders in the corners and certainly your argument is a good one, but positional adjustments are definately needed.

I don’t know that VORP or other stats like it do it correctly (I certainly don’t understand the metrics well enough to know.) But there has to be some positional adjustments made.

Dave,

While I agree that perception plays a large part, doesn’t skill also come into play? I’m sure we all agree that CF is a much more taxing position defensively than is LF. Therefore, you want a player that plays better defense in the position. Now, slide that highly-skilled defensive centerfielder to a corner outfield spot where they will have less ground to cover. You’re basically plugging CF defensive skills into LF, and defensive performance in LF should improve.

Now, here’s hoping I got my italics right. Otherwise, I’m going to look like a fool.

People, you need to get out and vote for Dave, he needs a LOT of votes!!! http://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2008/11/06/vote-for-the-winner-of-the-2008-blogging-scholarship/

As a clarification, when you note that each play made is worth about 0.8 runs, I assume that is for outfield plays, where a play not made most probably is a double and sometimes a triple. What is it for the infield? Even there, I assume there is a difference between MI and CI in that the CI plays are worth more as the missed plays go into the corners for doubles more often than for MI, I would think.

I was going to examine the difference in positions by plays handled, but regular defensive stats don’t differentiate between putout by someone throwing to you or you taking it to the bag. Perhaps Dewan has that type of data.

Actually, I think the reason CFs perform better in LF or RF is simply due to the change in who they’re being compared to. The rankings are relative to the player’s peers, and when you’re getting compared to Ibanez, Dunn, and Ramirez instead of Sizemore, Gomez, and Beltran, you’re going to look better.

Defense in left field is a minor factor for a team’s overall defensive ability because there are so few balls hit to left field. Most of them are either routine plays that any fielder will make, or they are impossible plays that nobody makes.

Why do you believe this is true? It’s clearly not, but I have no idea why you’d even think this.

How is that ratio of plays to runs calculated?

Each play made is about .8 runs.

I tend to think that positional adjustments are still justified on some level.

Oh, I’m not arguing that we just stop doing position adjustments. I am arguing that there’s a better way to do it than how VORP and stats of that ilk currently handle it.