Tweet
I took "Baseball Between the Numbers" by Baseball Prospectus out of the library and was reading through some of the chapters. I ran across an interesting chart in a section titled "Did Derek Jeter Deserve the Gold Glove?" In this section, the writer James Click, mentions that Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus suggested in 2004 that Jeter would be better off playing center field rather than shortstop. According to Sheehan, that would allow the Yankees to fill a hole in center field and allow Alex Rodriguez to move to his best position at short.
I will quote some of the rest of the passages here:
"This idea, as well as others floated during the brief public debate revolved around Bill James's idea of a defensive spectrum. In its original version, moving from left to right in order of increasing difficulty, the spectrum looked like this:
1B - LF - RF - 3B - CF - 2B - SS - C
James determined the spectrum both from observation and from the tendencies of players to change positions later in their careers as their defense eroded. "
The author goes on to mention a few examples such as Craig Biggio, Cal Ripken, and Pete Rose as examples of shifting through the spectrum.
Next the author states:
"Though its a handy guide to the relative difficulty of defensive positions, the spectrum does not estimate how a player would perform defensively if moved to another spot on the diamond. Players who saw a significant time at more than one position in a single season can give an idea of how well any player would do at different defensive positions. This method will likely downplay the difference between positions because teams will use only the most versatile defensive players at more than one position."
The book goes on to mention the performance of Melvin Mora. Mora's performance seems to follow the pattern of the defensive spectrum.
Next they introduce a chart which is attached:
"The results of comparing the various performances can be found in Table 3-2.3. (Catchers have been excluded as catching is distinctly different from the other positions."
"The vertical columns are the position from which the player moved and the horizontal rows are the new positions. The numbers show change in runs per year, in going from the old position to the new. For example, a player moving from left field, the second column, to third, the fourth row, would be estimated to be 2.4 runs worse at third than he was at left. (The reverse transition - moving from third to left - is not shown because it is simply the negative of the displayed value: in this case, the player would be approximately 2.4 runs better in left.)"
The author goes on to mention:
"There is one correction to James's original scale: Third and center should be switched. Players who played both third and center were 4.4 runs better in center than at third; one of the largest differences on the chart. Other than that the spectrum falls into place as James originally drew it up."
My Observations
The book doesn't mention the time period involved or the players in the study so I don't know all the details. Taking the chart at face value, one of the things that jumped out at me was that not only does third base seem to deserve a shift to the right of the spectrum, first base also deserves a shift to the right. Players moving from 1st to either right or center actually show a net defensive increase (0.6 and 0.8 respectively). From 1B to LF shows a slight decrease of -0.1. Players moving from 1B to any of the other infield positions rate better than players moving from any of the outfield positions to an infield position. According to the chart, the defensive spectrum should look like this:
LF - RF - CF - 1B - 3B - 2B - SS - C
First base carries the stigma of being the postion where you put the big slow guy on the team that can hit a ton. It is also the only infield position where you can play a lefty. On the other hand, the first baseman is involved in just about every infield play. I've seen a lot of throws in the dirt to mediocre first baseman that are not picked that cost teams.
As the author mentions this study was based upon players that are able to play multiple positions so it doesn't include players that have a limited skill set tailored to one position. We don't know exactly how Frank Thomas would fare if we moved him from 1B to 2B or if we moved Greg Luzinski from LF to SS. And unless we want to see a new bloopers and bleepers video, that's a good thing.
On the other hand I think it goes without saying that there are many good defensive shortstops that would not be good at positions to the left of the spectrum. Ozzie Smith, and to a greater extreme David Eckstein, could both probably play first adequately> However, they are such small targets that most teams would not even consider them for the position if they were not otherwise able to play shortstop.
I still haven't figured out in my mind how to weigh the importance of various positions. I know some people weigh it based strictly upon the average offensive performance of players at each position. While I think that carries some weight, I don't favor that approach as the only way to weigh each position.
How do you guys value the importance of each defensive position?
Do you think that a particular defensive position is more important based soley on the offensive productivity associated with that position?
What other factors do you look at?
I will quote some of the rest of the passages here:
"This idea, as well as others floated during the brief public debate revolved around Bill James's idea of a defensive spectrum. In its original version, moving from left to right in order of increasing difficulty, the spectrum looked like this:
1B - LF - RF - 3B - CF - 2B - SS - C
James determined the spectrum both from observation and from the tendencies of players to change positions later in their careers as their defense eroded. "
The author goes on to mention a few examples such as Craig Biggio, Cal Ripken, and Pete Rose as examples of shifting through the spectrum.
Next the author states:
"Though its a handy guide to the relative difficulty of defensive positions, the spectrum does not estimate how a player would perform defensively if moved to another spot on the diamond. Players who saw a significant time at more than one position in a single season can give an idea of how well any player would do at different defensive positions. This method will likely downplay the difference between positions because teams will use only the most versatile defensive players at more than one position."
The book goes on to mention the performance of Melvin Mora. Mora's performance seems to follow the pattern of the defensive spectrum.
Next they introduce a chart which is attached:
"The results of comparing the various performances can be found in Table 3-2.3. (Catchers have been excluded as catching is distinctly different from the other positions."
"The vertical columns are the position from which the player moved and the horizontal rows are the new positions. The numbers show change in runs per year, in going from the old position to the new. For example, a player moving from left field, the second column, to third, the fourth row, would be estimated to be 2.4 runs worse at third than he was at left. (The reverse transition - moving from third to left - is not shown because it is simply the negative of the displayed value: in this case, the player would be approximately 2.4 runs better in left.)"
The author goes on to mention:
"There is one correction to James's original scale: Third and center should be switched. Players who played both third and center were 4.4 runs better in center than at third; one of the largest differences on the chart. Other than that the spectrum falls into place as James originally drew it up."
My Observations
The book doesn't mention the time period involved or the players in the study so I don't know all the details. Taking the chart at face value, one of the things that jumped out at me was that not only does third base seem to deserve a shift to the right of the spectrum, first base also deserves a shift to the right. Players moving from 1st to either right or center actually show a net defensive increase (0.6 and 0.8 respectively). From 1B to LF shows a slight decrease of -0.1. Players moving from 1B to any of the other infield positions rate better than players moving from any of the outfield positions to an infield position. According to the chart, the defensive spectrum should look like this:
LF - RF - CF - 1B - 3B - 2B - SS - C
First base carries the stigma of being the postion where you put the big slow guy on the team that can hit a ton. It is also the only infield position where you can play a lefty. On the other hand, the first baseman is involved in just about every infield play. I've seen a lot of throws in the dirt to mediocre first baseman that are not picked that cost teams.
As the author mentions this study was based upon players that are able to play multiple positions so it doesn't include players that have a limited skill set tailored to one position. We don't know exactly how Frank Thomas would fare if we moved him from 1B to 2B or if we moved Greg Luzinski from LF to SS. And unless we want to see a new bloopers and bleepers video, that's a good thing.
On the other hand I think it goes without saying that there are many good defensive shortstops that would not be good at positions to the left of the spectrum. Ozzie Smith, and to a greater extreme David Eckstein, could both probably play first adequately> However, they are such small targets that most teams would not even consider them for the position if they were not otherwise able to play shortstop.
I still haven't figured out in my mind how to weigh the importance of various positions. I know some people weigh it based strictly upon the average offensive performance of players at each position. While I think that carries some weight, I don't favor that approach as the only way to weigh each position.
How do you guys value the importance of each defensive position?
Do you think that a particular defensive position is more important based soley on the offensive productivity associated with that position?
What other factors do you look at?
Comment