Defense & Position Rankings?

[thefeckcampaign]

I find it interesting over the history of baseball, everyone has ranked players according to position. Makes sense in many ways, but it seems that many of the new statisticians do not seem to value defense as much as others have.

I've seen many state that perhaps the greatest defensive shortstop who ever played the game in Ozzie Smith should not be in the HOF. I have also seen many state that an amazing glove hand at first such as Hernandez or Mattingly is practically worthless considering the position they played.

If it is really all about the players bat, why even bother ranking players by position?

[Bothrops Atrox]

I have seen just the opposite. New statistics such as WAR are quantifying defense and position in such was that the Willie Davises, Willie Randolphs, Pee Wee Resses, and Bobby Griches of the word have higher scores than the Jim Rices, Albert Belles, Juan Gonzales, and in some cases, even Manny Ramirezes. The "WAR (or Win Shares, etc.) has to be garbage because there is no way that fill in your favorite good-defensive middle infielder here is better than fill in your least favorite slugging, no defense no speed, 1B here cries have been numerous here and elsewhere. I would say that sabermetricians appreaciate defense more than the typicla traditionalist, and certainly more than MVP and HOF voters who have rarely taken defense or position into consideration.

As far as 1B defense: the idea is that a great defensive 1B will still have the same net value as a bleh defensive SS due to positional scarcity. Nobody would ever suggest that a Hernadez or Pujols at 1B is not better than a Fielder or a Howard.

The entire "field" of sabermetrics was inspired by the idea of shedding light on the aspects of baseball that have traditionally been undervalued (defense and position, getting on base, etc.) and overvalued (Wins, RBI, BA with no context, etc.)

[leewileyfan]

I am really into defense and its history. However, I believe that sabermetrics generally takes the approach that immediately presumes the inherent value of certain positions over others, even to the extent of adding + values for the position [not the play there] and - values [likely biased, right out of the chute.

Certainly, most fans can "see" that the image of defense, its quality and challenges are "steeper" fo a center fielder or a shortstop than they are for a first baseman; but to relegate some positions to a "relative" trash heap in devising a metric, for me, iherently undermines the credibility of the metric itself.

Batting run production, by whatever hitting style or specializations, is a test that can be exhibited 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 times in a game; but the same cannot be said for defensive opportunity.

You have a batter with 685 PA and 597 AB over 162 games and you have a considerable heap of offensive opportunity. The busiest shortstop EVER to play MLB would be very hard-pressed to match either number in assists [where the biggest IF challenges arise]; OR, for that matter, to ever exceed such numbers in total chances. How many CF can we name who hauled in such numbers of several individual seasons in a career?

Inevitably, those Runs Created will pile up with a ready denominator of PA to provide a production rate. The defender, no matter how great, will be OUTSTANDING if he saves 40 runs on defense per season, at any position.

So, one might ask: If the Cardinals had to replace prime Ozzie Smith with prime Vern Stephens, would they have won fewer games? Or, if the Mets had to replace prime Keith Hernandez with prime Jimmie Foxx would they have won fewer games?

Much as I love defense, on a position basis, there is always that VOLUME of opportunity with the bat that will eventually shoulder great glove men to the side, especially of they are "adequate" with the bat, but no better.

[drstrangelove]

If it is really all about the players bat, why even bother ranking players by position?

Disclaimer: I am NOT going to argue that the current method of calculating positional adjustment is correct or that dWAR is correct. I'm speaking only to the notion of having a positional adjustment or having dWAR somewhere, somehow as a means of capturing value and comparing player contributions.

There are really 2 considerations, which somewhat overlap, but are distinctly different.

1) There is an obvious difference in skill requirements for certain positions. Willie Mays, for example, was clearly capable of playing every position, possibly with the exception of catcher. Many players who have played first base for most of their career are doing so because they are sorely lacking in the skill to play any other position. Some with good arms and decent reflexes can and do often move to third. Some might get moved to left field. The reason for this is in consideration #2.

2) The difference in defensive results from a good, average or poor defensive player at each position is disproportionate. A good, average or poor first baseman will normally have obviously different results in defense, but as long as they can catch a ball thrown to them (the vast majority of their job), the resulting differences relate to range, arm strength and accuracy. Now consider: there are fewer left handed hitters and pulling a ground ball down the right field line is relatively infrequent. So, let's consider that weaknesses in those areas for a poor versus a good first baseman can be calculated. Now, a good versus a poor defensive shortstop is a completely different matter because the number of grounders going towards that part of the field dwarf what goes to the first baseman.

Having poor range and / or a poor arm at shortstop will provide the opposition with many more chances to come to the plate than if the same weaknesses are at first base.

How many? That is a statistical question, but a good shortstop can easily make more than 45 more plays than a poor shortstop. If you give the other team 45 more outs (it's really more because some of the plays would have been DPs), then it's similar to the batter having 45 more singles. Thus, adding 45 singles to a SS who bats .230, over 600 AB, is more like a player who bats .305. That is a lot. This is disproportionate to first base, where the difference is likely to be 15-20 plays.

Now, the problem is that many first baseman would not even qualify as a poor SS. Their range would be so poor and sometimes their arm so weak, that we might need to adjust the 45 to let's say 75. That takes the .230 to .343.

Granted of course the first baseman might have a lot of power. But it is an example to show that we can't ignore the position players are in. A power hitter at first with limited range and no arm versus a light hitting good fielding shortstop is not a proper comparison. Both contribute to the team, and even if in total the first baseman contributes more with the bat, he would lose a lot back on defense at a skilled position.

So in summary, being good defensively helps the team MORE at some positions than others, due to the nature of the position. Conversely, being poor defensively hurts the team less at some positions. As a result, good defense is valued more and hitting valued less at some positions, and the reverse at others. To ignore that is an unfair comparison of players contribution to their teams success. Moreover, assuming or acting as if all players have the skill to play every position equally well is incorrect. An average SS may not hit as well as an average 1B, but we know that if they swapped positions, the team would be much worse off.

Would teams prefer to have 7 good hitters who are defensive liabilities? Well, they aren't at first base, so we know the answer there. It's debatable of course, but given the choice teams have always seemed to think that some positions have to be filled with skilled defensive players.

Stealing from the post above: It's obvious you'd want Foxx over Hernandez. The question is what would the Athletics / Red Sox have wanted to do if Foxx could have played SS, 2B, CF or RF, for example, at a decent level defensively. The answer is they would have wanted to move him, since doing so would have opened up first base to a good hitter who was a liability defensively elsewhere on the field. In this, we see that Foxx's contribution was one-sided, albeit significant, but which is why we compare him to first baseman and not other more skilled positions. This is why players who play skilled positions well AND carry a big bat are immensely prized.

[leewileyfan]

My point, to distill the entire topic doen to something manageable is this:

1. Each position has its own unique demands. One of the DEMANDS of 1B is that the player MUST sacrifice range to meet the needs of his pitcher-catcher to HOLD baserunners close to the bag. RANGE, per se, is thus very much discounted by that very necessity, which is contrary to free-ranging play.

2. The argument that has a 1B "auditioning" to play shortstop may be a clever device for portraying 1B as a comparatively limited [if not clumsy] position; but the shoe can as easily be placed on the other foot.

3. One day, I shall dig into my research notes for a direct quote; but there are several paraphrased allusions to a very old baseball observations, to wit: Guys who can hit are like the sap that runs through the roots system and up to the branches ... strong and irreplaceable. However, shake the tree vigoroussly and gloves will fall profusely from the branches. The core meaning is that gifted batters are rare; while defenders are a dime a dozen. [These are not my words; but it is a very old baseball saw of long standing].

4. In the original game and through the deadball era, let's not forget that 1B and 3B were crucial positions indeed ... mirror images of a "hot corner" where bunts or wicked shots might be pulled ... dangerous for position players playing "in."

5. The easy stereotype at 1B is for a "big and lumbering guy who can't gey out of his own way;" but there are several players sprinkled around the MLB landscape who may have been big, but who also had a bit of versatility: Rudy York played 1B and caught with some distinction; and Jimmie Foxx played 1B, caught, played 3B and the OF ... even pitched some.

At 1B, while surrendering 40% of his time to holding runners on base, a 1B is, in fact, busier than any player on the diamond on interacting with the ball: throws over from the pitcher, really anchoring him to the bag [and snap throws from the catcher]; being [usually] at the end of infield double-plays. How many errant throws from any of the above does a 1B "save" in a season? I don't know; but I'd guess the number is pretty high.

A metric based on understanding on the dynamics of the game will build in realistic parameters to measure the damage-reward for defensive gems [or lapses] defined by the nature of balls fielded and the damage done [at THAT position] by miscues. One need not put + or - values to positions by their very nature. That is a bit like Pin the Tail on the Donkey ... penalty and reward before the game begins.

In an earlier post on this thread I asked about Bill Mazeroski's and Ozzie Smith's teams with different players. I can simplify that by simply urging posters to do what I did, late last night:

a. Look up the 1960 Pirates, then each other team [2B] in the N.L. that season. How many N.L. 1960 second basemen, replacing Maz, would have cost the Pirates the pennant.

b. Same exercise for 1982 at SS. How many N'L. SS, in place of Ozzie, would have cost the Cardinals the pennant?

Defense is marvelous. However, it has limitations; and often, some of those limitations are offset by merely competent, passable glove work + a better bat.

[brett]

Whether we buy into the concept of positional value per se or not, it is obvious that different positions produce at different offensive levels. Middle infielders produce about 85% as hitters as an average hitter. First basemen about 15% more. If a player is worth in line with 90 runs on offense, then a first baseman would be worth on average about 113 runs, and a middle infielder about 77 runs. That alone would make a positional adjustment appropriate IF the goal is to estimate a players contribution to a team's winning. A shortstop who hits the league average would be worth about +13 runs on the average SS and a first baseman about -13 runs.

WAR also recognizes that this broad a range is too great because while first baseman mey hit 15% better than average, they are not on average 15% better offensive players, because they tend to lose runs with their baserunning. WAR actually puts an average hitting first baseman at about -10 and shortstop at -7 runs, only about 2/3 what some prior evaluations did by looking only at the hitting component of offense.

WAR and positional adjustments however, while they have used the general range for positional values to match offensive variations, do not use strict offensive production by position. For example, shortstops and second baseman hit about the same, but shortstops gain 7 runs while second baseman only 4. Also DH's do not outproduce first basemen but they receive -14 runs in adjustment to -10 for first basemen so while the range is in line with the range of offensive production, there is a common sense approach to the defensive spectrum.

There is a mathematical disconnect though. We can say how many runs an average hitter produces, but we really can not say how many runs an average fielder saves. I think WAR gives fielders only about 30% of total run "prevention" value which is fairly low among metrics, some which rate fielders as being worth 44-48% of run prevention.

So WAR not only gives a smaller defensive positional adjustment than other metrics, it gives values in line with OFFENSIVE variations across positions, and it rates the overall fielding component lower than most systems. The positional adjustment in WAR is fairly small. On the whole though I would say that to argue that a shortstop producing 17 fewer runs than a first baseman, both of them fielding at average levels for their position is quite reasonable.

[leewileyfan]

The instant anyone suggests to me that a SS is + and a 1B is -, I must withdraw from the discussion, as long as that is presented as some kind of justified rule-making.

Studying 113 seasons of MLB dfense at each position, I had, at one point created a Tabel of "Best" defenders at each position for eac league [1901 through present]. The intended by-product of this effort was a hoped-for sense of value disribution between Defense Runs and the other side of the Defense ledger: Pitching Runs.

Each position was studied and when the BEST defender at any position was determined, he was entered into the Table for that season at his position. Defense Runs were + [better] than average. The sums were rather volatile in variations, from a cumulative positive sum of 55 runs to some seasons in which +160 runs were posted by the "best."

It is highly unlikely that a prime defender at 1B will rise much beyond +10-12 Defense Runs above average, not due to some foreseen [or forecast] ineptitude of a player at the position, but because positional demands inhibit both range and opportunity. Similarly, the physical and varied demands on a variety of skill sets, and the wear and tear of behind-the-plate gear, crouching and framing, will contain Defense Runs for catchers to net levels not much beyond 1B. Then, too, playing time for catchers is much discounted in the net analyses.

Third base, like 1B, is largely limited, especially to the decline in "small ball" and the less-than-likely relative numbers of pulled batted balls into the "ray of zone" for the player, inhibited by batted ball projectories and the relative distance of the player position from the point of contact, bat with ball. There is a broader arc to SS and to 2B.

Range is a very big deal in the OF; and occasional seasons like thos put up by Erstad several years ago can develop outlier performances of +40 or so Defense Runs ... numbers both high and very real ... the further the play from the plate the more harm done by misplays ... the bigger reward made for excellent coverage.

Positions don't need mathematical handicapping. Within each realm, every position tells its own tale, unique, but always part of the whole.

When this topic gets animated, I just envision anyone wanting to prove a point on position value. Start the first inning with nine gloved players in the field. After one inning, select a position to eliminate ... to sit on the bench. Third inning, remove another. And so on. By the bottom of the 6th, I'm pretty sure, the point is made.

Now, as to what positions are most essential? Pitchers and catchers can be eliminated by having batters hit fungoes.

[brett]

A bullpen pitcher can play first base and possibly not cost any runs in a game. I'd rather put a bench second baseman at catcher than a bench catcher at second base.

The positional value is evident in offensive variability. If we have a player who could play first base or shortstop both at an average level, and hit the league average, where would we play him? Let's say he's worth 90 runs. Play him at first, and get a 75 run shortstop in the lineup, or play him at short and add a 115 run first baseman to the lineup. Its economics. A team would end up playing him at short because it is worth hypothetically precisely that many runs to have him there.

[leewileyfan]

A bullpen pitcher can play first base and possibly not cost any runs in a game. I'd rather put a bench second baseman at catcher than a bench catcher at second base.

If your "bullpen pitcher" jappened to be a struggling young Jim Lemon, you might have a point. Otherwise, maybe not.

:The positional value is evident in offensive variability. If we have a player who could play first base or shortstop both at an average level, and hit the league average, where would we play him? Let's say he's worth 90 runs. Play him at first, and get a 75 run shortstop in the lineup, or play him at short and add a 115 run first baseman to the lineup. Its economics. A team would end up playing him at short because it is worth hypothetically precisely that many runs to have him there.

You attempt to close the debate with a menu of hand-picked personnel, strangley give unique talent sets to suit your point.

In actuality, MLB has historically [and presently] scouted for, and developed, players who exhibit talents specifically suited to positional modeling. What has happened, as an often unfortunate product of that modeling, is the etching of certain degrees of ineptitude to certain positions in contrast to the sometimes exaggerated giftedness of other positions.

In between are the human elements who must execute position play: creating offensive runs and decreasing opponents runs.

Each position is critical in its own way.

[BigRon]

If your "bullpen pitcher" jappened to be a struggling young Jim Lemon, you might have a point. Otherwise, maybe not.



You attempt to close the debate with a menu of hand-picked personnel, strangley give unique talent sets to suit your point.

In actuality, MLB has historically [and presently] scouted for, and developed, players who exhibit talents specifically suited to positional modeling. What has happened, as an often unfortunate product of that modeling, is the etching of certain degrees of ineptitude to certain positions in contrast to the sometimes exaggerated giftedness of other positions.

In between are the human elements who must execute position play: creating offensive runs and decreasing opponents runs.

Each position is critical in its own way.

lee, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you arguing that no one position is more valuable defensively than another? Obviously, every defensive position must be filled- we all know that. Obviously, every defensive position has importance- we also know that. Obviously, each defensive position requires different skills or talents than others- sometimes the differences are slight, sometimes they are significant.

If we ignore pitchers for the time being, and focus on the position players on a Major League roster- let's say 14 players, accounting for an 11 man pitching staff- what do we have?

Something like 5 outfielders, 7 infielders, 2 catchers.

These are all good/superior athletes- they're playing ML baseball. But, if we forced ourselves to play them out of position, what would we find? I would be pretty confident that most or all of the 14 could learn to play first base, with some "spring training", at least passably well. But, now let's force them all to play shortstop, or centerfield. Quite a few of these guys- Major Leaguers all- could not play either of those positions adequately regardless of how much training they received. The demands of quickness, agility, and possibly arm strength would eliminate quite a few of the 14 from the mix. I know of only a few ML first basemen or catchers who possessed the physical attributes to allow them to play centerfield passably well at the ML level- Vic Power and Craig Biggio come immediately to mind, and there are others- but they're few and far between. But, most middle infielders and outfielders could learn to play first base adequately or better. True, a few short guys like Freddie Patek or Vic Davilillo would present small targets at first, but for most that wouldn't be a problem. On a typical ML roster, perhaps 4 or 5 could learn to play SS or CF adequately or better- but 12 or 13 or maybe 14 could learn to play first base adequately or better.

So, there are fewer guys available to play certain positions at the ML level- first, most aren't fast/quick/agile enough to be shortstops or CFers- and a significant portion of those who are can't hit well enough to provide much/any net value to their team. That's why the figurative handful of great hitting CFers and shortstops- Mays, Mantle, Cobb, Speaker, DiMaggio, Griffey Jr., Snider, Wagner, Vaughan, Rodriguez, Yount- are so valuable to their teams. They provide acceptable to outstanding dfense at their position while hitting far above the norm for that position- and freeing up a less demanding defensive position for another good bat.

[brett]

If your "bullpen pitcher" jappened to be a struggling young Jim Lemon, you might have a point. Otherwise, maybe not.



You attempt to close the debate with a menu of hand-picked personnel, strangley give unique talent sets to suit your point.

In actuality, MLB has historically [and presently] scouted for, and developed, players who exhibit talents specifically suited to positional modeling. What has happened, as an often unfortunate product of that modeling, is the etching of certain degrees of ineptitude to certain positions in contrast to the sometimes exaggerated giftedness of other positions.

In between are the human elements who must execute position play: creating offensive runs and decreasing opponents runs.

Each position is critical in its own way.

As long as we rate a player's offense against others at his position I don't care if we call it a positional adjustment or not. I like your core concept that there can be excellence on the field at all positions. Each position is critical in its own way, but part of that is the fact that first basemen can be bigger and stronger than shortstops and so they have to produce more offense or they are not worth as much to a team.

Would you take a first baseman who fields his position at an average level and hits like a shortstop, or a shortstop who fields his position at an average level and hits like a shortstop?

And in addition to this, I can not think of a third baseman or second baseman who was not at one point scouted as a potential shortstop. I am thinking mostly of guys I've been associated with, but invariably the high school all district shortstop ends up being a second baseman or third baseman if he makes it to the minors.

[leewileyfan]

If I go back to my school days in Queens, NY and Nassau County, LI, I recall the big star who pitched, batted fourth and played the OF when he was not on the mound. It was pretty common in the 1940s [and I gather from the '30s as well]; BUT it was even then such a marked contrast to Big League stereotypes.

There were stereotypes:

1. NO lefty thrower could be a catcher, a third baseman, a second baseman or a shortstop. The fielding, ball transfer and throwing challenges just cost too many fractions of a second to be "efficient."

2. OTOH, a lefty was preferred at 1B, from which throws to any base could be more smoothly executed.

3. I came to be recognized that opposite side batting produced better offensive results than same facing same.

4. Size became [rightly or wrongly] associated with "power"

5. Some really keen observers learned that split-dominance brought out the best prospects, but ONLY if it was of the Bats: L Throws: R mix.

There we have a scouting recipe. It suiting the human being to the recipe book, we sometime DEVELOP a tall, strapping SS who Bats: L and Throws: R into a first baseman, especially if he gives evidence of impressive hitting. There, now! [That image, fully tweaked, is what I am driving at].

The easy stereotype is one of expectation. Sometimes, the by-product of that morphing, is the cheapening of one position to the enhancement of others. A left-handed throwing batting phenom would NEVER have been a 2b, 3b, C, SS in his or anyone else's wildest dreams. That's just a fact of baseball life.

[drstrangelove]

The only issue however is that the facts themselves tell a different story than recollections.

1) First baseman have always been predominantly RH throwers. This was true in 1901-49 (162 to 128) as well as 1950-2012 (185 to 157.)
2) Left handed throwers have always predominantly been in the outfield versus 1B. This was true in 1901-49 (246-128) as well as 1950-2012 (351-157.)

Look at the numbers. Twice as many LH throwers play the OF, rather than 1B. More 1B are RH throwers than LH.

Why is that?

If we all agree that throwing LH is an advantage at 1B, why do we see more RH at first (than LH), and why do most LH throwers play in the OF????

Simple.

Any LH throwing player with a good bat that has a strong enough arm, quick enough reflexes, and enough speed to play SS will be made into a CF. No one will waste that talent at first.
Any LH throwing player with a good bat that has a strong enough arm, quick reflexes, but not quite enough speed to play CF (i.e., he will be the perfect 2B or 3B, but he throws LH), can be made into a RF, certainly a LF.
Any LH throwing player with a good bat that has a WEAK arm, but quick reflexes, but not quite enough speed to play CF (i.e., too slow to play 2B) can be made into a LF.
Any LH throwing player with a good bat that has adequate reflexes, but not enough speed to play OF, will be made into a 1B. (This same player could play 3B, if he had a strong arm and could throw RH.)

So we get down to the same thing.

If a good hitting LH throwing first basemen could play the outfield, that is where he would be. And while it's true that the best first basemen (those with strong arms and quick reflexes) could have played 3B (if only they threw RH), that is the exception.

So, 1B are not --if only-- SS or 2B. If they had those skills they would not be at 1B. And while some do indeed have the arm to have played 3B or C, they are the exception. Keith Hernandez type first baseman are truly rare.

LH throwing 1B (with the exception of players like Hernandez), are players who lack some or enough skill to play other positions. Watch clips of Frank Howard or Harmon Killebrew play the OF. Imagine Frank Thomas or Ryan Howard running down a ball in the gap in center. And conjure up a play with them playing SS. Throwing RH or LH has nothing to do with lacking speed, an arm or reflexes.

[Jackaroo Dave]

Doc, Your points certainly make sense, but I think your math makes the case look stronger than it is.

Right handers outnumber lefthanders at first by 4 to 3 or 6 to 5, but in the general population, it's 9:1 or greater, I believe, so proportionately, first is heavily biased towards southpaws.

Left handed throwers in the outfield outnumber first basemen two or 2.5 to one, but outfielders outnumber first basement THREE to one. So again, there's a heavy dependence between handedness and first base.

Lee can speak for himself, of course, but I think the points he was making included this one:

With the exception of center field, lefties are shut out of the high-ranking defensive positions. Also, with the exception of third base, they are eligible for every low-ranking defensive position. This means that the offensive pool for 1st and the outfield is larger than that for the premier defensive positions. Furthermore, since lefties tend to have the platoon advantage, the quality increases more than the raw numbers.

Consequently, even if every position were exactly equal in its defensive demands, first and the outfield would have a higher offensivereplacement. value (and consequently demand higher offensive output for an equivalent WAR value). So to an extent, the difference between the Mendoza line for a shortstop and the Mendozalinefor a first baseman is independent of the defensive demands of the positions. How much, I have no idea.

[brett]

The only issue however is that the facts themselves tell a different story than recollections.

1) First baseman have always been predominantly RH throwers. This was true in 1901-49 (162 to 128) as well as 1950-2012 (185 to 157.)
2) Left handed throwers have always predominantly been in the outfield versus 1B. This was true in 1901-49 (246-128) as well as 1950-2012 (351-157.)

Look at the numbers. Twice as many LH throwers play the OF, rather than 1B. More 1B are RH throwers than LH.

Why is that?

If we all agree that throwing LH is an advantage at 1B, why do we see more RH at first (than LH), and why do most LH throwers play in the OF????

Simple.

Any LH throwing player with a good bat that has a strong enough arm, quick enough reflexes, and enough speed to play SS will be made into a CF. No one will waste that talent at first.
Any LH throwing player with a good bat that has a strong enough arm, quick reflexes, but not quite enough speed to play CF (i.e., he will be the perfect 2B or 3B, but he throws LH), can be made into a RF, certainly a LF.
Any LH throwing player with a good bat that has a WEAK arm, but quick reflexes, but not quite enough speed to play CF (i.e., too slow to play 2B) can be made into a LF.
Any LH throwing player with a good bat that has adequate reflexes, but not enough speed to play OF, will be made into a 1B. (This same player could play 3B, if he had a strong arm and could throw RH.)

So we get down to the same thing.

If a good hitting LH throwing first basemen could play the outfield, that is where he would be. And while it's true that the best first basemen (those with strong arms and quick reflexes) could have played 3B (if only they threw RH), that is the exception.

So, 1B are not --if only-- SS or 2B. If they had those skills they would not be at 1B. And while some do indeed have the arm to have played 3B or C, they are the exception. Keith Hernandez type first baseman are truly rare.

LH throwing 1B (with the exception of players like Hernandez), are players who lack some or enough skill to play other positions. Watch clips of Frank Howard or Harmon Killebrew play the OF. Imagine Frank Thomas or Ryan Howard running down a ball in the gap in center. And conjure up a play with them playing SS. Throwing RH or LH has nothing to do with lacking speed, an arm or reflexes.

Shortstops do not necessarily have the flat speed to play centerfield. College coaches usually like to see 7.3 MAXIMUM for 60 yards for outfield prospects, (they like to see 7.1 or lower) but I know of good defensive MLB shortstops who were 7.5-7.6

In fact it raises something interesting to me. SS, 2B, 3B and catcher (the three "plus" positions in WAR) MUST be right handed throwers. A left handed thrower on average HAS to be a better than average offensive player.