what are the most valuable defensive positions?

[Crash2303]

no real clue, but i'd think:

1. SS

2. CF

3. 2B

4. C

5. 1B

6. RF

7. 3B

8. LF

9. P

[RightFieldCoder]

1.SS

2.CF

3.C

4.2B

5.3B

6.RF

7.LF

8.1B

9.P

 

My unsientific list.

[thebruce44]

The generally accepted defensive spectrum is as follows:

 

C|SS|2b|CF|3B|RF|LF|1B|DH

 

You could probably make a case for CF being ahead of 2B though.

[Crash2303]

i'd think first base would have to be higher than #8. Even though they don't receive a lot of hit balls, they touch almost every single infield hit. a lot of times with difficult digs or grabs from poor infield throws.

[CheezWizHed]

1.SS

2.CF

3.C

4.2B

5.1B

6.3B

7.RF

8.LF

9.P

 

I moved up the 1B because so many more balls are handled by the 1B.

 

I realize that RF needs to have a stronger arm, but don't more balls end up in LF? So in a generic "overall sense" they would seem to be about the same.

[Crash2303]

thebruce, when you say generally accepted- what is that based on?

[logan82]

Just about anything sabermetric having to do with defensive.

 

 

The defensive spectrum is an arrangement of the fielding positions (excluding catcher and pitcher) devised by Bill James as a way of explaining the difficulty of defensive positions and positional scarcity.

 

The defensive spectrum reads:

 

DH--1B--LF--RF--3B--CF--2B--SS

 

(Catcher is not included in the spectrum, as it is deemed to be a special case.)

 

The positions on the left side of the spectrum are those that

take a minimum amount of ability to play defensively, and thus are often

occupied by more productive hitters. As players age, they tend to move

leftward on the spectrum, being moved to less demanding positions as

their defensive skills decline. Shifts to the right on the spectrum are

deemed unusual.

 

 

[topper09er]

I moved up the 1B because so many more balls are handled by the 1B.

Except that the majority of those balls could be handled by a good high school 1Ber. Not true of any other position.

 

 

[logan82]

I realize that RF needs to have a stronger arm, but don't more balls end up in LF? So in a generic "overall sense" they would seem to be about the same.

It looks like the top 20 RFget more chances than the top 20 LF. Pretty similar though. Having to make the throw to 3B is the only really big difference. Some later stuff on the dfensive spectrum puts LF and RF pretty equal.

[igor67]

There are two slightly different questions. The spectrum is order based on level of difficulty to play. The thread asks what is the order in terms of value, which I interpreted as defensive value. The two orders are not necessarily identical. 1st possibly being an interesting example. Lots of people can play it which may make it somewhat less valuable since replacements are easy, but with so many touches it could easily have more actual defensive value in a more absolute sense. For example in the extreme case where you play no one at a position, 1st probably becomes the most "important".

[Crash2303]

igor, that is a good thing to point out. though, i am impressed with the spectrum- great add in logan. i see that the more difficult positions to play are definitely based on the spectrum. Which is why generally the most athletic fielders play them. However, i am interested learning which positions are the most necessary to have your best fielders at? Which positions have the most responsibility? i guess i started thinking of it with the Hart/Gamel/Mcghee triangle quagmire. which position is the most important to have your best fielder at? SS just makes sense to be #1, because it receives the bulk of balls hit to. but what about the infield and outfield corners?

[Crash2303]

maybe RF and LF are more valuable than 3B or 1B, because if you miss a ball in the infield- the runner is generally still held at first. whereas, if you miss a play in the OF- it's a two bagger for sure.

[thebruce44]

Crash2303]thebruce, when you say generally accepted- what is that based on?

Bill James's spectrum, as Logan pointed out.

[CheezWizHed]

igor, yeah, that was more my train of thought in moving 1B up.

 

I'm surprised about the chances in LF vs. RF. I figured the vast majority of RHBs would tend to hit more to LF.

[topper09er]

You only get a "chance" if you record a putout, assist or error. So, for example, everyball hit to Braun that he doesnt touch doesnt count as a chance if he runs the wrong direction and the ball falls. This makes sense because the LF is usually the worst fielder OFer so they would get the least chances but I would still assume more ball are hit to LF than RF.

[BrewersSuperCollector]

I think a good defensive 1B is much more valuable than many of you think. A very good defensive 1B can dig balls out of the dirt making everyone else on the diamond look better.

[Ennder]

I think that defensive spectrum is hardest to easiest, I disagree with it being most valuable to least valuable.

[rluzinski]

I don't really see the value of figuring out how valuable a position is in comparison to it being unmanned. We want to know where defensive talent can be leveraged the best, no? The way I see it, as long as SS and C are at the top and LF, RF and 1B are at the bottom, the list isn't wrong.

 

1B is where you put the fat old, and/or bad defenders at. There's good reason for it.

[Baldkin]

Yes, this isn't "Where do I want to put my toddler at in the field?"

 

At least, I hope not.

 

If a guy can play CF well, he can play RF and LF. If a guy can play SS well, he can play 2B, 3B, and 1B. A guy may be a great 1B (Derrick Lee, for example) but would be a terrible SS.

[logan82]

I think that defensive spectrum is hardest to easiest, I disagree with it being most valuable to least valuable.

It is to some extent as players are easier to replace at one end of the spectrum than the other. Based on contribution to the defense it may not be. It depends on what you mean by valuable.

 

 

I have also seen a modified defensive spectrum where the 3B and CF are flipped which also makes sense to me. We don't see to many CF shifted to 3B or I guess 3B shifted to CF.

 

DH--1B--LF--RF--3B--CF--2B--SS

 

DH--1B--LF--RF--CF--3B--2B--SS

 

 

I know it is wiki but here are a few other interesting points. The bolded line is why I want Weeks extended and am not to excited about the Hart extension. It is also why Fielder, despite his bat, shouldn't be to big of a loss.

 

Players hit less (aggregately speaking) the further right you move along the defensive spectrum.

 

As players age, leftward shifts along the defensive spectrum

are normal and expected, and therefore they need to hit more to retain

their jobs.

 

Natural rightward shifts almost never happen.

 

Forced rightward shifts along the defensive spectrum almost

never work (for example, a manager moving his right fielder to third

base).

 

There is a scarcity of players on the rightward side of the

spectrum, and a corresponding abundance on the leftward side. Therefore,

teams need to address roster problems on the rightward side before

worrying about those on the leftward side.

 

Baseball's greatest stars tend to begin their professional

careers as shortstops or center fielders. Equivalent offensive

performers who begin their careers as corner outfielders or first

basemen have much lower ceilings.

[TwinsBrewersWorldSeries]

DH--1B--LF--RF--CF--3B--2B--SS There is a scarcity of players on the rightward side of the

spectrum, and a corresponding abundance on the leftward side. Therefore,

teams need to address roster problems on the rightward side before

worrying about those on the leftward side.

I'd think most people would agree that our production has been absolutely AWFUL at SS and CF this season. Largely a reason we are lousy this season. Certainly Cain gives us more hope for the future, but our lack of an impact player at SS in concerning (given Hardy's .702 OPS, i'd hardly suggest keeping him would have eliminated this problem)

 

As Escobar improves (i believe his range is good, but he makes alot of mistakes on routine players), he becomes very valuable as a .750-.800 OPS (or higher) player. In my opinion however, he is a replacement level player with an OPS below .700

 

Simply put, we need better production from our SS and from our pitching staff. If we do that, we should be fine in 2011

[logan82]

I'd think most people would agree that our production has been

absolutely AWFUL at SS and CF this season. Largely a reason we are

lousy this season.

SS .239/.296/.319/.615

CF .248/.302/.388/.690

 

Wow I didn't think it was that bad. However I disagree that this is the reason we are bad. Our defense and pitching are not good to put it nicely.

[TwinsBrewersWorldSeries]

I was a pretty vocal keep Hardy, trade Escobar poster, and I've calmed down some since Hardy has been awful this season (despite his recent hot streak). That said, Escobar, in my opinion, has been below average defensively (made some great players, but alot of unforced errors), and has been pathetic at the plate. I'm willing to give Escobar another full year to improve, but if he's still at a sub .650 OPS midway through his third full season in the majors (2012), then I think its time to go another direction (if one is available).

 

I'm hoping Cain makes us all forget that Alex Sanch... i mean Carlos Gomez was ever a brewer

[Jimbo]

A couple of years ago someone here posted defensive position vs. OPS

 

It was a pretty strong inverse correlation.

[Crash2303]

what does 'inverse correlation' mean? sounds like an interesting post- anyone have a link to it?