Question for 538280 et al about positional value

[brett]

First off, rather than call it a positional adjustment, I prefer to talk about "intrisic value of position" which is more complicated than just the numbers that the average guy produces on offense at that position.

What occured to me was an example with a SS and a centerfielder.

Lets say that the SS has a 110 OPS+ versus an average SS at 80.
And the CF has a 135 OPS+ versus a hypothetical average of 105.
For simplicity, let's say that they are both average fielders at their positions.


Now, rather than considering what a replacement level player would be doing if one of those guys got knocked out of the lineup and off the field, lets consider what would happen if each of those guys was added to a totally average typical team.

If a typical team added the SS, they would be able to remove an 80 OPS+ SS from their lineup.

If a typical team added the CF, they would be able to remove a 105 OPS+ guy from center.

HOWEVER, it seems to me that the replaced centerfielder would be much more likely to contribute as a starter at another position-having a good chance of being better than at least one of the team's starters at RF, LF or 1B.

It seems unlikely to me that the replaced SS would move into a starting role. with an 80 OPS+, he wouldn't be able to make up enough defensively at 3B, and probably not at 2B to replace somebody else. Certainly it wouldn't be a big boost.

Similarly, a displaced second baseman would be unlikely to be able to start anywhere for that team.

Because third basemen usually have adequate arms, a displace third baseman could move to right, or left, or first base of course. A left or right fielder would be limited to moving across the outfield, or to first.

A catcher, by the way would probably not move into any other starting position.

all of these replaced players would have some trade value, but it seems to me that the displaced CF and third baseman would be worth more to the team, and be more likely to move into another starting spot.

[Minstrel]

It seems unlikely to me that the replaced SS would move into a starting role. with an 80 OPS+, he wouldn't be able to make up enough defensively at 3B, and probably not at 2B to replace somebody else. Certainly it wouldn't be a big boost.

For second base, it wouldn't need to be a big boost. Second base is nearly as anemic as shortstop. The added defensive value of a shortstop playing second seems quite likely to cover the fact that second base has marginally better hitters.

A displaced center fielder with a 105 OPS+ probably would be a downgrade on an average corner outfielder or first baseman. 100 OPS+ is exactly average, and the average corner outfielder / first baseman is significantly above that. I'm not sure the center fielder's glove could make up for that...unlike second versus shortstop, corner outfield / first base has significantly better hitters on average than center field.

I think moving an average center fielder to left or right field would be fairly equivalent to moving an average shortstop to third. His added defensive ability is unlikely to make up for the downgraded bat. Especially since, in both cases, the player wouldn't be able to fully utilize their best trait at their new position: range.

But an average shortstop moving to second would be better than an average center fielder moving to corner outfield / first base.

[JamesWest]

This is an excellent historical discussion thread.

[538280]

I agree with everything Minstrel said basically. The SS is usually at about an 85 OPS+, not 80, and he IMO would be at about the CFer. The CFer with a 100 OPS+ could add a little on defense over the corner OF (115 OPS+), but probably not enough to make up that much offense. The SS with the 85 has the same deficiency offensively vs. the 3B as the CF has vs. the corner OF. It's the same IMO. The only difference is that the adjustment to corner OF would probably be somewhat easier for the CF than the conversion to 3B for the SS, and some SSs like Eckstein would come to mind probably couldn't play third at all. I don't think any good CFs wouldn't be able to play corner OF after a little adjustment. If there's any difference then that's it.

[brett]

I agree with everything Minstrel said basically. The SS is usually at about an 85 OPS+, not 80, and he IMO would be at about the CFer. The CFer with a 100 OPS+ could add a little on defense over the corner OF (115 OPS+), but probably not enough to make up that much offense. The SS with the 85 has the same deficiency offensively vs. the 3B as the CF has vs. the corner OF. It's the same IMO. The only difference is that the adjustment to corner OF would probably be somewhat easier for the CF than the conversion to 3B for the SS, and some SSs like Eckstein would come to mind probably couldn't play third at all. I don't think any good CFs wouldn't be able to play corner OF after a little adjustment. If there's any difference then that's it.


Except that while corner outfielders may average 115, if you take 100 random teams you are going to find a fair percentage of substandard corner outfielders among all of their 200 corner outfielder. Its double the chance that a team might have a substandard guy there-in other words, its not really all about averages, but probability distributions of players at different positions-how likely is it that a team will have a weak player who the displaced player could be an improvement on.

[iPod]

This is an excellent historical discussion thread.

:laugh I agree, what exactly does this have to do with history?

[brett]

:laugh I agree, what exactly does this have to do with history?


It is probably in the wrong place, except that it is a tangent off of the "convice me" thread comparing Cobb to Wagner.

[JamesWest]

It is probably in the wrong place, except that it is a tangent off of the "convice me" thread comparing Cobb to Wagner.

That's another thread that dosen't belong in the history forum.

[Westlake]

That's another thread that dosen't belong in the history forum.
Agreed. A thread comparing two players from the early 1900s doesn't have a place in a history forum.

[JamesWest]

Agreed. A thread comparing two players from the early 1900s doesn't have a place in a history forum.

Exactly right. Player comparisons are not history.

[brett]

Exactly right. Player comparisons are not history.

In my history class I had to compare the presidencies of Taft and Wilson.

[TRfromBR]

In my history class I had to compare the presidencies of Taft and Wilson.

Willie Wilson was much better on the bases than Taft.

But, Taft was the first president to throw out the first ball of the season - on April 14, 1910, to Senator Walter Johnson, as shown below.

[JamesWest]

In my history class I had to compare the presidencies of Taft and Wilson.

With advanced metrics and stats? What about those quality adjustments for Democrats and Republicans? How much war credit did you give Wilson? Did you give Wilson any credit for being injured?

[Mariano_Rivera]

With advanced metrics and stats? What about those quality adjustments for Democrats and Republicans? How much war credit did you give Wilson? Did you give Wilson any credit for being injured?

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh


Seriously these types of threads don't belong here but have taken this forum over. We should actually create a subforum for Historical Discussion rather than one for comparisons.

[JamesWest]

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh


Seriously these types of threads don't belong here but have taken this forum over. We should actually create a subforum for Historical Discussion rather than one for comparisons.

Another member and I suggested that, but the idea was shot down.

[538280]

Except that while corner outfielders may average 115, if you take 100 random teams you are going to find a fair percentage of substandard corner outfielders among all of their 200 corner outfielder. Its double the chance that a team might have a substandard guy there-in other words, its not really all about averages, but probability distributions of players at different positions-how likely is it that a team will have a weak player who the displaced player could be an improvement on.

True, but do you really think there are any more substandard corner OFs than there are substandard 3Bmen or SSs or 2Bmen? OFs in the majors tend to be a dime a dozen, at least it's always been my observation that IFs (other than 1Bmen) are harder to find and it's harder to convert a guy to corner OF than it is to 2B, 3B, or SS. Most of the corner OFs also to play probably would have at least a 90 OPS+ over a full season.

BTW, I agree this should probably be moved to the stat forum.

[TRfromBR]

OFs in the majors tend to be a dime a dozen

Oh Yeah? You may want to do a statistical study of their salaries.

[csh19792001]

:laugh I agree, what exactly does this have to do with history?


Exactly right. Player comparisons are not history.


:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh


Seriously these types of threads don't belong here but have taken this forum over. We should actually create a subforum for Historical Discussion rather than one for comparisons.

Good to see (at least) three people here see the light.

X vs. Y polls are not baseball history. They're puerile stat throwing contests, and hardly ever does anything substantive comes of them. In fact, they usually just devolve into circular rants involving sabermetrics, and which stats can be utilized to support which candidate each side prefers at the given moment.

And this inanity has nothing to do with baseball history.

And incidentally, I'll bet that Taft vs. Wilson historical essay had little to do with numbers, and certainly wasn't based almost solely on numbers.... At least, if was a genuine historical research project....

[AstrosFan]

Statistics and player comparisons have always been a part of baseball history. They didn't begin with internet forums.

That said, I have suggested that we create separate the History forum into one for historical discussion, and one for who's better, who's best comparisons. It makes perfect sense, but sadly, no one cares enough to put their support behind it.

Right now, the most logical place for these comparisons is the History forum. They most certainly do not belong in the Statistics forum; that is a place for studying statistics, not comparing players.

There is a thread in the Site Ideas forum that I created regarding creating a sub-forum for comparisons. If you are really interested in getting the history forum back to history, find that thread and signify your support.

[csh19792001]

That said, I have suggested that we create separate the History forum into one for historical discussion, and one for who's better, who's best comparisons. It makes perfect sense, but sadly, no one cares enough to put their support behind it.

Right now, the most logical place for these comparisons is the History forum. They most certainly do not belong in the Statistics forum; that is a place for studying statistics, not comparing players.

There is a thread in the Site Ideas forum that I created regarding creating a sub-forum for comparisons. If you are really interested in getting the history forum back to history, find that thread and signify your support.

Comparing players using statistics is statistical in nature. When people run their polls or rankings, they basically never discuss the players in biographical/anecdotal senses, or in terms of their potential as players, relationship with contemporaries etc, etc. Nothing historical is brought to light. Ergo, the enumerate polls and X vs. Y threads belongs more in the stats forum, since the bulk of the discussion involves stats, not historical discussion. That said, I completely agree with you (and several others here) that there should be a subforum for polls, comparisons, rankings, and other banter based threads where people throw stats back and forth ad nauseum.

And a seperate forum for the infusion and discussion of actual baseball history. A non-metric, non-comparison, non-polling baseball history forum.

[csh19792001]

Find that thread and signify your support.

I'm sure I could get many people to support the idea, hopefully with your inclusion.

[brett]

True, but do you really think there are any more substandard corner OFs than there are substandard 3Bmen or SSs or 2Bmen? OFs in the majors tend to be a dime a dozen, at least it's always been my observation that IFs (other than 1Bmen) are harder to find and it's harder to convert a guy to corner OF than it is to 2B, 3B, or SS. Most of the corner OFs also to play probably would have at least a 90 OPS+ over a full season.

BTW, I agree this should probably be moved to the stat forum.

I DO think that there is more total talent at SS than at 2B, and more in CF than at the corner spots. If an average CF is an above average overall fielder, and a 105 OPS+ hitter, then the average CF is an above average player.

[brett]

I'm sure I could get many people to support the idea, hopefully with your inclusion.

I don't pay much attention to the title of the forum. I just know that this is the forum where the top 25 players and hitters are being ranked, and that that seems to be the feature thing going on on this forum.

[digglahhh]

I'm sure I could get many people to support the idea, hopefully with your inclusion.

Obviously, I'm in.

It is strange that there was no support for this.

Unlike many of the ideas that get proposed as new forums/divisions of forums, there is actually a substantial demand on the parts of several tenured and active members for this re-organization.

The quandry, IMO, is that there is always the potential for player comparison threads to be historical but so many of the discussions are just dominated by statistical comparisons. The designation of something as being "historic" or not "historic" in nature is something of a slippery slope. The ability of a "History" forum to function as somewhat of a catchall is partially driven by the vague and varied scope of what "history" means.

[JamesWest]

Obviously, I'm in.

It is strange that there was no support for this.

Unlike many of the ideas that get proposed as new forums/divisions of forums, there is actually a substantial demand on the parts of several tenured and active members.

csh and I lobbied for a forum of this type, last year, but nothing ever came of it.

[538280]

I DO think that there is more total talent at SS than at 2B, and more in CF than at the corner spots.

I do agree that there is more talent at SS than at 2B because just about any SS could handle 2B, and the difference in offense is really only because 2B requires less skills (you don't need as strong an arm), so more often managers try to put a bat there who isn't the greatest fielder. In the corners though, while any CF could handle it after some adjustment (some adjustment because often in the corners you require a different read on the ball, but any good CFer could adjust to that), you often just have a big hitting differential. In the corners almost everyone can hit pretty decent at least while in center you still get some really weak bats. Basically I think the offensive differential between CF and the corner OFs is larger than that between SS and 2B. In 2006 for example 2Bmen's OPS+ was 94 and SS's OPS+ was 93. At CF it was 98 and in LF it was 112 and RF 109 (found those numbers using Retrosheet's splits).


If an average CF is an above average overall fielder, and a 105 OPS+ hitter, then the average CF is an above average player.

I would agree, because he 1. Can handle CF with above average ability, and 2. Is a pretty decent hitter as well, slightly above average for his position.

BTW, mods, please move this thread to the stat forum. Others are correct that it is out of place.

[csh19792001]

Obviously, I'm in.



csh and I lobbied for a forum of this type, last year, but nothing ever came of it.

Doesn't mean another attempt will be futile. We already have several people who would support the idea and could probably garner more names. As Astrofan said (ironically, being a serious sabermetrician), let's bring the history back to the history forum.

What's the next step, guys? I'm never over at that forum and have no idea how thing are run or propositioned there.

[digglahhh]

Doesn't mean another attempt will be futile. We already have several people who would support the idea and could probably garner more names. As Astrofan said (ironically, being a serious sabermetrician), let's bring the history back to the history forum.

What's the next step, guys? I'm never over at that forum and have no idea how thing are run or propositioned there.

Astrofan just bumped an old proposition thread in that forum.

[AstrosFan]

Doesn't mean another attempt will be futile. We already have several people who would support the idea and could probably garner more names. As Astrofan said (ironically, being a serious sabermetrician), let's bring the history back to the history forum.

What's the next step, guys? I'm never over at that forum and have no idea how thing are run or propositioned there.

I'm not even close to being a serious sabermetrician, but thanks anyway. I do think that if we moved all these player comparisons over to the Statistics forums, the people who frequent that area would complain that such threads don't belong there. Comparison threads are in limbo, basically, until we create the proper forum for them. I think it is fun to debate players, and I hope comparisons can find a place at Baseball Fever without upsetting people.

I did not bump the New Forum thread, -Kyle- did, but let's call it a petition. Just go over to the Site Ideas forum, and find the thread that I created called "New Forum". If you are interested in the idea, just make a post that says "I support this idea," or "I am in favor of this." If we get enough support, I believe we can bring history back to the history forum.

[csh19792001]

If we get enough support, I believe we can bring history back to the history forum.

Thanks,

Fantastic. I'm on it.

[digglahhh]

I'm not even close to being a serious sabermetrician, but thanks anyway. I do think that if we moved all these player comparisons over to the Statistics forums, the people who frequent that area would complain that such threads don't belong there. Comparison threads are in limbo, basically, until we create the proper forum for them. I think it is fun to debate players, and I hope comparisons can find a place at Baseball Fever without upsetting people.

I did not bump the New Forum thread, -Kyle- did, but let's call it a petition. Just go over to the Site Ideas forum, and find the thread that I created called "New Forum". If you are interested in the idea, just make a post that says "I support this idea," or "I am in favor of this." If we get enough support, I believe we can bring history back to the history forum.

I'm sorry.

You were the originator of the thread that was bumped, right? I just confused it.

I think that separating the x vs. y comparison threads/poll would be the single act that would alleviate the most of our concerns. That one act would accomplish a lot.

[AstrosFan]

Yes, I was the originator. I started it after one of the many complaints about statistics taking over the history forum.