Position Shifts Along the Defensive Spectrum

[Fuzzy Bear]

In an earlier thread, I took a hard-line position against mid-career position shifts. I still think that changing a player's position at the major league level, in mid-career, is a risky proposition.

Position shifts put the player at risk because a new position disrupts the continuity of his career, and the distraction can cause problems with offense. Position shift often (but not always) diminish the reputation of a player in the eyes of history when they occur in mid-career. Position shifts also tend to diminish the value of a player in trade, so management is affected as well.

Bill James' defensive spectrum, from left to right (easiest to hardest) is:

1B, LF, RF, 3B, CF, 2B, SS (catcher is not included in the spectrum, due to it's unique nature).

My own personal viewpoint is that 3B is actually harder than CF.

So what do you all think of defensive position shifts?

I tend to think that leftward shifts on the defensive spectrum, when made in mid-career, ruin player's careers. Typical changes of this nature are moving a SS to 2B, (somewhat OK), or a middle infielder to 3B, 1B or the OF.

SS to 2B switches are somewhat successful. Middle infield to 3B switches usually don't work out well because the position requires more offense, and even if the player adjusts to the new position, defensively, he tends to become someone the team is looking to replace, for offensive purposes.
The same is often true of 3B to 1B shifts, and 3B to corner OF shifts. SS or 2B to 1B or OF are the worst, in my opinion. They end up taking a guy out of a position where he has value and putting him in a position where he can't hit up to standard. Chuck Knoblauch is the latest of these; his game is so messed up that his career may be over. When you move your middle infielder to 1B or corner OF, you might as well send out a press release sayint "HE'S WASHED UP!!!!!"

On the other hand, rightward shifts on the spectrum are often unfairly maligned. I think trying to play Aaron Boone at SS isn't a bad idea.
If I were the Mets, I'd have put Alfonso at SS and tried to find a 3B some other way. (Who would you rather have at SS; Alfonso or Ordonez?) A rightward shift on the spectrum can work mainly because the player's offense already fits the position. Aaron Boone already hits well enough for a SS. Alfonso would be a good hitting SS. Paul Konerko would be a good hitting 3B. Moving Hubie Brooks and Howard Johnson to SS was NOT the
worst thing that happened to those guys; they had their best years when they played SS, and the teams they played on didn't suffer. Had Gregg Jeffries been left at 2B (or at 3B with Hojo at SS full time) he would have been a star, instead of a mismanaged player, moving from position to position. I think rightward shifts are less risky than appear, and leftward shifts are more risky than they appear.

[RichG]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
Moving Hubie Brooks and Howard Johnson to SS was NOT the
worst thing that happened to those guys; they had their best years when they played SS, and the teams they played on didn't suffer.

Davey Johnson was the manager of the Mets during the HOJO shortstop days, and the manager was bright enough to take advantage of having HOJO at SS on days when an extreme flyball pitcher like Sid Fernandez was the starter, minimizing HOJO's the risk. Now that's the way for a good manager to be, placing his players in the best chance to succeed.

[sweaver]

I voted for the most demanding position they can handle. That is important, because a position that is too hard will limit a player's offense. Still, there has always been a trend to move a player, say Cal Ripken, to 3B because "he hits like a third baseman." But, if he can play SS, it helps the offense to have him there, as long as the defense doesn't suffer, because you can usually find a better hitter to play third. Not that Cal's Orioles always could.

[SmedIndy]

I agree with our esteem physicist. Challenge the player, but make sure they can handle it.

Bobby Bonilla wasn't a total disaster at third, but Pedro Guerrero was. This kind of thing is where the manager earns their scratch.

[sweaver]

That's "esteemed," Smed.

And when you can hit like Pedro Guerrero, you can play anywhere you want. But LF would certainly have been a better place for him. That wacky Tommy Lasorda!

[poorme]

I'm a rambler, I'm a gambler, I'm a sweet talkin ladies' man...

You can't tell if someone can play a position until you try.

I can remember my favorite baseball man of all time, Kenny Williams, was put at third base after never playing the infield in his life. It didn't work out too well, but the sox were going nowhere (rickey horton was their number one starter!!!!!...!!).

I don't think Sandberg would be going to Cooperstown as a 3B, or would he be?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, eh?

[SmedIndy]

Poorme - Sandberg was a SS in the Phillies system. Not quite the same as moving Guerrero or Frank Thomas (the old one) to third base and watch them boot grounders all day.

Sweaver - are you taking over for Skip??

[Duque]

I don't think upward shifts along the spectrum work, especially for aging players. Yes, you want the guy to handle the most difficult position he can, but if you have a much better available option for that position, go ahead and move him.

[VNV Nation]

I, for one, am thoroughly against rightward shifts on the defensive spectrum. About 99 percent of the time, a player starts out, at a lower level of competition, high schoool, college, or minors, at the most difficult position he can handle.

The rare exceptions usually involve third base; although third base is not considered as important defensively as, say, shortstop or second, it poses unique defensive challenges. Chipper Jones might have been a better shortstop than third baseman because he didn't have the reflexes to play third. Jeff Kent was moved from third to second because he didn't have the arm for the long throws. Edgardo Alfonzo was originally a shortstop who moved to third, was excellent, and was moved to second, where he was also excellent.

Baseball is not APBA or Strat-O-Matic, I don't believe that anyone's value, with the possible exception of Cal Ripken, increases by being put at a tougher position. For one, any incremental increase in the value of positional offense is generally offset by a loss in defensive value; I'd rather have a Gold Glove third baseman than an average shortstop. And, players generally do not hit as well when put at a tougher position. Actually, that understates the problem, as many young players are thrown into career or suffer injuries after being shifted to a more difficult position.

Good teams, over a period of years, will maximize their defense. Bad teams will try to maximize their offense.

[JamesI]

Cal had played shortstop in the minors and high school, and had also pitched.

On topic, position changes to more difficult rarely work. How many third basemen try to become shortstops and fail. It is a rare player that can move to a harder position and excel, but these players should be allowed to because it helps the team. If the Orioles had had an average thirdbasemen during Cal's career with him at short it would have been a big improvement over Cal at third with an average shortstop. Of course that never happened.

[cubfan33]

To get Hojo's defense in context, remember that Kevin Mitchell had come to the majors as a SS!

McGwire came to the majors as a 3B.

I think that CF is clearly harder than 3B, but that's opinion.

I agree with sweaver and Smed ... put the player at a position where he maximizes the teams value. An iron glove may kill any positional value a player may has.

Another one - imagine a player like Soriano or Durham heading to CF. Not a death knell.

[sweaver]

Getting to some specific cases: Ripken at SS was a good move, both because Cal could play short quite well, and it allowed a better bat to get into the lineup. McGwire and Thome, for instance, moving from 3B to 1B also worked out, because both struggled at third, and were able to maximize their offensive potential as first basemen.

Current cases: If I'm Joe Torre, I might move Soriano to CF next spring. He has the speed to play it well, and Williams is aging and not the fielder he used to be. Soriano has also shown some difficulty with 2B. Williams could move to a corner spot, and the overall defense would improve. The catch is, finding a 2B to replace Soriano.

Moving Aaron Boone to SS is a move that I agree with, although doing it during a season is a bit perplexing. More of Bob Boone's legendary tinkering. Boone's offense is not impressive as a 3B, and he is a good fielder. With some time to adjust, he could be a good SS. I just wish it was a ST move instead of in-season.

[cubfan33]

I think there's probably some mathematical tool that could show this ...

You'd want to have "X" where this is the player's expected offensive total and "Y" where this is the player's expected defensive total. (I have no idea what stat would be used here.) There's some point where X and Y would meet and that would be the ideal. Example:

Jim Thome is expected to be a 95 offensively. At 1B, he's a 50 (average). At 3B, he's a 30. At 2B, he's a 10. Sure, you could put him at 2B, but he's less valuable. Same could happen for other players. There's a "sweet spot" for all players ...

In thinking on this, I'm actually surprised more teams don't try to maximize this. The move DOWN the spectrum is often seen, but I can't think of any team besides the Padres that have considered moving a player up the spectrum off the top of my head.

[VNV Nation]

I think you are seriously overestimating Thome's defensive abilities.

[SmedIndy]

VNV -

What about the cases where a player can handle a tougher defensive position, however, the necessity of the teams forces him to a less challenging position?

This happens quite a bit in the OF, and Pokey Reese in Cincy could have been a decent SS if not for Barry Larkin.