Baseball - Offensive stats @ _____ position

[disposableheros]

why is it a commonly accepted strategy that X position is supposed to have X-type hitter? ie. 1B/3B are supposed to be a power hitters, CF/2B are supposed to be OBP/Speed hitters, etc. If i get a 1B thats a light hitter and can run, that just means i need to find power at a different position, right?

Whats the big deal?

[Cuss16]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

why is it a commonly accepted strategy that X position is supposed to have X-type hitter? ie. 1B/3B are supposed to be a power hitters, CF/2B are supposed to be OBP/Speed hitters, etc. If i get a 1B thats a light hitter and can run, that just means i need to find power at a different position, right?

Whats the big deal?

I agree, there could be some differences, ie, first basemans are usually bigger therefore more power, but they shouldn't be emphasized so much that it's almost cutting certain players some slack because they can't hit.

[LivnLegend]

If a player had speed, agility, and quickness, he'd most likely be a middle infielder or outfielder. Without those aspects, he's better suited for 1B where not as much range is required and where the fielder often plays close or on the bag with runners on.

First basemen are not first basemen because they are power hitters, they are power hitters because of their build (tall and beefy) which suits them more as corner infielder rather than middle infielders. Not all first basemen in history were great power hitters of course but if you have a guy who can pound the ball and doesn't have a natural position, often you stick him at first base (or DH!).

[SoxWin]

There isn't a big deal. You're right that historically teams have looked for power at the corner positions and speed/defence up the middle but it doesn't matter one whit. A homerun hit but a SS counts just the same as one hit by some lumbering cracker playing 1B. What matters is the aggregate offense provided by your entire team, what position it comes from is meaningless.

[Luis_Rivera]

I would reiterate everything Rich and LL say in the above posts.

As for your specific example... if you get a fleetfooted 1B that doesn't hit for much power, A) he may be better suited at a position that requires more range; B) you'll have to make up for the power that he is lacking at a different position, like 2B or SS. Unfortunately, as LL mentioned, it's a general trend that these guys are smaller so it is much harder to find power hitters at those positions.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

There isn't a big deal. You're right that historically teams have looked for power at the corner positions and speed/defence up the middle but it doesn't matter one whit. A homerun hit but a SS counts just the same as one hit by some lumbering cracker playing 1B. What matters is the aggregate offense provided by your entire team, what position it comes from is meaningless.

i agree 100%

often though the argument DOES come down to, "The Angels should keep Erstad in CF instead of 1B" and the reason given and accepted is, "because he's a light hitter with speed" and that just seems rediculous to me. there seems to be plenty of guys that buck the trend, ie. olerud at 1B, tejada at SS, soriano at 2B, griffey at CF, and many many more. so it just seems odd to me that people think it is a valid argument/strategy.

[Dan Theman]

For the people who lament the lack of importance, thinking about the topic of this thread is actually refreshing -

When learning baseball, a kid tries to figure out what position he wants to play, and obviously he wants to do well at it. Speed and reflexes come into play. Those who lack such skills - usually the bigger kids - find they do best at positions that demand less (like 1B). Putting a young Cecil Fielder at shortstop would creat a liability in the field that could simlpy be avoided by sticking him at First (or eventually DH).

However, as these same kids learn to hit the bigger kids usually find they have a bit of an advantage when it comes to strength. This leads to more powerful hitters being at positions like 1B. This isn't to say that quicker players can't play at these stereotypically slow-footed positions, but just as much as they hide the fielding liabilities of slow players, they minimize the fielding advantages of fast players.

I hope this made some sense

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

i agree 100%

often though the argument DOES come down to, "The Angels should keep Erstad in CF instead of 1B" and the reason given and accepted is, "because he's a light hitter with speed" and that just seems rediculous to me. there seems to be plenty of guys that buck the trend, ie. olerud at 1B, tejada at SS, soriano at 2B, griffey at CF, and many many more. so it just seems odd to me that people think it is a valid argument/strategy.

It's definitely a valid argument. Even in fantasy baseball people know that the same offense got different value from different positions.

If you got the fixed amount of money for the CF and 1B spot, the best way to spend the money is almost always looking for more offense at 1B than CF, since it's cheaper, and always more readily available. A 30 HR 1B is definitely cheaper than a 30 HR CF, even if we ignore the defense.

So to maximize your bang per buck, you definitely want to move Erstad to CF.

[knuckler]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

i agree 100%

often though the argument DOES come down to, "The Angels should keep Erstad in CF instead of 1B" and the reason given and accepted is, "because he's a light hitter with speed" and that just seems rediculous to me. there seems to be plenty of guys that buck the trend, ie. olerud at 1B, tejada at SS, soriano at 2B, griffey at CF, and many many more. so it just seems odd to me that people think it is a valid argument/strategy.

The reason that the Angels should move Erstad to center is because he's an excellent defensive centerfielder. He has little value at first because it's easy to find guys who play first that can produce at his level of production. It's harder though to find a centerfielder that has his level of defensive ability.

I agree that stereotyping positions is silly, but it's about the market place, not a stereotype.

There are guys much cheaper than Erstad that could prodce as well or better than him, so why pay him what he's getting? Put him in center and he has more value.

[Joshv02]

The ability to replace; the fungibility of a good.

It is the R in VORP.

Positional scarcity has a meaning when you are constructing a roster; it has no meaning when you are swinging a bat.

[SoxWin]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

i agree 100%

often though the argument DOES come down to, "The Angels should keep Erstad in CF instead of 1B" and the reason given and accepted is, "because he's a light hitter with speed" and that just seems rediculous to me. there seems to be plenty of guys that buck the trend, ie. olerud at 1B, tejada at SS, soriano at 2B, griffey at CF, and many many more. so it just seems odd to me that people think it is a valid argument/strategy.

The Erstad argument is based on defense. He can play a very good center field, so by playing him at 1B, you're wasting a large part of his value as a ballplayer. I think, as a general rule, players should be playing the most demanding defensive position they can handle.

[disposableheros]

when you add the defensive argument into the equation, it makes sense to me. but to say that he shouldnt play 1B "because he's a light hitter with speed" is when i get my panties in a bunch.

and then lets consider a guy like olerud who doesnt play another position.....should i not get him because hes a "light hitter" for a 1B or does his defense at that position make up for the fact that i'll have to spend more to get a 2B/CF/SS thats got some pop?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

when you add the defensive argument into the equation, it makes sense to me. but to say that he shouldnt play 1B "because he's a light hitter with speed" is when i get my panties in a bunch.

I think the point is that the Angels can easily find 1Bs much better than Erstad cheap, and that means he's useless there. As I said, think about the fantasy baseball arguement.

[MrWorkrate]

To use a vague analogy, let's say you like to drive on the beach with your truck. The fishing season is coming up, and you're looking at your vehicle choices. Currently in your garage, you have a Porsche Cayenne. It's got 4WD capability.

Your wife needs a car too. She's been using the Cayenne off and on the last two years. She loves the thing - she digs the speed. You still need your fishing offroad vehicle.

So, you have a choice. You can buy a used pickup with 4WD for your offroad adventures (where you can pick up a pretty nice one for a moderate price) or you can buy your wife a top of the line sportscar for her need for speed and use your Cayenne for your offroading. While the pickup option seems more "sensible", there's nothing necessarily "wrong" with the sports car option - if that's what you want to use what's at your disposal and have money to throw away.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

and then lets consider a guy like olerud who doesnt play another position.....should i not get him because hes a "light hitter" for a 1B or does his defense at that position make up for the fact that i'll have to spend more to get a 2B/CF/SS thats got some pop?

.

[Luis_Rivera]

Like MrWorkrate says in his analogy... it depends on your options and what amount of resources you have.

There is no static answer to your question. It would have to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

[Skipaway]

Yes, the question would not just be if you want Olerud, it's more important to know how much would you want to pay for Olerud.

[MrWorkrate]

I don't have a problem with teams acquiring players who don't fit into the "atypical" mold of the position. My issue (at least with the projected Angels/Erstad/Beltran situation) is that you have something there that currently exists. The Angels have a gold glove centerfielder and feel the need to go out in free agency to get another centerfielder. While a team not finding the level of production from their centerfielder and wishing to improve is understandable, trying to justify it by sticking that nonproductive centerfielder at first base to make sure he's playing makes the team worse just because you're taking away the thing that gives him value in the first place.

The Angels aren't trying to sign a big name centerfielder and then sign a light hitting 1B to fill two holes. They're signing a big name centerfielder and taking their current centerfielder and making him into a light hitting first baseman.

If the Angels want to sign Beltran and make Erstad their first baseman, then so be it. But the point people are trying to make is that since big hitting centerfielders are harder to find than big hitting first baseman, the markup on a centerfielder is going to be much higher. The Angels (and I haven't seen this year's FAs, so I don't know this for sure) could get similar production for a lot less money, allowing them to sign more players either this season or in the future.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Yes, the question would not just be if you want Olerud, it's more important to know how much would you want to pay for Olerud.

can you steer me in the direction of figuring out that break-even point?

[Joshv02]

Erstad was "worth" -- on offensive -- somewhere on the order of 15-20 runs below average, or about what a replacement level 1B (think Andy Abad) would produce. Let's say he is +20 on 1B D, which puts him at an average 1B.

I doubt he contributed enough on defense at 1B to be worth the $8mm he is paid as Abad could be had for about $300k; or, about $8mm less.

Now, if Erstad were at CF, he would be about average, maybe 2-7 runs below. I can imagine his defense makes him very valuable, well above average. Let's say he is +30 on defense, for a net-net of +25 as a CFer.

So, we take a player who is a net-net at BEST average at 1B and move him to CF where is he net-net well above average at CF.

Because an above average CF (Beltran) will cost so much (say $15mm), and an average 1B will cost so much less, we can take the money they would have spent on Beltran at CF (and Erstad at 1B) and spend it on an average 1B (say, Delgado) and a good SP (say, Clement), all for the same money it would take to land Beltran. And, we'd get the same net-net production from CF/1B, while upgrading our pitching staff.

Its about replaceability.

(To do a quick/dirty determination of net offensive value, take OBP*SLG*ABs. Add in a few runs for some good baserunners/base stealers. Just for kicks.)