Defensive Development

[Zeyes]

Well, here we go...this is based on a single (amateur) draft pool of 2400 players, 886 of which were infielders or catchers. I've classified them by their "created" position. Their possible outfield ratings (1-200 ratings scale, with the maximum experience of 200 per position) look like this, in the aggregate:

             C       1B       2B       3B       SS
------------------------------------------------------
Mean(LF)     3.9     13.3     35.7     33.9     31.4
Min(LF)    -58.4    -52.9    -48.6    -53.9    -35.5
Max(LF)    128.9    139.3    170.9    162.9    122.9
StdDev(LF)  32.9     37.3     36.6     34.6     29.2
Able(50)     9.5%    13.7%    30.7%    28.4%    26.3%
Able(75)     3.6%     8.1%    11.6%     7.1%     6.9%
Able(100)    1.8%     4.3%     5.8%     4.5%     2.5%
Able(OK)    10.4%    12.4%    18.0%    12.9%    18.8%
 
Mean(CF)   -86.1    -69.6    -40.0    -41.6    -45.7
Min(CF)   -155.7   -151.7   -148.2   -146.3   -127.0
Max(CF)     71.7     88.9    124.9    122.8     63.1
StdDev(CF)  41.1     46.9     45.7     43.3     36.0
Able(50)     0.9%     3.7%     4.8%     3.2%     0.6%
Able(75)     ----     1.2%     1.6%     1.3%     ----
Able(100)    ----     ----     0.5%     0.6%     ----
Able(OK)     0.9%     1.2%     3.7%     0.6%     3.1%
 
Mean(RF)     8.8     13.5     35.1     32.9     30.9
Min(RF)    -63.5    -55.2    -50.7    -56.1    -39.3
Max(RF)    135.9    143.5    174.8    162.0    122.7
StdDev(RF)  33.8     37.8     37.3     34.9     30.0
Able(50)    11.8%    13.7%    30.2%    28.4%    25.6%
Able(75)     4.5%     8.1%    13.2%     7.1%     6.3%
Able(100)    2.3%     4.3%     5.8%     4.5%     2.5%
Able(OK)    10.4%    12.4%    18.0%    12.9%    18.8%

Mean, Min, Max and StdDev should be self-explanatory. Able(50, 75, 100) is the percentage of players whose positional rating is at least that high. Able(OK) is the percentage of players whose Outfield Range/Error/Arm ratings are all at least at the minimum requirement for the position (i.e. high enough that the player can show a positional rating in-game, not just in the editor).

Note that Able(OK) just provides the absolute minimum and doesn't guarantee that the position rating will be any good. For example, the 0.6% (= 1 player) of third-basemen who qualify as Able(100) and Able(OK) in centerfield aren't the same guy...the Able(OK) player has outfield skills of 97/48/48 for a CF rating of just 14, while the Able(100) player has 161/55/22 (i.e. very high range, but lacking arm) for a CF rating of 123.

At any rate, injury log's observation seems to be largely correct...very few infielders have the necessary skills to play centerfield. The range requirement of 90 is usually the killer...because it's weighted so strongly in the positional rating calculation, a player really needs to have an OF range of 120+ in order to receive even a marginal CF rating, and only about 1 in 40 infielders will have that large a range rating (in fact, only about 1 in 10 even exceed the 90 minimum in my sample).

[Zeyes]

dola,

Originally Posted by injury log

And I don't believe there are many Brandon Inge types either- catchers who could learn to play a range of positions.

Catchers only:

Mean(1B)    79.4
Min(1B)     26.3
Max(1B)    201.1
StdDev(1B)  26.0
Able(50)    92.8%
Able(75)    54.3%
Able(100)   16.7%

Mean(2B)    -9.4
Min(2B)    -45.6
Max(2B)     89.9 
StdDev(2B)  20.2
Able(50)     1.8%
Able(75)     0.9%
Able(100)    ----
Able(OK)     0.5%
 
Mean(3B)     8.3
Min(3B)    -30.3
Max(3B)    111.4
StdDev(3B)  21.2
Able(50)     4.1%
Able(75)     1.8%
Able(100)    0.9%
Able(OK)    12.7%
 
Mean(SS)   -40.3
Min(SS)    -75.7
Max(SS)     66.2
StdDev(SS)  21.2
Able(50)     0.9%
Able(75)     ----
Able(100)    ----
Able(OK)     ----

So, yeah, there are a couple of catchers who could be mediocre-to-decent corner infielders (and corner outfielders), but not really many who could play up the middle, at least not without further fielding development.

[injury log]

Great stuff Zeyes- thanks for posting the info. I'm happy to see that at least *some* middle infielders could play the outfield; I have yet to find any, but I'll be sure to look now. On principle, I think many shortstops should at least have mediocre outfield range. I don't expect many catchers to be able to play short- there's a reason they're catchers after all- but certainly more should have the infield arm for third, if perhaps not the range. I have no idea if there is any correlation in-game between related fielding skills (catcher arm and infield arm; infield and outfield range), but there probably should be some loose relationship, with many exceptions.

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by injury log

I don't expect many catchers to be able to play short- there's a reason they're catchers after all- but certainly more should have the infield arm for third, if perhaps not the range.

Yes, from what I can tell catchers are usually at least decent in Infield Arm (average of 86 in my sample), but the minimum requirement for 3B is fairly high with 60 so it doesn't earn them many points. FWIW, the native third basemen averaged 155.

At any rate, just like in the outfield the major contributor to infield positional ratings is the Range skill, and that's where catchers are usually pretty bad (average of 32), even by 3B standards (minimum of 40). The main reason that they look even worse in the middle infield is that they're rated badly at turning the double-play, too (minimum for 2B and SS is 60, catchers averaged 26).

Edit: In fact, writing all this I think I'd be in favour of downgrading range in the ratings formula for corner IF/OF...I've been posting my tables in piecemeal fashion so I don't know whether I've posted this one before, but the skills enter the positional ratings (with some adjustments) at these values:

Pos | IF R | IF E | IF A | TDP
----|------|------|------|------
P   |  12  |   5  |   2  |   1
1B  |  12  |   6  |   1  |   1
2B  |  11  |   4  |   1  |   4
3B  |  11  |   4  |   3  |   2
SS  |  11  |   4  |   1  |   4


Pos | IF E | C Ab | C Ar
----|------|------|------
C   |   1  |   6  |  13


Pos | OF R | OF E | OF A 
----|------|------|------
LF  |  15  |   3  |   2
CF  |  17  |   2  |   1
RF  |  14  |   3  |   3

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by injury log

I can't think of any real life players who have converted from OF to middle infield positions (2B/SS); I think the problem in OOTP is only that too few infielders are generated with any OF ability.

Just noticed that statement on a re-read. I do think there's also a problem with outfielders converting to the infield, in that they're not just unable to play 2B/SS, but also the corners. Of course they have the minimum ratings for first base (because there aren't any), but even so they'd be very poor at 1B, to say nothing of the hot corner. That doesn't seem even remotely realistic to me.

Now, I have to reiterate that my little study above was done with an amateur draft pool, so things might look differently for developed players (inaugural draft, "create fictional players" function, or just plain after years of development), but it's still extremely odd that any outfielder in a draft pool is created with worse infield ratings than the worst first baseman available. I suspect that when you're starting with ratings that are all 6 out of 200 or worse, even lots of fielding development will never make you even a mediocre infielder.

[Neags23]

So, then, if the answers to my original question are true, even though there aren't too many guys created with ability in both IF and OF positions, a player can and should develop skills for his un-original position over time given enough playing time at that position.

Maybe a 1B that is 1 outfield range, 1 outfield arm, and 1 outfield error could eventually develop into a 5 or 6 (on a 10 scale)?

[injury log]

I've personally never seen any individual fielding rating (range, error, arm, etc) go up by more than one point on a five point scale (and that may have been scouting error). So I'd be quite surprised if your 1B with a 1 in all OF ratings ever became a passable outfielder. In any case, if you do try it, I'll be interested to hear about the results!

[ctorg]

There are some interesting (and classic) Jamesian observations that are somewhat relevant to this stuff.

http://baseball1.com/bb-data/bbd-bj1.html

[beorn]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I also think it's not entirely realistic to have a guy with superb ratings in either IF or OF and bottomed out ratings in the other. There is a definite difference between IF and OF range, but I don't think it's so different that you should be able to have a guy with a 100/100 OF range have a 1/100 IF range.

How about pitchers with very poor outfield arms? Give me a break!

Which is why I am so interested in a clear answer to Neags23's original question. I think, but I am not sure, that my two pitching failures with good bats will never become anything other than first basemen. But if their outfield range, error avoidance, and arms are going to develop with experience, then it is well worth the effort.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by beorn

How about pitchers with very poor outfield arms? Give me a break!

Which is why I am so interested in a clear answer to Neags23's original question. I think, but I am not sure, that my two pitching failures with good bats will never become anything other than first basemen. But if their outfield range, error avoidance, and arms are going to develop with experience, then it is well worth the effort.

Well, pitching is very different from throwing out a runner. I can see how a pitcher might not have a great arm for throwing out runners. He may have to make adjustments to throw level instead of down off a mound and to throw straight rather than with movement.

[ctorg]

dola,

It seems to me that if a young player has a natural athleticism, he should be able to learn just about any position. I mean, players in the low minors learn new and unrelated positions all the time, moving from catcher to outfield to second base over a couple of years depending on what the organization wants to do with them. There may be a position they are best at, but I think most players can learn to become decent at any position if they learn it early enough. Learning a new position probably becomes more difficult over time, but almost any 19-year-old should be able to learn how to play LF or 1B with a reasonable level of skill.

[beorn]

Originally Posted by ctorg

Well, pitching is very different from throwing out a runner. I can see how a pitcher might not have a great arm for throwing out runners. He may have to make adjustments to throw level instead of down off a mound and to throw straight rather than with movement.

Not great? Agreed. But extremely poor? This should be a rare exception. As a matter of fact, I would think that with experience, almost any former pitcher would have at least an adequate outfield arm -- and experience is a different rating.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by beorn

Not great? Agreed. But extremely poor? This should be a rare exception. As a matter of fact, I would think that with experience, almost any former pitcher would have at least an adequate outfield arm -- and experience is a different rating.

True, I guess. Unless there is an injury involved, I would think that if a guy can throw an 85 mph ball from the mound to the plate for a strike, he can probably groove one from the RF wall to 2B (or home plate) at a pretty good clip.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by ctorg

dola,

It seems to me that if a young player has a natural athleticism, he should be able to learn just about any position. I mean, players in the low minors learn new and unrelated positions all the time, moving from catcher to outfield to second base over a couple of years depending on what the organization wants to do with them. There may be a position they are best at, but I think most players can learn to become decent at any position if they learn it early enough. Learning a new position probably becomes more difficult over time, but almost any 19-year-old should be able to learn how to play LF or 1B with a reasonable level of skill.

What's a reasonable level of skill? If you mean "well enough to not embarass himself in the majors" I think you're wrong. I don't think anyone should be able to move to any position just because they're 19. There are high school players who are first basemen because they don't have the range to play anywhere else. There are outfielders who simply don't have the reaction time or hands to play the infield well (or even adequately).

[CBL-Commish]

dola, I had a minor league shortstop who was adequate there, but not great. He was also blocked by a player in the majors. So in AAA I started playing him at second, where he fairly quickly got a pretty good rating. Then I moved him to third, where he got an adequate rating after 20 or 30 games. So I moved him to first, where he got a great rating after another 20 or 30 games. So now I have a pretty good superutility player.

What I haven't done is tried moving him to the outfield.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

What's a reasonable level of skill? If you mean "well enough to not embarass himself in the majors" I think you're wrong. I don't think anyone should be able to move to any position just because they're 19. There are high school players who are first basemen because they don't have the range to play anywhere else. There are outfielders who simply don't have the reaction time or hands to play the infield well (or even adequately).

Well, I think what ctorg may have been saying is that given an athletically and defensively gifted enough 19 y/o, which is (I would think) a majority of players getting drafted, they should be able to learn new positions over the course of their minor league careers. Obviously the Prince Fielder's and Ryan Howard's of the world wouldn't become decent enough center fielder's not to embarass themselves, even when they were 19.

But there is a pretty high number of players in low minors that switch positions all the time. It's that old saying, "If you can hit a baseball well enough, a team will find you a place to play." That doesn't necessarily seem to ring true in OOTP '07.

I've played my aforementioned 1B at LF for over 1000 innings at the rookie and short season A levels and haven't seen any kind of OF ratings bump. Also no experience bump. He's almost serviceable out there (about 12 errors, but a very low RF). After another 1000 innings or so, if I see no improvement, I may just have to 'improve' him myself.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Well, I think what ctorg may have been saying is that given an athletically and defensively gifted enough 19 y/o, which is (I would think) a majority of players getting drafted, they should be able to learn new positions over the course of their minor league careers. Obviously the Prince Fielder's and Ryan Howard's of the world wouldn't become decent enough center fielder's not to embarass themselves, even when they were 19.

But there is a pretty high number of players in low minors that switch positions all the time. It's that old saying, "If you can hit a baseball well enough, a team will find you a place to play." That doesn't necessarily seem to ring true in OOTP '07.

I've played my aforementioned 1B at LF for over 1000 innings at the rookie and short season A levels and haven't seen any kind of OF ratings bump. Also no experience bump. He's almost serviceable out there (about 12 errors, but a very low RF). After another 1000 innings or so, if I see no improvement, I may just have to 'improve' him myself.

Yes, this is more along the lines of what I meant. Take someone like Jose Reyes. Very good shortstop. Given his speed, I bet if the Mets had groomed him as a CF, he would have made a good CF. But in OOTP, most guys with really high raw ratings (i.e. arm, range, etc.) in the IF have very low raw ratings for OF. I'm not talking about the Prince Fielders or Ryan Howards, but the guys who are good fielders and should be able to translate that to various other positions in the early parts of their career. They still may have positions for which they are best suited (IF or OF), but for the most part, I think they should get pretty good raw skills at both.

I do acknowledge that there are guys who are great infielders who probably could not have been great outfielders. Robin Ventura comes to mind. IF requires reaction speed, whereas OF needs running speed more. Still, I think that most good fielders will see their skills translate to either infield or outfield if they are trained from an early enough age. I suspect that the ability to make the switch diminishes over time.

[StyxNCa]

Game doesn't create or recognize B.J. Surhoff type players then I guess.