Furcal in center?

[JapanJobbers]

Uhhh....AL SS GG 2 years running now. So yeah he's already winning multiple GGs where he is. Yes?

I always get a kick out of this Jeter to CF stuff.

I don't care about GGs, I want good defense. Jeter isn't as bad as he used to be, but he's hardly near the top.

[Allan]

Definately would be nice. With all the names thrown around this offseason....Giles,Abreu,Furcal,Damon,Pierre,Wilk.,Preston, it's hard to keep track.

Picking up Bobby with Matsui and Sheff (DH)...I don't care if they put Bubba in Center.
Heck, with that lineup just pound a stick in dead center and put a glove on top of it.

They tried the stick thing last season..... didn't work out so well.

[ring403]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...p-310390c.html

However, that's not the Yanks' ideal scenario, and they're mulling all types of other possible alternatives. Cashman half-jokingly mentioned to Rafael Furcal's agent, Adam Katz, that the free agent shortstop is so quick he'd probably be a great center fielder but clarified that statement to reporters yesterday, saying that the amount of money Furcal will command would be too much to pay for an "audition" of a player at a position he's never played. "We're not pursuing him to be a center fielder," Cashman said.

[ojo]

Baseball America has a prejudice against Yankee prospects.

Isn't that because they've been overrun by Sox fans?

Why would Callis or anyone on BA risk their credibility? It's a fair assessment. You may not agree with it, but I think it's unfair to cry Yankee prejudice against anyone who doesn't rate every Yankee prospect as the next Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens.

Have you ever actually watched any of their chats? The anti-Yankee bias is so apparant, it's not even funny.

And it's not that they're always wrong. Half the time, I agree with their assessment. But they continually miss the boat as far as true worth. For example, they blasted Gardner because he lacks power, even though Gardner is a great defender and looks to be a Juan Pierre type, which is valuable provided the player can get on base.

If Gardner were in the Sox's system, I garuntee you they'd be raving about Gardner.

i would also say there's an inherent bias against the yankees present in baseball prospectus.

[gdn]

So these Furcal to center rumors seem to be unfounded or at the very least, not going anywhere?

[32elston]

Clearly Furcal is a better athlete and will make some great plays, but it is not just about what a player does when the ball is hit to them. That player needs to be in position when other things are happening like that play against Oakland in the playoffs. A-Rod and DJ are much smarter shortstops. Furcal would be the third choice. His entire game is based on outrun and outhrow. You can't do that on every play. Furcal gets a nagging injury and he is useless. You also have to take into account that ATL has been using much better defensive 1st basemen, that makes up for lots of mistakes. LaRoche may never be an all-star but he can dig the ball, Giambi can't. If we pay for Furcal and he hurts his legs, we have an expensive guy that won't get hits anymore, can't steal bases and can't play defense. If DJ or A-Rod had the same injuries they are still good enough fundamentally to be able to play the game well, maybe not at short but they would still be useful even as DH's if nothing else. Do you remember when SI said Christian Guzman was the worst shortstop? Go back and see who they also gave consideration to for that spot.

[DJ27]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...p-310390c.html

This pretty much ends this thread. It was fun while it lasted!

[mhmajp]

Melky will be ready within a year, and won't be a stopgap.

Isn't Melky a corner OF?

[gdn]

Isn't Melky a corner OF?

No. CF.

[JavyVazquezIsSick]

Too expensive and too risky, pass...

[Wang's Groundballs]

No. CF.

A lot of people think he'll end up in a corner spot, though.

[BJG]

No. CF.

Currently. Many view an eventual move to a corner as necessary. The question then becomes, will he hit enough to justify that?

[Wang's Groundballs]

Currently. Many view an eventual move to a corner as necessary. The question then becomes, will he hit enough to justify that?

He'll have to live up to the Jose Vidro comp. BA has throw around before and play excellent defense.

[BJG]

Clearly Furcal is a better athlete and will make some great plays, but it is not just about what a player does when the ball is hit to them. That player needs to be in position when other things are happening like that play against Oakland in the playoffs. A-Rod and DJ are much smarter shortstops. Furcal would be the third choice. His entire game is based on outrun and outhrow. You can't do that on every play. Furcal gets a nagging injury and he is useless. You also have to take into account that ATL has been using much better defensive 1st basemen, that makes up for lots of mistakes. LaRoche may never be an all-star but he can dig the ball, Giambi can't. If we pay for Furcal and he hurts his legs, we have an expensive guy that won't get hits anymore, can't steal bases and can't play defense. If DJ or A-Rod had the same injuries they are still good enough fundamentally to be able to play the game well, maybe not at short but they would still be useful even as DH's if nothing else. Do you remember when SI said Christian Guzman was the worst shortstop? Go back and see who they also gave consideration to for that spot.

1. The job of a defender is to make as many outs as possible. Furcal historically makes substantially more than Jeter.

2. What evidence is there that Jeter's play does not suffer from injuries? His defense, for example, was horrible following his shoulder injury.

3. Giambi has no range at first. Giambi certainly can't throw anymore. What Giambi can do is receive. In addition, Furcal has had any number of first baseman in his time at Atlanta. Is it your contention that they were all gold glove caliber?

[mhmajp]

FWIW, Hardball Times rates Furcal as very good - +32 runs!

I'm not totally following this:

"In 2004, Yankees pitchers allowed 2,027 ground balls. Based on the amount of balls put into play by left-handed and right-handed batters against the Yankees, I expected Yankee shortstops to make 450 assists. Derek Jeter played 93% of defensive innings played by the Yankees, so I expected him to have 419 assists. Jeter actually had 392 assists."

Shouldn't the system look at how many balls were actually hit to Jeter and how many of those were converted to assists versus how many should have been hit to him and how many assists he had?

[Wang's Groundballs]

I'm not totally following this:

Shouldn't the system look at how many balls were actually hit to Jeter and how many of those were converted to assists versus how many should have been hit to him and how many assists he had?

To find that out you need PBP data which is generally upwards of $10,000 a season. Range does a decent job of estimating how many balls a player should have gotten to, but like you suggest, metrics that look at acutal balls hit to the fielder (like ZR and UZR) are much more accurate.

[mhmajp]

No. CF.

Yeah, sorry, dumb question on my part. What I'd really been asking was: Isn't he now being projected as a corner OF?

[mhmajp]

To find that out you need PBP data which is generally upwards of $10,000 a season. Range does a decent job of estimating how many balls a player should have gotten to, but like you suggest, metrics that look at acutal balls hit to the fielder (like ZR and UZR) are much more accurate.

Got it. Thanks.

[Iknowcool]

Sign Furcal to play second base. Move Cano to first or left, where his average range won't hurt him as much. Let Matsui walk as a freeagent. I know Matsuis good, but I'd take Furcal over him any day of the week.

[BobbyMurcerFan]

For whatever it's worth, this is Bill James' take on position transition:

The defensive spectrum looks like this:


[ - - 1B - LF - RF - 3B - CF - 2B - SS - C - - ] with the basic premise being that positions at the right end of the spectrum are more difficult than the positions at the left end of the spectrum. Players can generally move from right to left along the specturm successfully during their careers

Notes

1. True shortage of talent almost never occurs at the left end of the defensive spectrum.
2. Rightward shifts along the defensive spectrum almost never work.

Thanks for your post. But if Bill James is really saying this, he's lost it.

A C can generally play CF? (Is Bill James aware of the fact that CF requires speed and catchers are usually slow?)


A 2B can generally play RF? (Is Bill James aware of the fact that 2Bman usually have weak arms and RF requires a strong arm?)


A CF can generally play 3B? (Is Bill James aware of the fact that these positions have almost no overlap in terms of what they require from a defender?)

[BobbyMurcerFan]

Sign Furcal to play second base. Move Cano to first or left, where his average range won't hurt him as much. Let Matsui walk as a freeagent. I know Matsuis good, but I'd take Furcal over him any day of the week.

... trade Sheff for Cameron, put Wang in RF, move Jaret Wright into the closer role, make Mo the fourth OFer, flip-flop Jeter and A-Rod, convert Posada into a starter, sign Bernie as catcher...

[Yankeeah]

... trade Sheff for Cameron, put Wang in RF, move Jaret Wright into the closer role, make Mo the fourth OFer, flip-flop Jeter and A-Rod, convert Posada into a starter, sign Bernie as catcher...

Dude, thats so stupid. Wang in RF? That's wasting his range. Put him in center. My god, how could you even type that?

[MisterNovember]

Thanks for your post. But if Bill James is really saying this, he's lost it.

A C can generally play CF? (Is Bill James aware of the fact that CF requires speed and catchers are usually slow?)


A 2B can generally play RF? (Is Bill James aware of the fact that 2Bman usually have weak arms and RF requires a strong arm?)


A CF can generally play 3B? (Is Bill James aware of the fact that these positions have almost no overlap in terms of what they require from a defender?)

You're missing the point. The idea is that the positions on the right end of the spectrum are MORE DIFFICULT to play than positions on the left. This is not necessarily assuming that a catcher will become a CFer, for the obvious reasons you point out. Rafael Furcal, for example, might start his career as a SS, become a CFer in the middle of his career, and end his career as a corner OFer.

[BobbyMurcerFan]

Dude, thats so stupid. Wang in RF? That's wasting his range. Put him in center. My god, how could you even type that?

Sorry, my bad .

[BobbyMurcerFan]

You're missing the point. The idea is that the positions on the right end of the spectrum are MORE DIFFICULT to play than positions on the left. This is not necessarily assuming that a catcher will become a CFer, for the obvious reasons you point out. Rafael Furcal, for example, might start his career as a SS, become a CFer in the middle of his career, and end his career as a corner OFer.

You're missing my point:

"Players can generally move from right to left along the specturm successfully during their careers"

The immediately above statement is bs.

[scull567]

You're missing my point:

"Players can generally move from right to left along the specturm successfully during their careers"

The immediately above statement is bs.

Its not true in all cases, but generally if a player moves positions as he ages - it is to the left on the spectrum, hardly ever to the right. Of course there are exceptions as you pointed out.

[32elston]

There are several good players that moved fro less athletic positions to more athletic positions Dale Murphy moved from catcher to outfield, Biggio from catcher to 2b to OF, Ron Gant from 3b OF, David Justice from 1b to RF, the list goes on, but most players that do that came up in the organization and are moved out of necessity. You don't sign a free-agent to play an unfamiliar position. It may work, but if it doesn't it is your fault for signing him. Let's get a CF. If we want to manufacture one let's do that in the minors not at the ML level.

[JeffWeaverFan]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...p-310390c.html

Good to know. I still think Milton Bradley is the best option.

[jimmykey2]

Good to know. I still think Milton Bradley is the best option.

Because Bradley has accomplished what in the last few years other than get hurt? IMO, Bradley isn't consistent enough in any phase of his game to be in pinstripes. The only good thing is that it would cost little to acquire him.

[New Murderer's Row]

And it's also true that if the Yankees somehow signed Furcal, it would be laughable if Jeter was the one to play SS.

how many gold gloves does furcal have? he may have a strong arm but he is going to boot more plays than jeter will. even if furcal is better jeter is an above average shortstop.

and more importantly, wouldn't furcal (with the stronger arm and the greater speed) be a better centerfielder than jeter? according to his agent furcal wants $50 million for 5-6 years. at 25, where furcal will fill the yankees biggest need without having to trade prospects, i think that'd be money well spent.

[Captain Yankee]

Furcal has a great arm. However, he does throw away a lot of balls. I would be very interested to see him in center field. We also know he is a great leadoff hitter.

[BobbyMurcerFan]

Its not true in all cases, but generally if a player moves positions as he ages - it is to the left on the spectrum, hardly ever to the right. Of course there are exceptions as you pointed out.

It's just a foolish simplification that really has no use.

For example, how could C be all the way to the right, which indicates that a catcher can play EVERY OTHER position on the field? That's patently absurd.

And even the implication that catcher is most difficult defensive position is misleading. Different positions require different skills, sometimes vastly different. To use a football illustration, I believe that playing offensive line is more difficult than cornerback, but does that mean as linemen age they can become DB's? Could this ever happen? Similarly, could ANY aged ML catcher ever become a credible SS, CF, etc.?

While I do believe that Bill James has helped us all better understand the game of baseball, I also believe he often lives on a fantasy world; I sincerely hope he becomes the Red Sox's next GM.

[ppa79]

I'll pass. 5yrs/50M. I wonder what GM will be stupid enough to give him that contract.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2221393

[BJG]

I'll pass. 5yrs/50M. I wonder what GM will be stupid enough to give him that contract.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2221393

In terms of agent demands at the beginning of free agency, that actually sounds somewhat reasonable (not that I'd pay it, but someone will) when you consider what the 3 shortstops on the market got last year and that Furcal is the only guy in this year's market.

[BJG]

It's just a foolish simplification that really has no use.

For example, how could C be all the way to the right, which indicates that a catcher can play EVERY OTHER position on the field? That's patently absurd.

And even the implication that catcher is most difficult defensive position is misleading. Different positions require different skills, sometimes vastly different. To use a football illustration, I believe that playing offensive line is more difficult than cornerback, but does that mean as linemen age they can become DB's? Could this ever happen? Similarly, could ANY aged ML catcher ever become a credible SS, CF, etc.?

While I do believe that Bill James has helped us all better understand the game of baseball, I also believe he often lives on a fantasy world; I sincerely hope he becomes the Red Sox's next GM.

Course, all one would really have to do is read the writings that went along with the introduction of the defensive spectrum to know that your above point was acknowledged and addressed from the very beginning. It seems that many of the problems that folks seem to have with James, even in the mainstream media, come from misunderstanding or not reading the whole thing or making assumptions that aren't true or misattributing something he had nothing to do with to him.

In a nutshell, there are 2 points re the defensive spectrum:

1. Shifts to the right almost never work
2. There is never a shortage of talent on the far left (in other words, you can always find a DH or 1B type)

The assumption, based on point 1, is therefore that shifts to the left do work. Obviously, they don't. James never said they did. However, given appropriate physical tools (like enough speed to cover the outfield), they 'generally' work, which is what he did say.

[StatenIslandYankee]

I wonder how REALISTIC this is

[BJG]

and more importantly, wouldn't furcal (with the stronger arm and the greater speed) be a better centerfielder than jeter?

Given that he's a better shortstop, yes, he would likely be a better centerfielder. However, it's not really that simple, as there are differences in the numbers of chances at each position, etc. So while Furcal might be 5 runs or so better in center than Jeter, he might be 15 runs or so better at short.

[BobbyMurcerFan]

...
In a nutshell, there are 2 points re the defensive spectrum:

1. Shifts to the right almost never work
2. There is never a shortage of talent on the far left (in other words, you can always find a DH or 1B type)

The assumption, based on point 1, is therefore that shifts to the left do work. Obviously, they don't. James never said they did. However, given appropriate physical tools (like enough speed to cover the outfield), they 'generally' work, which is what he did say.

These two points just aren't true. For example, the Yankees have been looking for a DH for years and have yet to find a good one. The best they did was David Justice for part of a season. The Mets have been looking for a 1Bman for how long? If first base were so easy to fill Martinez, Olerud & Clark wouldn't still be in business. And these aren't isolated cases.

What I dis like the most about Bill James-isms like the "Defensive Spectrum" is the theory begins to replace reality for a good number of people. For example, how many people said "Clutch doesn't exist" simply because Bill James said as much. But earlier this year he said clutch may indeed exist, so now all the Bill James disciples have to readjust their view of reality for the possibility that some players may actually be clutch.

And to honest, sometimes I think these things were just made haphazardly. Here, I'll take a stab at it:


The BobbyMurcerFan NYYFans Three Dimensional Defensive Crystal,
a.k.a. BMFNYYF3DDC

First Dimension: Intra-Infield Latice Moves
SS may radiate to 2B with a high confidence interval.
SS may radiate to 3B with a medium confidence interval.
C, SS, 2B may raditate to 1B with a medium confidence interval.
3B may radiate to 1B with a high confidence interval.

Second Dimension: Intra-Outfield Latice Moves
CF may radiate to LF with a high confidence interval.
RF may radiate to LF with a medium confidence interval.

Third Dimension: Inter-Infied-Outfield Latice Moves
SS and 2B may radiate to LF with a medium confidence interval.

[BJG]

These two points just aren't true. For example, the Yankees have been looking for a DH for years and have yet to find a good one. The best they did was David Justice for part of a season. The Mets have been looking for a 1Bman for how long? If first base were so easy to fill Martinez, Olerud & Clark wouldn't still be in business. And these aren't isolated cases.

What I dis like the most about Bill James-isms like the "Defensive Spectrum" is the theory begins to replace reality for a good number of people. For example, how many people said "Clutch doesn't exist" simply because Bill James said as much. But earlier this year he said clutch may indeed exist, so now all the Bill James disciples have to readjust their view of reality for the possibility that some players may actually be clutch.

And to honest, sometimes I think these things were just made haphazardly. Here, I'll take a stab at it:


The BobbyMurcerFan NYYFans Three Dimensional Defensive Crystal,
a.k.a. BMFNYYF3DDC

First Dimension: Intra-Infield Latice Moves
SS may radiate to 2B with a high confidence interval.
SS may radiate to 3B with a medium confidence interval.
C, SS, 2B may raditate to 1B with a medium confidence interval.
3B may radiate to 1B with a high confidence interval.

Second Dimension: Intra-Outfield Latice Moves
CF may radiate to LF with a high confidence interval.
RF may radiate to LF with a medium confidence interval.

Third Dimension: Inter-Infied-Outfield Latice Moves
SS and 2B may radiate to LF with a medium confidence interval.

1. The fact that the Yankees and Mets have made poor personnel decisions does not disprove James' point. In fact, it's part of the reason he made it. There were any number of options for the Yankees last year, be they in the minors or the majors, even if they were a short term veteran minor league solution, that were likely better than Tino last year. The problem is, teams tend to not seek those guys out because it's less risky to go with a name people know. When he fails as expected, it's a lot smaller pr issue than if you take a chance on a guy and he fails as unexpected.

2. You're just making my point. Rather than attack James for people misinterpreting what he has said, I'd prefer that you actually go out and understand what it is that he said for yourself. Someone else misinterpreting something and then repeating that misinterpretation is not the problem of the originator of the concept.

3. You're making my point again, because not only does "Underestimating the Fog" not say that clutch hitting might exist (it says that the method used by Cramer and others to show it didn't exist was flawed...there's a big difference), but most of the sabermetric community disagrees with James' article.

3. Provide me historical data backing up your theory and you'll have the starting point for a discussion. Despite your contention, this stuff did not come out of a vacuum, especially the early stuff like the defensive spectrum. In addition, in the years since, the contentions have been elaborated on, studied, tested, etc. by others and either tossed out or modfified by the community as a whole based on the results. In terms of defense, there has been play by play study to try and establish the average effect on defense players undergo moving position to position, and it backs up James' basic pretense.

[BobbyMurcerFan]

... Provide me historical data backing up your theory and you'll have the starting point for a discussion. Despite your contention, this stuff did not come out of a vacuum, especially the early stuff like the defensive spectrum. In addition, in the years since, the contentions have been elaborated on, studied, tested, etc. by others and either tossed out or modfified by the community as a whole based on the results. In terms of defense, there has been play by play study to try and establish the average effect on defense players undergo moving position to position, and it backs up James' basic pretense.

And you are proving my point. Just b/c I don't have historical data to back up what I'm saying doesn't mean it's meritless or not discussion worthy.

In fact, it should be fairly obivous that I matched skill sets for the different positions pretty well (better than James' Defensive Matrix did, if I may be so bold).

You don't need historical data to tell you that Jorge Posada has a pretty good shot of making the switch to 1B but probably not to any other position (except maybe 3B). You just need to have a handle on the game played right in front of your eyes and the skills needed to play it (BTW, I'm NOT saying you lack this ).

[BJG]

And you are proving my point. Just b/c I don't have historical data to back up what I'm saying doesn't mean it's meritless or not discussion worthy.

In fact, it should be fairly obivous that I matched skill sets for the different positions pretty well (better than James' Defensive Matrix did, if I may be so bold).

You don't need historical data to tell you that Jorge Posada has a pretty good shot of making the switch to 1B but probably not to any other position (except maybe 3B). You just need to have a handle on the game played right in front of your eyes and the skills needed to play it (BTW, I'm NOT saying you lack this ).

Yes, frankly, you do need historical data, because you tried to place a quantifier on each position move. Without it, we've got nothing to discuss other than your opinion. Your opinion, just as frankly, means squat in comparison to what has actually happened over the course of baseball history. How many SS have moved to 2B? What have been the results?

[BobbyMurcerFan]

Yes, frankly, you do need historical data, because you tried to place a quantifier on each position move. Without it, we've got nothing to discuss other than your opinion. Your opinion, just as frankly, means squat in comparison to what has actually happened over the course of baseball history. How many SS have moved to 2B? What have been the results?

This reply speaks volumes to my point. To summarily throw out opinions unaccompanied by statistical analysis of years of historical data is a very narrowing way to view the game of basebal, or the world, IMHO.

[BJG]

This reply speaks volumes to my point. To summarily throw out opinions unaccompanied by statistical analysis of years of historical data is a very narrowing way to view the game of basebal, or the world, IMHO.

I'm not throwing it out. I'm shelving it until you prove it. That's kind of the basis of most Western thought. Descartes didn't write, ""Je pense, donc je suis" and leave it for other people to discuss. He wrote Discourse on Method.

[BobbyMurcerFan]

I'm not throwing it out. I'm shelving it until you prove it. That's kind of the basis of most Western thought. Descartes didn't write, ""Je pense, donc je suis" and leave it for other people to discuss. He wrote Discourse on Method.

Again, this just illustrates my point. You don't need to meet a cartesian standard to have an opinion worthy of consideration, i.e. not being shelved.

[BJG]

Again, this just illustrates my point. You don't need to meet a cartesian standard to have an opinion worthy of consideration, i.e. not being shelved.

Shelving it doesn't mean its not worthy of consideration, just that it's not my job to do the legwork. If you believe it to be true, work on it. However, there are so many misconceptions in baseball, you can't expect anyone to take an opinion with no backing at face value and not question it anymore.

[BobbyMurcerFan]

Shelving it doesn't mean its not worthy of consideration, just that it's not my job to do the legwork. If you believe it to be true, work on it. However, there are so many misconceptions in baseball, you can't expect anyone to take an opinion with no backing at face value and not question it anymore.

I explained the logic behind it. Look at the skills required to play the different positions and find the other positions that require somewhat similar skill sets. E.g. LF requires reasonable speed and an adequate arm. That's why the switch from CF to LF is pretty common. 1B and C both require little range (compared to the other positions) and an ability to catch the ball. That's why the switch from C to 1B is fairly common. I could go on, but it's fairly obvious.

Would historical quantiative analysis help? Sure it would. But it doesn't take a database to say SS and 2B demand roughly the same skills but 2B requires less of an arm, so the move from SS to 2B should not be too difficult?

If you are going to wait for a hundred years of data analyzed, then you're going to miss out on a lot of rather obvious aspects of the game. And I'm SURE you already know these things, and no one had to use H.S. math to prove them to you.

[BJG]

I explained the logic behind it. Look at the skills required to play the different positions and find the other positions that require somewhat similar skill sets. E.g. LF requires reasonable speed and an adequate arm. That's why the switch from CF to LF is pretty common. 1B and C both require little range (compared to the other positions) and an ability to catch the ball. That's why the switch from C to 1B is fairly common. I could go on, but it's fairly obvious.

Would historical quantiative analysis help? Sure it would. But it doesn't take a database to say SS and 2B demand roughly the same skills but 2B requires less of an arm, so the move from SS to 2B should not be too difficult?

If you are going to wait for a hundred years of data analyzed, then you're going to miss out on a lot of rather obvious aspects of the game. And I'm SURE you already know these things, and no one had to use H.S. math to prove them to you.

That's exactly the problem. What we always thought were the rather obvious aspects of the game have turned out to not be so obvious. Going back to Branch Rickey and even before, this is what statistical analysis in baseball has shown time and time again...accepted assumptions about the game are not always accurate. That doesn't mean they are all wrong, but they are all worthy of testing.

So, while I would agree with you generally, you've gone beyone what you described above and tried to grade the differences between switching from short to second and short to third, for example, in a manner that I find not only to not be obvious, but one that could rather easily be quantified one way or the other to see if what I think is obvious is right or what you think is obvious is right.

[Iknowcool]

I'd go 5/50, which is what he is asking for. Hes only 27.