6/27/2012 6:29 PM
I find it interesting, Mike.
6/27/2012 8:30 PM
I also find it very interesting. I find myself with this info in the back of my head as I plan out each season now.
6/28/2012 2:31 AM
Posted by lccooler on 6/27/2012 6:29:00 PM (view original):
I find it interesting, Mike.
+1
6/28/2012 8:27 AM
Well, hell, that makes four of us. 
6/28/2012 9:21 AM
get a room, 'mos
6/28/2012 11:26 AM
One of my teams, my 2nd best player is a C, but my best player is also a C. He's young and played very little last season I guess hes going to be my RF this season.
6/28/2012 1:35 PM
You should update us on how he does mitch. Give us more data on how well/poorly these types do in RF.
6/28/2012 3:22 PM
I used Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Cesar Mesa for the last 7 games of the season in Coop.   He fell in line with Nieves.

 

 

inn

po

A

e

Plus

neg

Total

PPPS

Lonny Fitzgerald

RF

43

8

0

0

0

0

0.186

271.3

Cliff Hughes

RF

22

4

0

0

0

0

0.182

265.1

Perry Turner

RF

1193

196

13

3

2

2

0.173

251.7

Wes Hill *

RF

6

1

0

0

0

0

0.167

243.0

Robin Petersen

RF

77.2

11

0

0

0

0

0.142

207.7

Cesar Mesa

RF

63

10

0

0

0

2

0.127

185.1

Fausto DeRojas

RF

16

2

0

0

0

0

0.125

182.3

Matty Molina

RF

8

1

0

0

0

0

0.125

182.3

Marc Sinclair

RF

18

2

0

0

0

0

0.111

162.0

Norberto Matos

RF

5

0

0

0

0

0

0.000

0.0

 

 

1451

235

13

3

2

4

0.167

244.1

6/29/2012 12:12 PM
It's really interesting.  I've been playing a poor mans CF in LF for awhile now, and putting my worst defensive OF in RF for about the same duration, but haven't tried such as obvious poor defensive player in RF yet.  I'll have to give it a  go soon. 
7/6/2012 9:10 AM
Season over.   Nieves cost me about 50 positive plays in RF and 80 in LF.   Pearson was 10 over average in RF and over 60 in LF.   This is based on a full 162 game, 9 inning season. 

 

 

inn

po

A

e

Plus

neg

Total

PPPS

Leo Mackowiak

RF

7

2

0

0

0

0

0.286

416.6

Gus Chong

RF

246

44

1

0

0

4

0.167

243.0

Chris Carter

RF

246

38

2

2

1

0

0.159

231.1

Rudy Leskanic

RF

64

7

2

0

0

0

0.141

205.0

Harry Michaels

RF

31.1

3

0

0

0

0

0.096

140.6

Matt Cook

RF

16

1

0

0

0

0

0.063

91.1

 

 

610.1

95

5

2

1

4

0.156

227.0

Frank Nieve

RF

415.1

57

1

2

0

7

0.118

172.1

Bingo Pearson

RF

421.2

63

3

0

3

0

0.164

238.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matt Cook

CF

8

4

0

0

0

0

0.500

729.0

Rudy Leskanic

CF

926.1

222

2

5

5

0

0.242

352.7

Bingo Pearson

CF

513

110

3

4

0

1

0.211

306.9

 

 

1447

336

5

9

5

1

0.232

338.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin O'Leary

LF

9

3

0

0

0

0

0.333

486.0

Gus Chong

LF

29

7

1

0

0

0

0.276

402.2

Leo Mackowiak

LF

27

7

0

0

0

0

0.259

378.0

Matt Cook

LF

16

4

0

0

0

0

0.250

364.5

Frank Hall

LF

465

88

3

3

2

0

0.194

282.2

James Arnold

LF

93.2

17

0

3

0

0

0.150

219.0

Rudy Leskanic

LF

9

1

0

0

0

0

0.111

162.0

Chris Carter

LF

17

1

0

1

0

0

0.000

0.0

 

 

665.2

128

4

7

2

0

0.191

278.4

Frank Nieve

LF

362.1

59

0

3

0

7

0.135

197.3

Bingo Pearson

LF

419.1

92

1

1

6

0

0.234

340.9

7/6/2012 9:13 AM
In summation, if you buy into the "each out is worth about 2/3 of a run" theory, you'd need your C playing RF to produce about 35 more runs than a normal RF for it to be worthwhile.
7/6/2012 4:34 PM
My guy TerryParris is a COF with defensive numbers of 64-47-72-59.  You would think that he would do just fine in RF, but he seems to do much better in LF.   In 1637 MOB LF innings he's had 5 plus plays and 3 minus plays.  In 1346 RF innings he's had 1 plus play and 8 minus plays.

Why the difference?

On the PPPS scale he's had 367 in 1637 innings in LF, 200 in 1346 innings in RF.  That works out to 328/162 full games in LF, slightly better than Mike's averages, and 218/162 games in RF, slightly below Mike's averages.

His range is considerably better than the recommended LF base range (55) and his arm is way better.  He's right at the base range for RF (64) and hhis arm is only slightly better.

Comments?

7/6/2012 5:10 PM

It's the 59 A/A.   I haven't quite been able to pinpoint how low you can go but arm seems more important in RF than Range/glove.

7/6/2012 5:12 PM
Also, keep in mind that your pitching will affect your OF numbers so it's better to compare specific team averages to determine how much a guy helps/hurts you.
7/6/2012 5:15 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/20/2012 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Had a little time last night so I went back 10 seasons in MG for OF numbers.   The PPPS averages were as follows:
CF-398.8
LF-318.3
RF-231.4

The high-end CF(using 500 innings minimum) were high range, good glove players.  No real shocker there.   90 range, 80+ glove.

The high-end LF were also range/glove guys.  They were more failed CF/2B with 70+ range/glove.   I know, for a fact, that  you can get even more from high range/lower glove guys(85/65) in LF.   Arm doesn't seem to matter much in LF/CF.

The high-end RF were arm guys.   I hadn't ever thought of using C/DH-types in RF but I did use a handful of 65/35 range/glove guys.  The big difference in plays made came from the arm.   I'd been thinking RF along the lines of LF(range makes up for other shortcomings) but that is flat-out wrong in RF.  The players with the 50/50 arm just don't make the plays that the 65/65 arm players do regardless of R/G numbers.

So, in summation, I think you can use the 8/22/65/65/41 C in RF but not the low level 1B/DH 35/41/38/29 out there with limited negatives.  I'll revisit this as I get a bigger sample size.
This.
of 15

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.