Ok here's an interesting one, that I will admit I did not overly research or think into. So please correct my data where I've made silly/stupid errors.

Looking at 20 seasons in 3 worlds, I noticed that 3Bs have an almost 2:1 ratio of "defensive touches" vs CFs. Defining "defensive touches" as PO+A (I don't even know if that's a thing).

3Bs were averaging about 560-600 defensive touches per year
CFs were averaging about 300-350 defensive touches per year

So the question is - does this mean that IF you had to sacrifice a little defense in either spot, you'd be better served sacrificing it at CF? (I understand the general consensus is that DEF MUSTs at CF, SS, 2B... so I guess i'm wondering if that assumption has error to it).

FYI - the worlds in question are well managed with correct placement of players at CF and 3B. (Wanted to ensure the CF data wasn't skewed by a bunch of poor CFs)

Your numbers seem about right. IMO the question isn't whether you sacrifice, but whether you put the right type of players at 3B and CF, and I don't define them by success but by failure rate.

CF comes down to Range and Glove. OF errors give runners extra bases, and lack of range turns into extra hits which may not even translate into poor plays. I once made this mistake, playing a mediocre 2B at CF for almost a whole season. I eventually realized that he was getting less touches than any other CF in the league.

Compared to that, I think you can live with 3B errors/minuses, as long as the player has a good enough arm that they're not a ton of throwing errors. Also at 3B, the player can have a good enough bat to compensate for defensive weakness. It's more rare to find a player with CF defensive skills and plus offense.

As always, more than one way to play this game, but my personal feeling is that CF is a position you have to try to find a player specifically for it, whereas 3B is a position that you can see what you have available to fill it.

Ah, yes - I neglected to think about the relative impact of an error or negative play at CF or 3B. Makes sense. The "sacrifice" question was really about minimizing errors/negative plays. If the 3B gets twice as much action, sacrificing defense there would (in theory) produce twice as many errors/negs than a similar sacrifice at CF. But I didn't consider the relative impact of those errors/negs would be greater at CF... good point.

Still...

IMO, defense at 3B is severely underrated in HBD. They do get a ton of touches, and the cost of a mistake in CF (for example) is much less than twice the cost of a mistake at 3B (a double is about 1.5x the cost in runs of a single).

This doesn't mean I disagree with damag-- CF range is still really important, and there's some evidence that not every play a low-range fielder doesn't make is recorded in the box score as a (-) play-- but often the guy I have "available to fill" 3B is a near-Gold Glove with a .700-.750 OPS rather than an .850 OPS who is below average at the position.