Aaron Rowand......

[cheapseats]

 

Of course getting bad jumps in RF matters. My point is if Jones can hardly handle RF than he’ll be completely overwhelmed in CF. Those CF stats you cited were from years ago and “The Fielding Bible” has a much, much better system in place to determining defensive value. Again, CF is a much more demanding position and it would be a disaster for the Cubs to JJ out there.

 

Jones can hardly handle right field?

 

According to BP, his career rate is 6 runs above average. The worst season he's ever had has been average.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/jonesja04.shtml

 

By Probabilistic Model of Range Jones has been above average:

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/cat_probabilistic_model_of_range.php

http://anaheimangelsblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/pmr-runs-rightfielders-pinto-has.html

 

By UZR, a stat the Cardinals like so much that they hired Mitchel Lichtman, Jones has been above average:

http://www.tangotiger.net/UZR0003.html

 

David Gassko's system has had Jones as the best RF in the game:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-range/

 

The Fielding Bible is great, but if the preponderance of evidence says someone is better than average, perhaps one should explore why there is a discrepancy.

 

I just opened up Dan Haren 3:16 in my Fielding Bible, and it says Jacque Jones is at least an average RF. Even if you want to deny every metric that says he's better than average, are you really going to argue that they've all grossly overestimated him?

 

As for the defensive spectrum, again, some players are better suited for positions that are generally more difficult. If CF is inherently more difficult than RF, why wasn't Mike Cameron the best RF ever? If SS is inherently more difficult than 3B, why is Alex Rodriguez an above average SS and a below average 3B?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

The big difference is"The Fielding Bible" actually watched every single play in the last 3 years. None the metrics you site can say that. IMO it's the first really good defensive metrics book to hit the market.

[cheapseats]

The big difference is"The Fielding Bible" actually watched every single play in the last 3 years. None the metrics you site can say that. IMO it's the first really good defensive metrics book to hit the market.

 

So the Cardinals should fire Mitchel Lichtman now, right?

 

Two points, neither of which you answer:

 

1) If the Fielding Bible says Jacque Jones is below average and EVERY other metric says he's above average, how do you square that? Do you blindly accept the Fielding Bible's rating without any regard for the others? Apparently so. I guess I should cancel my BP subscription and quit reading Hardball Times. The Fielding Bible is all I'll ever need.

 

2) You have consistently insisted on applying the defensive spectrum without regard for individual players' skills. Even if you want to discount EVERY metric that says Jacque is an above average RF, you ought to see that his range is consistently well above average for RF. So, even if he gets "bad jumps on balls," he gets to more balls than most RF. His problem? His arm, a problem that would be somewhat minimized in CF. So go ahead and explain about A-Rod and Cameron, OK?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

The big difference is"The Fielding Bible" actually watched every single play in the last 3 years. None the metrics you site can say that. IMO it's the first really good defensive metrics book to hit the market.

 

So the Cardinals should fire Mitchel Lichtman now, right?

 

Two points, neither of which you answer:

 

1) If the Fielding Bible says Jacque Jones is below average and EVERY other metric says he's above average, how do you square that? Do you blindly accept the Fielding Bible's rating without any regard for the others? Apparently so. I guess I should cancel my BP subscription and quit reading Hardball Times. The Fielding Bible is all I'll ever need.

 

2) You have consistently insisted on applying the defensive spectrum without regard for individual players' skills. Even if you want to discount EVERY metric that says Jacque is an above average RF, you ought to see that his range is consistently well above average for RF. So, even if he gets "bad jumps on balls," he gets to more balls than most RF. His problem? His arm, a problem that would be somewhat minimized in CF. So go ahead and explain about A-Rod and Cameron, OK?

First off I like Mitchel Lichtman a lot and I never said his system was bad given the information he had. Secondly he's not currently working for the Cardinals.

 

 

The fact is "The Fielding Bible" simply blows all other fielding metrics out of the water because they analyzed every single play in the last 3 years. No other metrics you site can claim that. Simply put it’s a seminal book on the subject. But don’t take my word for it, let’s see what Mitchel Lichtman has to say:

 

“Discussing various defensive evlaution systems, as in The Fielding Bible, was probably not appropriate for this type of book, and thankfully, John Dewan came out with a great (seminal) book on that topic.

 

Link

 

 

Jones does not have above average range.

 

A-Rod and Cameron may have declining skills or were overrated in terms of defense to begin with. Why do you think it’s so much harder to find a good hitting SS or CFer?

[cheapseats]

The big difference is"The Fielding Bible" actually watched every single play in the last 3 years. None the metrics you site can say that. IMO it's the first really good defensive metrics book to hit the market.

 

So the Cardinals should fire Mitchel Lichtman now, right?

 

Two points, neither of which you answer:

 

1) If the Fielding Bible says Jacque Jones is below average and EVERY other metric says he's above average, how do you square that? Do you blindly accept the Fielding Bible's rating without any regard for the others? Apparently so. I guess I should cancel my BP subscription and quit reading Hardball Times. The Fielding Bible is all I'll ever need.

 

2) You have consistently insisted on applying the defensive spectrum without regard for individual players' skills. Even if you want to discount EVERY metric that says Jacque is an above average RF, you ought to see that his range is consistently well above average for RF. So, even if he gets "bad jumps on balls," he gets to more balls than most RF. His problem? His arm, a problem that would be somewhat minimized in CF. So go ahead and explain about A-Rod and Cameron, OK?

First off I like Mitchel Lichtman a lot and I never said his system was bad given the information he had. Secondly he's not currently working for the Cardinals.

 

 

The fact is "The Fielding Bible" simply blows all other fielding metrics out of the water because they analyzed every single play in the last 3 years. No other metrics you site can claim that. Simply put it’s a seminal book on the subject. ...

 

Jones does not have above average range.

 

A-Rod and Cameron may have declining skills or were overrated in terms of defense to begin with. Why do you think it’s so much harder to find a good hitting SS or CFer?

 

Then I guess I can't have a conversation with you, since "The Fielding Bible" trumps everything.

 

Strangely, though, most research that cites only one source, no matter how authoritative that source may be, is found to be inadequate. If I had used a single source when when doing research as a graduate student, I would not have received my degree.

 

It seems to me that you'd like to have everything as black and white as your avatar, but unfortunately, that's not possible.

 

As for your refutation of Jones' range, just saying "he doesn't really have good range" is inadequate. There are numerous metrics that say he does.

 

Cameron has been a very good CF in San Diego. Did his skills decline in 2005 only to be rediscovered in 2006? If you want to argue that Cameron is or was overrated, go right ahead, but provide eveidence for your argument.

 

Maybe, just maybe, Arod struggles at 3B because range isn't nearly as important as it is at SS, neutralizing one of his greatest strengths. But if you want to argue an overnight decline in skills, go right ahead.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

The big difference is"The Fielding Bible" actually watched every single play in the last 3 years. None the metrics you site can say that. IMO it's the first really good defensive metrics book to hit the market.

 

So the Cardinals should fire Mitchel Lichtman now, right?

 

Two points, neither of which you answer:

 

1) If the Fielding Bible says Jacque Jones is below average and EVERY other metric says he's above average, how do you square that? Do you blindly accept the Fielding Bible's rating without any regard for the others? Apparently so. I guess I should cancel my BP subscription and quit reading Hardball Times. The Fielding Bible is all I'll ever need.

 

2) You have consistently insisted on applying the defensive spectrum without regard for individual players' skills. Even if you want to discount EVERY metric that says Jacque is an above average RF, you ought to see that his range is consistently well above average for RF. So, even if he gets "bad jumps on balls," he gets to more balls than most RF. His problem? His arm, a problem that would be somewhat minimized in CF. So go ahead and explain about A-Rod and Cameron, OK?

First off I like Mitchel Lichtman a lot and I never said his system was bad given the information he had. Secondly he's not currently working for the Cardinals.

 

 

The fact is "The Fielding Bible" simply blows all other fielding metrics out of the water because they analyzed every single play in the last 3 years. No other metrics you site can claim that. Simply put it’s a seminal book on the subject. ...

 

Jones does not have above average range.

 

A-Rod and Cameron may have declining skills or were overrated in terms of defense to begin with. Why do you think it’s so much harder to find a good hitting SS or CFer?

 

Then I guess I can't have a conversation with you, since "The Fielding Bible" trumps everything.

 

Strangely, though, most research that cites only one source, no matter how authoritative that source may be, is found to be inadequate. If I had used a single source when when doing research as a graduate student, I would not have received my degree.

 

It seems to me that you'd like to have everything as black and white as your avatar, but unfortunately, that's not possible.

 

As for your refutation of Jones' range, just saying "he doesn't really have good range" is inadequate. There are numerous metrics that say he does.

 

Cameron has been a very good CF in San Diego. Did his skills decline in 2005 only to be rediscovered in 2006? If you want to argue that Cameron is or was overrated, go right ahead, but provide eveidence for your argument.

 

Maybe, just maybe, Arod struggles at 3B because range isn't nearly as important as it is at SS, neutralizing one of his greatest strengths. But if you want to argue an overnight decline in skills, go right ahead.

 

 

When the one source is so much better than all others I do feel it's appropriate. Go ahead and keep citing a Mitchel Lichtman stats even when he freely admits John Dewan's work is seminal.

 

Wasn't Cameron injuried in 05? Is Arod that bad of a 3B? You do realize defense fluctuates from year to year? Answer the question - Why is it so much harder to find good hitting SS and CFers?

[cheapseats]

Answer the question - Why is it so much harder to find good hitting SS and CFers?

 

No one is arguing that SS and CF aren't generally more difficult to play; the argument is that there are some players who might perform better at a position deemed more difficult because of skills more suited for that position.

 

Whether you mean to or not, you're basically arguing that if Jacque were a good centerfielder, the Cubs would already be playing him in that position, which is the same sort of dubious argument that some here have used for various purposes, ie:

 

Hendry knows more about baseball than you armchair general managers. If you were so smart, you'd be general managers, too.

 

Todd Walker is not a good ballplayer. If he were so good, why couldn't the Cubs find a trading partner for him in the offseason.

 

Hee Seop Choi was never going to pan out. If he were so good, why did Jim Tracy sit him so often?

 

And as for A-rod, of course performances fluctuate, but if 2 1/2 years isn't a large enough sample size, I give up.

 

I'm done here. If you want to PM, that's fine, and we can discuss what the fielding bible has to say about the war in Iraq, Mel Gibson's anti-semitism, and the level of fecal matter in the Chicago River.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

The fact is the Cubs would be foolish to trust CF to JJ.

 

 

BTW, thanks for ending this with an incoherent logic rant.

[cheapseats]

The fact is the Cubs would be foolish to trust CF to JJ.

 

 

BTW, thanks for ending this with an incoherent logic rant.

 

Logic < The Fielding Bible

[CardsFanInChiTown]

The fact is the Cubs would be foolish to trust CF to JJ.

 

 

BTW, thanks for ending this with an incoherent logic rant.

 

Logic < The Fielding Bible

 

Your right, it’s very logical to trust a poor fielding RF with CF. Than again he’s average if you trust antiquated defensive statistics.

[cheapseats]

The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch.

[DiamondMind]

I'd much rather resign Pierre to patrol CF for next year. I think the second half Pierre we've seen is the real one.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch.

 

Your right, let's trust stats the creator admits aren’t as good as John Dewan’s work. I guess this is how you post when you’re wrong.

[cheapseats]

John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan.

 

:roll:

 

You can say "John Dewan" and "Fielding Bible" as often as you want. I'm glad you've read it. It is a good book. Perhaps even seminal, a word that surely would make Jim Edmonds snicker. However, even if it is the best resource - and let's agree that it is - I prefer (as does anyone who does research) corroborating sources. The sources, many well-respected whether you will admit it or not, argue that Jones is at least average, and many describe him as above average.

 

EVEN IF he is indeed below average in RF, you fail to discuss intelligently the possibility that he could be at least as good if not better in CF at Wrigley, a stadium in which outfield defense is not as important as it is in more spacious parks like Petco and RFK. I don't recall Dewan having anything to say about changing positions, so I trust that all your arguments on that point - and your only argument is "the spectrum says CF is harder" - are yours.

 

Jacque wasn't moved to RF because he couldn't handle CF. He was moved because the Twins had two players that played the same position.

 

If RF is inherently easier, Juan Pierre should be a better RF than CF, right? Carlos Beltran would be incredible out in RF, wouldn't he?

 

No, those aren't true, because the skills they possess are valuable in CF and not as valuable in RF.

 

And you don't even discuss how Jones' bat might make up for fielding deficiencies - if there were any. What does the fielding bible have to say about offensive performance relative to position? I don't recall anything, so I'll assume your argument, which is: "no way! Jones would be teh suck in CF," is your own.

 

Why take the time to discuss something with you when you don't answer intelligently?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I love how you chide me for not answering intelligently after you made these two posts:

 

The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch.

 

 

John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan.

 

 

 

If you notice the defensive spectrum came from Bill James so it wouldn’t it mine. Yes, Carlos Beltran would be an incredible RFer. Do you know who were the best corner OFers are according to Dewan’s book? Carl Crawford and Co Co Crisp – two guys that can play CF.

 

 

What skills does a RFer have that a CFer doesn’t have? At best you can say a strong arm but even that’s debatable. Its clear CF is much harder to play because good hitters are scare at that position.

 

As for Jones bat why don’t you play A-Ram at SS? Heck, he’d have a good stick for that position.

 

 

edit - Pods also ranked really high as a corner OFer.

[wolf stansson]

Bah. Give it up, Michael. Cheap Seats obviously isn't going to change his hilarious opinion.

 

It'd be fantastic if JJ was the Cubs CF next year. I'd love it. That's probably not a great sign for Cubs fans.

[Geech]

Interesting, do you have a link for that?

 

No, I don't. It was in Baseball Between the Numbers in chapter 3-2, and I don't know of any online equivalent. Anyway, they found that players who moved from RF to CF experienced about a .2 run drop in fielding, using the FRAA/FRAR stat.

[cheapseats]

I love how you chide me for not answering intelligently after you made these two posts:

 

The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch. The fielding bible looks at every pitch.

 

 

John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan. John Dewan.

 

 

 

If you notice the defensive spectrum came from Bill James so it wouldn’t it mine. Yes, Carlos Beltran would be an incredible RFer. Do you know who were the best corner OFers are according to Dewan’s book? Carl Crawford and Co Co Crisp – two guys that can play CF.

 

 

What skills does a RFer have that a CFer doesn’t have? At best you can say a strong arm but even that’s debatable. Its clear CF is much harder to play because good hitters are scare at that position.

 

As for Jones bat why don’t you play A-Ram at SS? Heck, he’d have a good stick for that position.

 

 

edit - Pods also ranked really high as a corner OFer.

 

I'm just trying to post on your level.

 

While you enthusiastically endorsed Beltran as a RF, why didn't you do the same for Juan Pierre?

 

According to the fielding bible, from 2003 through 2005, base runners took advantage of Carlos Beltran's throwing arm more often than Johnny Damon's arm - and this was especially true in 2005.

 

Would you say a throwing arm is more or less important than CF?

 

And "corner outfielders," while contiguous on the spectrum, do not occupy the same slot. Crisp, Crawford, and Podsednik all played LF. The discussion is about RF and CF. Is your contention that LF is essentially the same position as RF? If not, your examples are irrelevant.

 

"13. Rightward shifts along the defensive spectrum almost never work." -

Bill James

 

note the "almost." that's the point here. funny to me how you think counting every single pitch is a good thing, because the details matter, but when it comes to discussing a position shift, details don't matter and generalizations (ie, the defensive spectrum) are authoritative.

 

Why wouldn't I put Aramis at SS? Because he doesn't have any range. However, he is playing 3B as good if not better than ARod right now. Why is that? Perhaps the different positions require different skills.

[cheapseats]

Interesting, do you have a link for that?

 

No, I don't. It was in Baseball Between the Numbers in chapter 3-2, and I don't know of any online equivalent. Anyway, they found that players who moved from RF to CF experienced about a .2 run drop in fielding, using the FRAA/FRAR stat.

 

But the Fielding Bible, which doesn't have anything to say about the switch from RF to CF, is all that matters, right CardsFan?

 

Or Bill James' 1988 defensive spectrum is authoritative even though fielding metrics are, in your words, "antiquated."

 

I'd hate to take a .2 run drop in fielding from Jacque in exchange for a 100+ point difference in OPS. And for cheaper.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

When did I endorse Beltran as a RF? I just said he'd likely play at an elite defensive level at that position.

 

I'd say it's about a wash for the throwing arm because a CFer makes many more throws however a RF has to protect runners going from 1st to 3rd.

 

You keep talking about different skill sets but the only thing offered was a throwing arm (debatable). Could you provide more examples?

 

Yeah, rightward shifts almost never work. That's why it's silly to go in to a season expecting JJ to play CF while moving ARod to 3rd isn't. Again, Jones has enough trouble with RF. Besides I'm still not sure ARod was ever a good SS. Anyway ARod D has been bad this year it has been fine in the past.

 

One more thing, it's not every single pitch, it's every single non catcher defensive play.

[cheapseats]

When did I endorse Beltran as a RF? I just said he'd likely play at an elite defensive level at that position.

 

Even though the fielding bible says his arm isn't as good as Johnny Damon's? And, for the second time, you haven't weighed in on Juan Pierre in RF. I'll ask a third time: how would you like Juan Pierre in RF?

 

I'd say it's about a wash for the throwing arm because a CFer makes many more throws however a RF has to protect runners going from 1st to 3rd.

 

So, to be clear, that's just a flat-out guess, conjecture based upon no reviewable data. How many more throws does a CF make? How does the park influence that statistic? How often does a RF actually throw to 3rd? Once a game? Once a series?

 

The park question is very important, but one you don't want to address. Many analysts thought it was a mistake for the Cubs to worry about OF defense in the offseason since the park has little territory to cover anyway.

 

You keep talking about different skill sets but the only thing offered was a throwing arm (debatable). Could you provide more examples?

 

All we need to talk about is arm, really. The fact that it's "debatable" means that it's reasonable to believe that an arm is more important in RF than CF. So if Jones' arm is a liability in RF but isn't quite as much in CF, he "debatably" could be an equal or better player in CF, even though you think, for whatever reason, that he would be a "disaster."

 

Yeah, rightward shifts almost never work. That's why it's silly to go in to a season expecting JJ to play CF while moving ARod to 3rd isn't. Again, Jones has enough trouble with RF.

 

al·most (ôlmst, ôl-mst)

adv.

 

Slightly short of; not quite; nearly: almost time to go; was almost asleep; had almost finished.

 

Apparently you've confused "almost" with "always." You go on and on about how Jones would make a terrible CF but don't give any evidence as to why.

 

Besides I'm still not sure ARod was ever a good SS. Anyway ARod D has been bad this year it has been fine in the past.

 

So you're not sure if Arod was ever good defensively, but then in the next breath you say he was fine? Do you even look at what you're writing?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Even though the fielding bible says his arm isn't as good as Johnny Damon's?

 

Yes, because he has better range.

 

And, for the second time, you haven't weighed in on Juan Pierre in RF. I'll ask a third time: how would you like Juan Pierre in RF?

 

I wouldn't because you can find a better bat for RF and can get away with worse defense since less balls are hit out there. CF is just a tougher position to learn and play.

 

 

I'd say it's about a wash for the throwing arm because a CFer makes many more throws however a RF has to protect runners going from 1st to 3rd.

 

So, to be clear, that's just a flat-out guess, conjecture based upon no reviewable data. How many more throws does a CF make? How does the park influence that statistic? How often does a RF actually throw to 3rd? Once a game? Once a series?

 

It's a guess however more balls are hit to CF so I don't think it's completely out of line.

 

 

 

The park question is very important, but one you don't want to address. Many analysts thought it was a mistake for the Cubs to worry about OF defense in the offseason since the park has little territory to cover anyway.

 

Are you suggesting the Cubs should give up on OF defense?

 

You keep talking about different skill sets but the only thing offered was a throwing arm (debatable). Could you provide more examples?

 

All we need to talk about is arm, really. The fact that it's "debatable" means that it's reasonable to believe that an arm is more important in RF than CF. So if Jones' arm is a liability in RF but isn't quite as much in CF, he "debatably" could be an equal or better player in CF, even though you think, for whatever reason, that he would be a "disaster."

 

 

No you also need to talk about range. In fact I'd say that's more important. By putting JJ in CF you'd be exposing his limited range even more because more balls are hit to CF. A funny side note, TFB actually says Jones arm is underrated.

 

 

Yeah, rightward shifts almost never work. That's why it's silly to go in to a season expecting JJ to play CF while moving ARod to 3rd isn't. Again, Jones has enough trouble with RF.

 

al·most (ôlmst, ôl-mst)

adv.

 

Slightly short of; not quite; nearly: almost time to go; was almost asleep; had almost finished.

 

Apparently you've confused "almost" with "always." You go on and on about how Jones would make a terrible CF but don't give any evidence as to why.

 

My evidence is his poor range getting exposed even more in CF.

 

Besides I'm still not sure ARod was ever a good SS. Anyway ARod D has been bad this year it has been fine in the past.

 

So you're not sure if Arod was ever good defensively, but then in the next breath you say he was fine? Do you even look at what you're writing?

 

I said that because his SS work wasn't covered in TFB but his 3B defense was. I wanted it be consistent.

[Geech]

Are you suggesting the Cubs should give up on OF defense?

 

I don't think Jones in CF is in any way, shape or form giving up on OF defense. Even if Jones is not a great defender, the drop from RF to CF observed by BP is so miniscule that it's a nonissue. Even if fielding rate is not as good as the Fielding Bible, I have a lot of trouble believing that the qualitative comparison of the difficulties of the two positions is tremendously wrong.

 

Since Jones has to be here next year, he's probably most valuable to the Cobs as a CF. That way they can look into getting another corner OF who, if nothing else, would provide more with the bat than Juan Pierre. When it's all said and done, it's probably the Cobs best move.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Are you suggesting the Cubs should give up on OF defense?

 

I don't think Jones in CF is in any way, shape or form giving up on OF defense. Even if Jones is not a great defender, the drop from RF to CF observed by BP is so miniscule that it's a nonissue. Even if fielding rate is not as good as the Fielding Bible, I have a lot of trouble believing that the qualitative comparison of the difficulties of the two positions is tremendously wrong.

 

Since Jones has to be here next year, he's probably most valuable to the Cobs as a CF. That way they can look into getting another corner OF who, if nothing else, would provide more with the bat than Juan Pierre. When it's all said and done, it's probably the Cobs best move.

 

 

I'm suggesting Jone is a terrible RF and if they moved him to CF he'd be completely god awful. Just because Jones has a range of X in RF doesn't mean he'd have that range in CF. It's a much more difficult position to play.

 

 

I'm a Cards fan on a Cubs board so I'll drop his. Admittedly it's become a silly pissing match with cheapseats.

[ConstableRabbit]

Are you suggesting the Cubs should give up on OF defense?

 

I don't think Jones in CF is in any way, shape or form giving up on OF defense. Even if Jones is not a great defender, the drop from RF to CF observed by BP is so miniscule that it's a nonissue. Even if fielding rate is not as good as the Fielding Bible, I have a lot of trouble believing that the qualitative comparison of the difficulties of the two positions is tremendously wrong.

 

Since Jones has to be here next year, he's probably most valuable to the Cobs as a CF. That way they can look into getting another corner OF who, if nothing else, would provide more with the bat than Juan Pierre. When it's all said and done, it's probably the Cobs best move.

 

 

I'm suggesting Jone is a terrible RF and if they moved him to CF he'd be completely god awful. Just because Jones has a range of X in RF doesn't mean he'd have that range in CF. It's a much more difficult position to play.

 

 

I'm a Cards fan on a Cubs board so I'll drop his. Admittedly it's become a silly pissing match with cheapseats.

 

I've actually been quite entertained throughout the whole ordeal. I especially liked it when you dissected each others opinions piece-by-piece.

 

Edit: Oh, and the arguments, of course. I'm going to check out the Fielding Bible.