RF Fielding question

[AdamKatz]

What is better in RF? a 4(-2) or a 3(0)?

[LMBombers]

Without any scientific analysis I would go for the 3 fielder over the -2 arm.

[AdamKatz]

that is my gut reaction, but I know alot of people who have done the math say arm is imprtant in right. I really dont know anything about how fielding math works.

[AdamKatz]

that is my gut reaction, but I know alot of people who have done the math say arm is imprtant in right. I really dont know anything about how fielding math works.

[chess2899]

If I had a "1" in CF, I could play either to compensate for lack of range in right field. I have heard that the you should play 1's and 2's in right field to prevent base hits from turning into doubles. I guess it depends on how productive your right fielder is. I have seen a Championship team with Mattingly as the right fielder. :shock:

Given 2 equal skill level players, I would use the "3".

[ths92110]

If the 4 guy has a substantially lower (6 or more) error rating I would go with him. Otherwise I think the 3 is a better play.

[LMBombers]

Mattingly is a 3 fielder in RF which isn't horrible but you loose value on him since his salary is partly based on his sterling defense at 1B.

[djtrickster]

I saw a couple of links in another thread that might be useful. I'll admit I don't know if I'm interpreting this correctly but here goes:

[url]http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/DeanTSC/page2/[/url]
According to Dean's LF/RF study on page 1, a -3 arm in RF vs a 0 arm will make a difference of 2 runs over course of the season.

[url]http://www.diamonddope.com/help.cfm?tab=help[/url]
According to the chart at the bottom there is about a 13 e-rating difference between a 3 and a 4. If you look at the chart and factor in the -2 runs for a -3 arm it becomes a 10 e-rating difference.

So, a 3(0)e10 is roughly equivalent to a 4(-2)e0.

If someone wants to laugh at my logic, just smile so I know you're a friend. Reading all the equations makes my head hurts. :oops: