Which is better defensively?

Player A is 2(+1)e4 in both LF and RF
Player B is 2(-4)e5 in LF and 3(-4)e5 in RF

Would it be better to play player B in LF because he is better defensively or in RF because of much better throwing arm but worse defensively?

Without stats to back it up, my feeling is that the range is much more valuable than the arm.

LM,

There are the same X chance probabilities for RF or LF, so the range/error factor doesn't matter in that decision. However, there are a few more rolls that let players advance on RF arms versus LF arms, so always put the better arm in RF.

Coachbb

I don't think you read my question completely. player B is a 2 in LF and a 3 in RF. My question concerns if the 5 difference in the arm for RF (+1 vs -4) makes up for the 3 vs 2 defense?

If it were me I would go with the alignment that gave me the 2 range in LF and RF. I do not think the arm makes enough difference to give up the range.

If it were me I would go with the alignment that gave me the 2 range in LF and RF. I do not think the arm makes enough difference to give up the range.

It "depends" on the divisional make-up. If your divisional foes are stacked with players with run ratings > 14 - then arm ratings do matter.

I reviewed a handful of recent teams and see where my guys ran all day on the weak armed OFs. On the flip slide, I've had well armed teams that averaged >50 OF assists and my divisional foes had nearly 60% as many advances as my team.

Without a doubt, I would play Player A as RF-2(+1)e4 and Player B as LF-2(-4)e5 .

Go for the range over the arm. A quick perusal of the simulated fielding stats of your teams should explain why. I'd much rather have the guy who can catch over the guy who can throw.

Plus, Player B is priced as a 2 range LF, so you are losing some value by playing him in RF.

Choice is between
Player A is 2(+1)e4 in LF
Player A is 2(+1)e4 in RF
Player B is 2(-4)e5 in LF
Player B is 3(-4)e5 in RF

giving me
Player A is 2(+1)e4 in LF with Player B is 3(-4)e5 in RF
or
Player B is 2(-4)e5 in LF with Player A is 2(+1)e4 in RF

First option I lose range while gaining arm
Second option I appear to lose arm and gain range in RF and arm in LF

Now logic goes that there are additional additions to arm adjustment in RF but the amount of the adjustment is fixed, not pro-rated and thus the same whether it is applied to a +1 arm or a -4 arm

I suspect the final decision to challenge or not is the final calculation on safe chances and thus influences the frenquency of challenges more than the outcome of challenges. Thus swapping the arms will cause one corner OF to get challenged more often and another less often canceling out in the end. Thus the logic of going with the range which is the only thing certain to be better when all the dust settles.

It is a lot like the percentage of base stealers Pudge will gun down. Most of the time success rate is much higher than real life with fewer runners attempting. It is the reason real life assist leaders do not translate well to strat. The model tries but falls short of producing realism and it is with that weakness in mind I go with the more certain combo that gives me the best range.

Thanks for the very thought out response Valen and to all who have responded. I picked up a -4 arm for CF too so the -4 in LF and CF will hopefully give pause opposing managers from going too aggressively on the base paths against the +1 arm in RF.

If you would like names to go with these fielding ratings they are actually from the 60s mystery card game: Player A is Frank Robinson and Player B is Rocky Colavito. The CF I picked up is Bobby Bonds.