Playing a 2 in center

Age old question but let's get into it. Many managers have had great success doing so despite the taboo against although I suspect that is lessening. Jimmy Wynn, Willard Brown and even the Hack come to mind. When they added the super Duffy card I remember there being a discussion about it with many in support. So, is it wise to play a 2 in center? 1's are just so uggo unless they're named Tris, Joe or Willie and there are so many bizarre alternatives now.

The new Richie Ashburn card is sick offensively. Get on base all the time and plays everyday. BUT, not only is he a 2 e8 but a +2 arm to boot so I guess a 2 pronged question/survey.


-Is a 2 in center field a good idea. If so, how playable/winnable?

-Is a + arm in center field a good idea. If so, how playable/winnable?

I just won a 106 games with a 1 rated +3 arm CF.

I just won a 106 games with a 1 rated +3 arm CF.

Combs or Hamilton? I've seen some pretty successful teams with each of those guys.

I would say there are no hard & fast rules. I will sometimes play a 2 at 2B or SS, so why not in CF? There are a lot of good hitting 1s at CF at decent prices—more so than at 2B or SS—but if a 2 is the best available fit for your team, why not go for it?

I've seen and had teams win with + arms in CF and even with a 3 CF (such as Babe Ruth, Jimmy Wynn, and Hack Wilson).
It really is about how the team works together and getting the right rolls.

Combs.

I am starting a new team with a 3e28 2B. He cost only 1.11.
I am also considering playing Joe Sewell 4e23 at SS on another team.

Definitely agree on no hard and fast rules.

Combs is kinda the reference point I'm using here for Ashburn. About the hard rules Outta, I totally agree. i've always figured TEAM defense is better than any one position. The cheaper Brett Butler card has been a staple for me although to pretty lukewarm success.

It's just that + arm I guess that is the nebulous part.

I currently have a "hands of stone" team.

Forbes '57; they are 43-38, but they have had 83 days on the DL. My back ups have had 392 ABs.

C- Heavy Johnson, 4(0)e11,T16, PB-11
1b- Utley, 3e12
2b- Backman/Wiggins, 3e38
SS-Dahlen, 1e40
3b- Delahanty, 3e29
RF-Thompson 3(+2)e14
CF- Brown, 2(-2)e10
LF-Goslin, 3(+1)e4

They have 114 errors so far, 6 passed balls, 13 throwing errors.

They are a fun team, but even with the injuries and errors, I think they would be better if the bullpen and Willie Brown weren't having an off years.

There you go, those guys said it all.

I have a fondness for top defensive players. But logically when it comes to fielding ratings....

Long ago the strat literature described the fielding ratings along these lines.
1 = Excellent defense
2 = Good above average defense
3 = Average defensive
4 = Poor defense
5 = Horrible defense, hide the guys glove.

Just running with this and not crunching numbers one would think a team should be able to win with good above average defensive ability. The abundance of 1 rating fielders at every position in ATG gets our thinking skewed to where we almost instinctively think a 2 is poor defense. But it is not supposed to be that way. You should be able to win with above average defense or if a really good hitter average defense.

Might be an interesting analysis for those who are able to scrape the actuals from the leagues to see what the average range and error ratings are for the teams we assemble at the various caps.

While on the subject would be interesting to hear the thoughts about this as it relates to caps. Are teams more likely to use 2, 3, or even 4 rated fielders at lower caps than high caps? I would expect yes thinking that at higher caps you are not forced as much to choose between great offense and great defense. What are your thoughts?

Previous posters are correct in that it's based on how that player fits in with your team defense as a whole. Since SOM has introduced the replay feature, I find that I am much more willing to put up with subpar range in the infield vs. the outfield. I won 107 games with Jorge Orta playing everyday at 2b. A 3 or 4 in the infield is just going to give up singles. A 3 or 4 in the OF will give up doubles and triples. So, as a tradeoff, if I have poor IF range, I will make up for it by putting 1's in the OF. Conversely, playing a 2 or 3 in CF is fine if you can make up for it with good IF defense. Just my 2 cents.