Give up range to have a better arm in CF?

It never occurred to me before but I could essentially put B.Jordan in CF and use Lankford at DH and have Nunnally in RF. How can I tell if it's worth giving up range to have a better arm in CF? I'm thinking I should handle this on a game by game basis depending on how fast and/or aggressive the next opponent is.

I did consult Dean's runs scored chart and Nunnally is quite a downgrade (12 to 5 runs?) in RF compared to B.Jordan but Dean's chart doesn't take arm in consideration.

Current outfield (Back to the 90s):
LF O'Leary 3(0)e7
CF Lankford 2(+1)e5
RF B.Jordan 2(-1)e7
DH Nunnally 3(-1)e12

I think your better off with Jordan in right, the error rate goes up in the other configuration (throwing errors too).

But I agree with your thinking, I like better arms also--I had a 1 CF e0 on one team but with a +3 arm (Ben Revere 2012)--there is no way to tell as the scoring doesn't help figure it out online, but I think that +3 arm gave up a lot of extra bases.

I was new last year and asked about the arm also, one of the long time players disagreed with me that the arm was a liability, but I still wish I knew how many extra bases he allowed to runners.

I don't have the numbersbwith me, but i would definitely go with the 2s in of considering the small benefit in arms.

For the difference of two (+1 versus -1), I would definitely keep the better range in center field.

For the difference of two (+1 versus -1), I would definitely keep the better range in center field.

Did you mean to say "better arm"?

Just my gut feeling, but I'd feel more comfortable with the 2 in CF and a weaker arm, than the 3, but a better (but not exceptional) throwing arm, thinking that keeping the hitter off base is a better result than seeing someone take the occasional extra base.

It is all gut feeling, though. Have seen math on the 2 vs. 3 fielding ratings, but not the estimate on what a difference in throwing arm is.

I'm becoming a big fan of the value of arm strength in the outfield - but I don't think a change from +1 to -1 is big enough to justify the downgrade in terms of range in RF and the overall increase in the e rating (substituting e 12 for e 5).

I haven't come up with a mathematical theory on the effect of arms, yet. Many gamers think it's not that big, based on simulated seasons using the CD rom game. I think it can be big, but I think you need to get up to a -3 arm or more, (or, negatively, a +3 or more), before it really has a significant effect.

This is just my gut reaction as well.

give me the 2 with the weaker arm. I hate playing a 3 in CF! I do agree with Miller that the +3 on Revere is pretty hard to stomach though. OTOH, some of the best value CF's in ATG (Ashburn, Dykstra) have plus arms. I almost always have a GUN in rf though!

give me the 2 with the weaker arm. I hate playing a 3 in CF! I do agree with Miller that the +3 on Revere is pretty hard to stomach though. OTOH, some of the best value CF's in ATG (Ashburn, Dykstra) have plus arms. I almost always have a GUN in rf though!

I agree, Steve. The value of a -3 or better arm in RF is relatively high, in my opinion. I like small ball baseball, and I love seeing a powerful arm (-5 especially) keep the runner from advancing from first base to third base!

Let's see if this link works, it is from an arm/range study from the old archives. It shows me arm is not as important as range unless your going from a +3 arm down to a -3 arm. Read and draw your own conclusions:

http://forum.onlinegames.strat-o-matic. ... 1&t=251327