value in outfield arms

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 23, 2006 4:56 AM EST Comment 9 comments

I am wondering what people here think is the value of outfield arms. Specifically, how much does is it viable to put together an outfield with players that can't throw?

The particular case I have in mind is that of the Dodgers (not surprisingly, since it's my diary), who will be starting (I believe) Luis Gonzalez in left, Juan Pierre in center and Andre Ethier in right on the average day. They do have some backups with stronger arms (Matt Kemp, Jason Repko, James Loney, along with two three others who have weak arms), and I imagine Ethier and LoGo may be playing 7 innings more often than not, but the fact is, a lot of runners won't think twice going first-to-third or taking home on a shallow flyout given this array of rag-doll arms.

I don't want this to turn into an argument about GMs or how smart was to end up with this outfield, as the last diary I made turned into (and where I got the idea for this question), but simply on what people's thoughts are on what the likely damage will be given such a poor-throwing outfield. Is it viable? Do any fans of other teams remember having an outfield that bad, and what was it like? I just want to hear thoughts on the issue, because, to me, it seems like you're giving up a lot of runs if your outfielders can't hold runners -- probably as many, if not more, than you would having a Piazza-type catcher, given that it's the whole outfield.

I'll include a poll just for fun.

Poll

What should the Dodgers do regarding their outfield?

bleedjaxblue is stupid/uninformed, and these are not the people who will be opening day starters

3 votes

Stick with the current three -- their offense will make up for it

7 votes

Stick with the current three -- their arms are better than you think

1 votes

Get at least one new outfielder who has an arm in there -- SOMEONE needs to hold runners

14 votes

Change the outfield, regardless, because these three guys suck

16 votes

41 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

it's fine

Outfield arms are the most overrated tool there is. I don't see the point of the most popular polling option - why have an outfielder out their for the sake of having one good arm?

The difference between an outfield of strong arm versus weak arms will save or cost you a few wins perhaps over a course of a season. It's certainly possible to make up for that with the bats, but whether or not guys like Pierre and Gonzalez will have any value with the bat is another debate I guess.

by FI on Dec 23, 2006 8:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think it's a little late for this discussion

the dodgers have committed to gonzo and either in the OF for '07 (unless they can find an elite bat - unlikely) so i think they're sticking with it, good decision or bad.......that makes the choices in the pole quite unappealing to me......i really can't see them switching things up now......

by Wheelhouse on Dec 23, 2006 9:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Offense

I do think it's a problem when all 3 OF's have noodle arms. Not much better with two noodles. Having said that, you don't build your OF based on arms and there might not have been any avaiable OF with both adequate offense and arms.

BTW. If I were you, I'd be a lot more concerned whether this OF is adequate offensively than I would be about their arms. Subpar O with noodle arms all around? Hmm....not good.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 23, 2006 10:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

San Francisco 2006

I remember watching San Fran in 2006 and I did not like their OF at all. You had Bonds, Finley and Alou. I don't know that much about their arms but, I deffinatly know they couldn't run to save their lives. It cost them a couple games atleast. I think that brings up a question whats more important speed or the ability to throw. Both combinded and you have a great outfielder the likes of a Carlos Beltran, Vernon Wells, Torri Hunter. If I was building a team Id look for speed in the OF first then make sure they have decent defense.

by nate050904 on Dec 23, 2006 11:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

No Question

Lack of speed in the OF has hurt SF terribly for several years now, especially in their ballpark. IMO, speed and arms are both pretty darn important in the NL West where you have 3 monster OF's in San Diego, SF and Coors. LA is at least medium sized and I think there is some room to roam in The BOB too. Beltran would have been a great fit for any NL West team.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 23, 2006 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember Bill James

back in the early 80s saying people were making too big a deal out of Lee Mazzilli's inability to throw and denigrating his whole game because of it, all over something that couldn't cost his team more than half a dozen runs a year.

Now that's just speculation, but it strikes me as fairly logical and a reasonable estimate. If you multiply that by three for 18-20 runs, what is that -- two, three wins a year? That's not insignificant, but defensive range and offense are both much larger factors, I would think.

by Flynn Blake on Dec 24, 2006 6:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oh...

people are going to be very dissapointed by that OF.

I laughed pretty hard at this:

Stick with the current three -- their offense will make up for it.

Anyway, while a good arm is valueable in an OFer (none of them have any), I don't think it matters more than overall defense. Unfortunately for the Dodgers, at least two of those guys aren't very good at defense either (don't know about Andre).

Guys like Beltran don't have great arms, but it's the ability to set and position yourself that matters. I mean Vlad and Francoeur are hugely overrated defensively because of their arms.

What a crappy OF though.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 24, 2006 7:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

yep

I agree... I mentioned this in another forum just a few minutes before reading your note. :> J.D. will be missed.

by BobbyMac on Dec 25, 2006 8:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

arms

I've never done any research into this area, but I know that some analysts have. Searching THT, I found a John Walsh article from before the 2006 season that studied right fielders. I don't know if it would be safe to assume that the LF and CF positions would average out to about the same as RF (i.e. CF would have more variance due to more opportunities, whereas LF would have fewer opps). But, if you make that assumption, and ignore some of the outliers, it looks like a +1 S.D. outfielder is worth something like 3-4 runs, and a -1 S.D outfielder costs 3-4 runs. I guess that means that if you accept the premises of his study (i.e. how much the various run expectancies are worth, and how he added up the events), then an all-bad outfield is about 10-12 runs/yr worse than an average one, and 20-24 worse than an all-good one. In the case of REALLY bad arms, I suspect adding a couple more runs of damage would be reasonable.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/cannons-and-popguns-rating-outfield-arms/

by BobbyMac on Dec 25, 2006 8:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs