[nanwynnfan]

Bedir:

Hope this addresses the three parts of your question satisfactorily.

1. All player ratings are derived from performance against a template of excellence at each position. The template is driven by the highest level of performance at the position within a generation of play. Templates changes as performance/expectation levels are modified by such things as glove design, ball liveliness, playing surfaces, etc.

I use a conversion formula to reduce all ratings to a familiar model; they resemble the old fielding %. Defense Runs are determined from the differential between average performance at a position and +/- weightings, which convert into runs above or below the standard.

All player "games" are based on innings played at the position under consideration.

Example: If Player A plays 1,087 innings at second base and his rating converts to +17.00 defense runs, I present that number as his defense runs rating. It is his rate/level of performance. If the team aggregate shortstops played 1,440 innings, then each player participating is weighted against the total. Player A, playing 75.49% of his total team 2B innings, would then contributed +17 * .7549 = +12.83 defense runs saved to the team's 2B aggregate.

In terms of overall player evaluation, I isolate defense because that is the focus of my study. However, much like Baseball Encyclopedia does it, the ledger for me would be +/- offensive contribution PLUS +/- defensive contribution to get the whole picture. Thus, the huge contribution @ SS to the Bosox by Pokey Reese, during the post-Nomar adjustment period.

2. The year-to-year OF performance took the most time & to save space, I decided to toss out 75% of the original summary to highlight players who are either tops or who exemplify position shifts.

I reviewed 2001 through 2006. The defense runs are pre inning adjustment and indicate the player's defensive "rate."

.................2001.......2002.........2003..... ...2004........2005......2006

Left Field:

Crawford.......XXX.....+23.91......+18.80......+16 .58.....+15.80....+ 6.70
Jenkins.......+7.41...... XXX.......+ 3.80....... + 4.81.....see RF....see RF
Higginson,....+7.58.....+ 9.70........XXX........ see RF..... XXX..... XXX
G. Anderson.+7.58......+ 3.64....+17.64........ XXX......... XXX..... + 5.95
J. Jones..........XXX.....+20.08.......XXX........ XXX........see RF.....XXX
Soriano...........XXX........XXX........XXX....... ..XXX..........XXX......+10.87
DeJesus...........XXX.......XXX........XXX........ .XXX..........XXX......+11.14

Center Field:

A. Jones......+15.46....+ 7.05.....+ 5.29........+ 4.30...... - 3.25....+ 1.06
Hunter........+27.77.....+ 4.84....+15.83 .......+ 1.03...... + 1.00....+ .06
Erstad........+13.66.....+33.59......XXX.......... .XXX............XXX......XXX
Winn............ XXX......+13.57......XXX..........+13.14......+48. 72...see RF
Cameron.....+18.48.....+10.20....+31.27........+ 4.60..........XXX.......XXX
Beltran.......+17.51.....+ 7.51.....+17.61........+ 3.06..........XXX....+11.58


Right Field:

Suzuki........+14.96.....+11.44....+10.91........+ 19.20.......+19.79...+ 8.86
Hidalgo...........XXX.....+ 7.43.....+12.14........+ 6.02..........XXX.......XXX
J. Jones..........XXX........XXX........XXX.......... XXX..........+10.53.....XXX
Jenkins...........XXX........XXX.........XXX...... ....XXX..........+13.98..+ 1.00
Winn..............XXX........XXX.........XXX...... ....XXX............XXX....+20.86
Kearns............XXX.....+16.04........XXX....... ...XXX..........+19.15..+21.43
Higginson........XXX........XXX.........XXX....... .+14.73..........XXX.......XXX

The most obvious player for smooth movement in the OF is Randy Winn. In 2006, Ichiro Suzuki played 37.9 "games" [from innings] in CF and performed at +17.20 as a rate for the time played. Players like Higginson and J. Jones have moved without hitch from LF to RF, which appears to me to be an upgrade, with RF being the more challenging position, with the higher level of demand and the higher rating in performance over the last decade.

I omitted Coco Crisp [in error], who went from @ a +12 in LF to marginally above average in CF in Boston. However, in the CF listings in original post, my ratings have him slightly below average in CF when he was previously a leader in LF.

I believe the above also addresses #3, the mobility and expectation among OF positions. At the bottom line, for me it's an individual matter, although I'd rate the 3 OF positions at levels of demand in this order: 1. CF; 2. RF; 3. LF. I see an increasing distinction between RF > and LF <.