What a fascinating article. I was completely unaware of this view of the position, particularly in recent years. I'm a believer in the Defensive Spectrum and so the flexibility of 2nd basemen makes complete sense. As always, I have a few thoughts.
First, how many MLB level second basemen are actually players (likely shortstops) that were later shifted to the position when they struggled to perform - either through a lack of skill or aging - at SS? Meaning, how many are not organic 2nd basemen like Bazzana, but became second basemen later and constitute some negative self selection for the position?
A number of analysts continue to believe that WAR and other measures (DRS, Zone Rating etc.) fail to properly measure defense beyond a relativistic view among a set of players. So, could we unintentionally be undervaluing the defensive contributions of 2nd base given its importance on the Spectrum? Given the intense focus on numbers today, could that be a blind spot in their true valuations?
Could this be a function of launch angle enthusiasm and fewer ground balls? To that end, has the importance of infield defense declined in general relative to outfielders in the modern era versus the past? Has the Defensive Spectrum changed in the modern game?
Finally, could the elimination of the shift elevate the defensive importance of second basemen somewhat along with their perceived value?
Why do the primary/non-primary percentages for 2B and CF add up to more than 100%?
Because players can play multiple positions each game.
Ah makes sense
What a fascinating article. I was completely unaware of this view of the position, particularly in recent years. I'm a believer in the Defensive Spectrum and so the flexibility of 2nd basemen makes complete sense. As always, I have a few thoughts.
First, how many MLB level second basemen are actually players (likely shortstops) that were later shifted to the position when they struggled to perform - either through a lack of skill or aging - at SS? Meaning, how many are not organic 2nd basemen like Bazzana, but became second basemen later and constitute some negative self selection for the position?
A number of analysts continue to believe that WAR and other measures (DRS, Zone Rating etc.) fail to properly measure defense beyond a relativistic view among a set of players. So, could we unintentionally be undervaluing the defensive contributions of 2nd base given its importance on the Spectrum? Given the intense focus on numbers today, could that be a blind spot in their true valuations?
Could this be a function of launch angle enthusiasm and fewer ground balls? To that end, has the importance of infield defense declined in general relative to outfielders in the modern era versus the past? Has the Defensive Spectrum changed in the modern game?
Finally, could the elimination of the shift elevate the defensive importance of second basemen somewhat along with their perceived value?
Great read - thanks again.