why is it that the positions on field are used to make a judgement on the quality of hitting? I've seen a bunch of people say something to the effect of, "Oh...he doesn't hit enough homeruns...he shouldn't be playing 1st base. But he steals a lot of bases, so he should be playing centerfield." Of course, not that specific statement, but things like that. And let's see if I've got this right... 1st base: Supposed to be your crazy power hitter. hits 3rd or 4th in the lineup. 2nd base: leadoff type person. Supposed to get lots of walks and post a good OBP 3rd base: Another power type. Shortstop: Speedy, some power, good spray hitter Catcher: I've not really heard much as far as this position...what is the stigma attached to a catcher? Right field/Left field: Doesn't RF have the stigma of someone who doesn't field very well you toss them in this position? Or is that LF? And are these positions pretty interchangable as far as hitters go? Or is one spot considered more of the power spot? Center field: very speedy type who gets on base a LOT. Usually seen as the leadoff hitter.
In general, it has to do with the defensive importance of the position and the body type required to play good defense at said position. Shortstop for example, one of (if not the) most important defensive position on the field. Requires a guy to have a body that allows for significant range and speed and reaction. This type of body was historically not conducive to power. There are positions where defensive value is so important you accept an offensive tradeoff, and then there are those (like 1st base) where defensive value between good defenders and poor ones is so small, that offensive value is way more important.
Traditionally, guys big enough to hit homeruns were guys too big and not quick enough to play middle infield positions (SS/2B) or centerfield. You put those "lumberjacks" in corner outfield spots and places on the field where speed and agility wasn't all that important. A lot of that has changed as even middle infielders and centerfielders are hitting the long ball, now. How much steroids played in to that, I don't know. I think weight training helped it get there, too.
Well we are seeing a shift back, so I think steroids and other supplements had a lot more to do with than baseball would like to admit.
no correlation, just that sometimes your power hitters are bulky and less agile than other types of hitters, thus first base would suit him well again, no correlation afaik, just the pitcher(worst) bats last (NL)
yeah, you may be right. i still see young guys like tulowitzki come up playing SS and i think that i never saw SS's hit for power like that when i was a kid. now maybe tulo is a juicer...i don't know.
That type of player also ages really poorly at the position. Look at Tejada, or Jeter. Jeter obviously has had the better career, but his defense is so bad there now it's not even funny.
yeah, that seems to be the case. agreed. but their bat keeps them in the league for a very long time.
So would a baseball club change the position of a player because he doesn't fit the mold? Such as there's a 1st baseman coming out of high school who has been a great 1st baseman during his high school career, but doesn't hit for that much power but hits for a high percentage. Would a club that drafted him try and change his position even if that change was a detriment to his hitting? And thanks for the answers so far...it's been enlighting.
They might...or they might not take him altogether. A guy who is just a good 1st baseman defensively with a light bat doesn't carry much value....because the difference in defense there from good to great probably only marginally affects the success of your club...and you can find a good fielder who can play 1B who can hit somewhere else.
Max nailed it. A first baseman who has no power is going to have a very hard time making in the bigs because no matter how good he is on defense, it just doesn't do as much for the club as a guy who hits homeruns. He may stick on bad teams or bounce around as a backup kind of guy for awhile. As for changing his position, I'd say probably not. Why? Well most guys who are playing first base are there because they aren't good enough defensively to play another position. If he could play say SS, or 2B, he or his coaches were stupid for playing him at 1b to begin with.
Mark Grace is one of the few first basemen that come to mind that didn't hit for much power. Luckily for him, he hit for average.
There have been some to be sure, like Sean Casey. They both played for some bad teams though. Until his brief stint in Arizona that saw him win a title thanks to an amazing pitching combination, Mark Grace had played on a whole of 3 teams that were better than .500, and only went to the playoffs twice in something like 12 or 13 seasons.
There were quite a few 1Bs that does not seem to hit for much power, but then again, not every club wants 1Bs that hits HRs and strikes out a ton. Personally, I'll take Berkman over Howard any day of the week as an Astro, even though Berkman's Ks weren't exactly that great lately. As for "underpowered" 1Bs, Grace, Casey, Hee Seop Choi, Erstad?, etc. comes to mind.
Berkman is a power hitter, so I don't know what you mean. And yes, every team in baseball would rather have Ryan Howard than Darin Erstad, or Sean Casey at first base if money weren't a factor. Grace and Casey already discussed. Hee Sop Choi? Really? LOL Not only was he terrible, but the only reason he got shots int he majors is because people thought he could hit homeruns. Erstad was an outfielder turned to first base when he couldn't stay healthy. After moving to first the Angels were constantly trying to replace him with a better hitter.
Doug Mientkiewicz is a good example of a successful light hitting first baseman (in that he had a long career, not in that he helped teams win lots of games).
