Hope you don' mind if we split out a few of these interesting sub-arguments that are baseballs lost in the tall grass out there.

From a chess (game theory!) standpoint, Dr. D is very sensitive to the idea of NOT OVERLAPPING applied power on the field of play. 

For example, Bishops are worth 3 points (pawns) and so are Knights, but guess what -- Two Bishops (one on dark squares, one on light) are worth 7 points as compared to any other minor-piece pair.  The Bishops are always, in all variations, covering lots of squares together.

This non-redundancy effect is worth a whole Pawn.  Non-redundancy, in game theory, is often the difference between winning and losing.

................

When chess geek Dr. D sees Adrian Beltre dive for a ground ball in front of (you know) Ozzie Smith, his hackles are raised.  It's conditioning.  That's not a situation you want.

Question here is how this might apply to discretionary fly balls consumed by CF's.  As Matt points out below, it could be that Ozzie Smith shades wayyyy to center when Brooksie is at third.

.

G argued, sensibly,

Once the defensive-chance spheres overlap to a significant degree you're just wasting space out there.  Cameron used to run all the way to where the LF was standing, basically, to make plays.

The fact that he was given the CHANCE to do that doesn't mean that the play would not have been made without his presence on the roster.  The LF would have had to do more, but it was within his ability to do.  If Ichiro is in RF and Upton is in LF, and neither guy is exactly an immovable tree-stump with an oil can for a glove, just how important is CF defense?But there is no upper limit on hitting the way there is on fielding.  If you have 3 guys hit 40 HR each they aren't stealing HRs from each other.

This is in contradistinction to Taro's concern that you have to have "good OF defense" in Safeco.

Here we see the argument that, if you had two CF's in the corners, that you could put a mediocre (e.g. Jeremy Reed) guy in CF and you would have an excellent OF defense.

Right or wrong, if I'm GM, I'm going ahead with that logic.  Guess here is that even Matty and Taro would consider an Ichiro-Saunders-Upton to be a plus OF, if not as good as one with Guti.

.

SABRMatt, who has developed his own [interesting] method for evaluating defense, says,

In all of my analyses of great defensive teams, I've never found evidence of a new player being added to an already great defensive team and his stats changing dramatically over the course of multiple sesons.  The 1970s Orioles had 5 HALL OF FAME fielders AT THE SAME TIME! and all of them were still able to munch out year after year after blinkin' year of PCA GG awards and multi-win surplus seasons.

Blair ripped off 6 consecutive seasons with > 5 defensive wins (which in UZR terms would be about +20 runs above average!), Mark Belanger ran multiple seasons with 5+ defensive wins at short...a couple of +7 win seasons (that's 15 to 30 defensive runs above average!), Bobby Grich had two seasons in there with seven wins at second...another +30 runs!  Brooks Robinson was as consistent as it gets ripping off 3 and 4 win seasons at third (+5-+15 runs)...Don Buford had a year in there with 4 wins in left field.  It goes on and on.

Good show Matty.  

And you're talking to a guy whose first major sports heartbreak, was watching Brooks Robinson rob Johnny Bench of doubles down the line... :- )

..............

Of course, G's argument goes to the question of Belanger VERSUS Brooksie specifically.  And Blair VERSUS Buford.

Earl tended to use 5 outfielders, so it would be needful to examine those 50 (?) games a year in which Blair was in CF and Buford in LF -- and to see whether ANY redundancy was REFLECTED.

Also wonder whether you could detect ANY tendency for Belanger and Brooks to have their best defensive numbers in separate seasons.

If Earl's SS and 3B had no tendency whatsoever to take balls away from each other, that would be a powerful argument against D-redundancy.

But, how could that be?  The balls that a great 3B dives for have got to SOMETIMES be 6-3's, right?

.

Well, the riposte is...

There's no evidence whatsoever that defensive spheres overlap that much on the NON-ROUTINE plays.  See, here's the thing...you might see a few dozen plays a year where multiple fielders could get to the ball, but most of them would be caught by even the worst defenders.  ]

The thing that differentiates Adam Jones (average at best) from Franklin Gutierrez (elite) on defense is whether they get the extra 40-50 plays a year that are not routine but within the realm of possibility to get.  On those plays...there is never overlap.  *NEVER* overlap.

Well .... on the field that is the question.   But if a CF flies over and takes a discretionary fly ball?

Suppose that Franklin Gutierrez can take a ball on the dead run, that would be a dive for Adam Jones ... and Michael Saunders can take either ball in stride?  That improves Gutierrez' stats.

Jones isn't going to lunge for a discretionary fly ball.

The only way that the team construct can impact defense has to do with positioning and cooperation on plays involving more than one fielder.  The 2B and SS, for example may develop synergy (or not) with DP turns and balls up the middle based on pre-play positioning and multi-faceted play skills.  I have, for example, seen examples of horrible-looking SSs getting paired with a competent fielder and suddenly being average o defense.  A good example would be Derek Jeter.  When paired with, for example, Alfonso Soriano, Jeter was HORRID.  When paired with Robinson Cano...he's suddenly average even though he's older and slower.  Why?  Because Jeter stinks at going up the middle, but Cano is really good at that.

That's the only kind of teamwork we have here...there's no such thing as a defensive-zone-overlap problem.

Hm.

A creative suggestion I've never seen anywhere else.  It implies that a Brooks Robinson or Adrian Beltre could allow a SS to shade to center, or that an Ichiro could allow a Franklin Gutierrez to shade to LF .... and that, given certain conditions, this defender could make his teammate better.

.

Taro sez,

True nothing has worked. I guess I just don't understand the argument that OF D in Safeco is worth less than a normal park. The importance of OF D in Safeco is one of those givens, like lefty hitters in Safeco.

:cpoints:

My impressions -- and now am just noodling here -- are that

(1) good OF's are worth more in Safeco, but also

(2) solid OF's are made to look incredible here.

Will admit there may be some inconsistency in the posit that Michael Saunders would look great at Safeco, but that Franklin Gutierrez could be more valuable to the Red Sox than to us.

Still figuring it out, which is a lot of fun, by the way.

................

Again, Zduriencik may well believe that a GREAT center fielder is a requirement at Safeco.  It's the first thing he went after.

Continue to insist that Saunders would run sleek #'s here, though.

.

Cheerio,

Dr D