Isn't range factor almost completely useless as a defensive measuring tool? Too much of it depends on the nature of the pitching staff rather than on any real skill on the part of the player. Bill James has killed whole forests on this topic after pimping RF for much of his early career.
It's by no means completely useless, just prone to occasionally being very misleading aand hence only half-correlated to talent. It's also the only way we have to measure historic milb defense. It's possible that a team in the Midwest League was dominated by flyball pitchers, but the single likeliest thing is that the staff were neutral. Early scouting reports have him as a plus defender with the caveat that he needed to improve his reads.
Yeah, Wily Mo in CF had problems with certain types of balls. If he didn't, he would have been above average, because he had deceptively good speed. I'm not saying he was a plus defender in CF, just that he was certainly good enough to project as an
acceptable corner OF. A guy who is somewhere between -15 and 0 in CF should be somewhere between -10 and +10 in a corner. Not -30 or -40 or -80.
Note that the Sox made the
opposite "gamble" a few months earlier when they traded for a guy coming off a +35 season in LF (admittedly, probably inflated by luck but suggesting a +20 or so talent at the least) who had never been more than a +0 in CF. That didn't seem right, either. And with a little bit more experience, he's become exactly the sort of CF that a +35 LF ought to be.
Edited by Eric Van, 21 August 2007 - 03:28 PM.