Back to Boards

IF designation


IF designation

If someone is designated as an IF as their secondary position, is C included as part of that, or is it just 1B, 2B, SS, 3B?

Re: IF designation

C is not included

Re: Re: IF designation

Thanks, I didn't think so, but wanted to check.

Re: IF designation

Is SS (2b) a worse fielder at. 3b than SS (IF)? If so how much?

Re: Re: IF designation

it depends on their Dwar and fielding percentage

Re: Re: IF designation

Is SS (2b) a worse fielder at. 3b than SS (IF)? If so how much?

A player who does not have the IF designation, for example 2B/3B would be worse at SS than a guy who is designated 2B/IF

with the (IF) designation, you can play any of the 4 IF positions and only take a .50 Fielding percentage deduction for the 3 IF positions NOT designated as Primary

If you were say a 2B/3B and played 3B you would take a .50 Fielding deduction at 3B but if you played SS IF or even OF you would take a .100 fielding deduction - and if you played at Catcher you would have the .100 Fielding deduction and a really BAD throwing arm, like everyone can steal except a 1 or maybe 2 SP

Re: Re: IF designation

Playing a player at a secondary position lowers their fielding percentage by .05. So a .990 fielder becomes a .940 fielder at their secondary position. dWar would stay the same.

If you play a player somewhere other than their primary or secondary position, the player will make a lot more errors than normal, or something like that. It says it somewhere on the site but I cannot remember where so I don't have the direct quote.

I do not play players out of position unless injuries force me too.

Re: IF designation

Here's the quote from the site (from the edit lineups pages "VR Lineup w/ DH" and "VL Lineup w/ DH"):

"Players are strongest at their primary position. They are more prone to errors at their secondary position. Any other position runs the risk of a large number of errors. ("OF" can play all three positions; "IF" can play the four infield positions; "UT" can play anywhere.)"

Re: Re: IF designation

I get it. Seems like a SS shouldn’t be penalized so heavily when playing corner infield. Sort of how cf is not penalized at corner of.

Re: IF designation

Yes, although I would argue IF and OF are different... A shortstop who didn't play a single inning at 3B would probably be ok, but the angles, the speed, the throws - they are all different. The purpose of the penalty is to force owners to put players at the position they truly played that season. Yes, we bend that for OF because it becomes a little complex to manage if we didn't, and while the angles in the OF are different, it's not quite the same as what happens on the IF.

Re: Re: IF designation

Good explanation - I'll look for more players with IF as their second position.Thanks!

Re: IF designation

I wish some of the better infield defenders had IF as their primary position. Some of the super Utility players shouldn't be penalized for going to a "secondary" position when they might split their time 40%/30%/30%. The Cubs used Javy Baez interchangeably at SS/2B/3B for some of their great run. Also if someone truly plays multiple positions, their fielding percentage already has that baked into it, as does their dW.

Re: Re: IF designation

I am pretty sure that baseball reference, and other such sites, will separate dWar and fielding percentage by position. So if they are relatively the same across multiple positions, then, I can see using the same dWar and fielding percentage and designating them IF, but if their numbers at each position varied quite a bit, then the IF ranking would be incorrect. Not sure if I explained that well. It makes sense in my head though...

Re: IF designation

So baseball reference just lumps dWar together, so it appears I was wrong there. Using Baez as an example, in 2016 his fielding percentages are all over the place.

3b - 62 games played .944% - 125 chances
ss - 25 games played .981% - 103 chances
2b - 59 games played .977% - 221 chances

I can agree that he could be classified as an IF, but what fielding percentage would you use? 3b because he played the most games there? or 2b because he had the most chances there? Or an average? An average would decrease his fielding percentage quite a bit.

Re: Re: IF designation

This may actually be a perfect example, so thank you for doing the legwork. I assume PC uses cumulative Fld% and dWAR in their calculations. I'm not sure if they use games played or innings played to award primary positions, I think 2016 Baez is a 2B/IF so it is most likely innings played. But for this exercise let's postulate that he is a primary 3B with the same stats. His cumulative Fld% is .968, so that is what he would play 3B with. Then if he is moved to 2B or SS he would get the .050 penalty and play with a .918 Fld% even though his actual stats at those positions are even higher than his cumulative, not lower. Seems like a bad idea to penalize him, or others like him. Especially if it would be possible to have IF as primary position.

Re: IF designation

I just checked and it is even worse. He is a 2B/3B, which doesn't make sense to me since he is obviously a competent SS and played some significant innings there in that season. They do use his cumulative Fld% of .968 though.

I guess I just don't understand how Def decisions are made for PC, love the game though.

Re: Re: IF designation

Well he had the most chances at 2b, so in a sense I can understand that, even though he played a few more games at 3b. He also started more games at 2b, and I think that may be why his is primary 2b. I do agree in this case, the .918 fielding percentage is very harsh to him. His .944 at 3b would be way better, and an IF classification where he maintained the .968 would be even more ideal.

Re: IF designation

Yeah, I was sure he was primarily 2B, the dumb part is that his secondary is 3B and not IF. I mean if a super-utility guy like Baez isn't going to get the IF designation, when would anyone?