Give up range to have a better arm in CF?

For the difference of two (+1 versus -1), I would definitely keep the better range in center field.

Did you mean to say "better arm"?

No! I would keep the +1 arm 2 center fielder. The difference of two arm isn't close to justifying going to a 3 in center.

For the difference of two (+1 versus -1), I would definitely keep the better range in center field.

Did you mean to say "better arm"?

No! I would keep the +1 arm 2 center fielder. The difference of two arm isn't close to justifying going to a 3 in center.

This is my thinking as well.

Let's see if this link works, it is from an arm/range study from the old archives. It shows me arm is not as important as range unless your going from a +3 arm down to a -3 arm. Read and draw your own conclusions:

http://forum.onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/archivesn/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=251327

Yep. I'd definitely read that discussion if you're pondering the arm question. It was a work in progress though. In particular, note the part about ATG and check out the comment by Bbrool regarding catchers. Dean was/is rigorous in the consideration of the problem, but- as he noted at the end- the impact of managerial settings given the makeup of the outfield was unconstrained at the time. Maybe it's since been worked out; I haven't looked. Great thread. Ended sort of abruptly, but I remember it well.

For the difference of two (+1 versus -1), I would definitely keep the better range in center field.

Did you mean to say "better arm"?

No! I would keep the +1 arm 2 center fielder. The difference of two arm isn't close to justifying going to a 3 in center.

That was what I was thinking too. Now if we were talking Juan Pierre, old Don Baylor or Ben Revere kind of arm, then I start to wince and think about DH and pinch running.