Was Robinson Cano an Infielder or an Outfielder?

Last Friday, in the second inning against the Rangers, Robinson Cano went where no man, at least no infielder, had gone before.

Cano, the Mariners’ nominal second baseman in this instance, was situated in an alignment in which he began 221 feet from home plate against Joey Gallo.

According to information provided by Daren Willman, no infielder in the Statcast era had ever been situated that far from home plate to begin a play, if you toss out the handful of four-outfielder alignments that have involved infielders — like Astros third baseman Alex Bregman playing left field, also against Gallo, earlier this season.

But in that instance, Bregman was clearly playing at a traditional outfield depth. The Cano case is interesting because it forces us to ask: what do we call him in this scenario? Is he an infielder? Is he an outfielder?

Tom Tango asked this question on the eve of the season: When is an infielder an outfielder?

In examining 2017 Statcast data, Tango found no players labeled as infielders had begun a play farther than 220 feet from home plate. Tango found that there were 17 instances of players aligning in what he called a “gray zone” between 214-220 feet. Eight were infielders and nine were outfielders. This season, according to Willman, there have been 67 pitches when an infielder has stood at least 200 feet away from home plate but again, none as deep as Cano.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage

Cano and the Mariners have pushed the limits of when a defender can be described as a infielder. Tango set a line of demarcation at 220 feet and Cano crossed it.

Here’s how Tango concluded:

“We can even say that you are an ‘infielder’ if you have a reasonable chance of getting the batter out on a force play at 1B. If you can’t, then you are really an outfielder, there to catch balls on the fly. To that end, maybe an infielder has to be shallower, like at 190-210, and what we see as deep ‘shifts’ is in fact not a shift, but a 4th outfielder.”

While shifts have become part of everyday baseball over the last six-plus seasons, I asked Mariners manager Scott Servais if alignments as extreme as Friday’s with Cano require a compelling sales pitch by the staff. Servais says there is no questioning even of extreme alignments in today’s game.

“We looked at what fit our personnel best and what we thought would work,” Servais said. “Some teams tried four outfielders [vs. Gallo]. I don’t know how much impact it had on him. [Gallo] did try and bunt several times.”

Maybe Gallo has had enough of intra-division teams like the Astros, Mariners and A’s continuing to aggressively align against his unique batted-ball profile.

Gallo’s revenge on Tuesday:

https://gfycat.com/DelectableSizzlingCowbird

Tango’s question is an interesting one, and alignments like Cano’s and Bregman’s are interesting in a larger sense, because the game continues to demand that its defenders become more versatile. Another extreme example was the Phillies swapping corner outfielders this spring. Position labels continue to be tested. Are we headed toward a future where infielders regularly become outfielders depending upon the pitcher and batter tendencies? Where players regularly shift sides of the field depending upon the batter’s spray chart? Are we headed to position-less baseball? To more defenders occupying gray areas?

Perhaps teams can get away with less defense on the field since the strikeout era has removed about 20 percent of batted balls from play compared to a decade earlier.

Cubs manager Joe Maddon is credited with pushing limits. Not only did he introduce regular infield shifts in the American League, he played four-man outfields against Jim Thome, David Ortiz, Travis Hafner and Jason Giambi with the Rays.

During the 2002 World Series, Angels advance scout Gary Suthlerand suggested the club employ a four-man outfield against Barry Bonds. Mike Scioscia didn’t go for it.

“At that time, it was really outside the box … but I really thought it was fascinating,” Maddon said.

Still, Maddon who has instituted so many unconventional alignments, who has played Kris Bryant and Ian Happ in center field, who has had Anthony Rizzo switch gloves and play second base, feels there are limits to the idea that we are headed toward a position-less future.

“I just think there are skill-sets that are necessary in certain parts of the field,” Maddon said. “A second baseman still needs to be able to turn a double play, shortstops, too. Outfielders aren’t as good at picking up a ground ball, they often have longer arms. There are different skill-sets with each position.”

On the lineup cards posted in the Cubs clubhouse, Bryant and Javier Baez are still tagged with traditional position labels even though they might find themselves all over the field in the course of a game. Maybe we are headed toward a future where instead of nine individual positions on a lineup card, you have middle-of-the-field and corner players, who are inter-changeable within their position group based upon the tendencies of the batter and pitcher.

I asked Ben Zobrist, the player who made the “utility” label cool — who has played just about everywhere on the field — about the challenges of labeling players today. For instance, how he would score an air-ball out to Bryant playing shallow right field?

“It would be a F-5 instead of P-5. I guess that’s the way I would mark it,” Zobrist said. “It presents more a challenge for scorekeepers than anyone else.”

What do the Cubs call the position Cano was playing?

What do they call Bryant in shallow right?

“We don’t really call it ‘rover’ or some sort of other name,” Zobrist said. “We still label them traditionally. [Bryant] is the third baseman but he is playing short right field.… We would call that position we’re in ‘heavy pull mode,’ where he plays an extended position out there.”

Zobrist accepted something like position-less baseball well before other players. About a decade ago, when the Rays asked him if he was comfortable bringing four different gloves to camp, Zobrist embraced it, wanting a chance to be in the lineup. Zobrist thinks versatility will only grow in importance and alignments will only become more creative and extreme.

“I could also see some excellent defender, the best defender, being put in various positions for various hitters based upon data and where he hits the ball,” Zobrist said. “Like Jason Heyward, he’s one of the best defenders in the league and he’s in right field. But if you have a guy who doesn’t really hit it to right field, why wouldn’t you put him in the left side?

“There’s certain alignments we had last year as a defense where we wanted [Baez] playing their base, or we wanted him playing shortstop or second because of his ability for range in those positions.”

Zobrist believes there should be dedicated utility player position on All-Star Game rosters. In that sense, Zobrist is suggesting the game ought to move beyond labels or at least think more deeply about what contributions players are making defensively.

Maybe the game is not headed toward something as extreme as position-less baseball, but our ideas of what positions are — what we should label them — is certainly being tested.





A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.

33 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
danno14
8 years ago

Wow Graveman really pounced on that bunt. Most pitchers aren’t going to have that level of poise, but that goes to show why beating the shift is easier said than done.

MoateMember since 2022
8 years ago
Reply to  danno14

It’s probably part of the coaching when you know there’s literally nobody else there. “If he lays down a bunt, it’s all you Ken! Don’t let us down!”

RonnieDobbs
8 years ago
Reply to  danno14

I don’t think players put much work into it. I don’t think it would be that hard if they tried. From what I can tell MLB bunting abilities are running at historically low levels as is hitting the ball the other way – but even they seem to be doing it a bit more despite the changing culture and environment.
Regarding the pitcher, that is situational defense. He knows there is a mega-shift TM on and that he is responsible for the left side of the infield.

Matt1685
8 years ago
Reply to  danno14

On YES network they gave a statistic that MLB batters have over a .550 average when laying down bunts against a shift.

shortstop
8 years ago
Reply to  danno14

The fact that he pounced on it like that and Gallo was STILL safe maybe shows that it should be done more.

timprov
8 years ago
Reply to  danno14

That sort of play is probably really bad for your pitcher. I don’t think you’d want to encourage it.

Yirmiyahu
8 years ago

We should just blow the whole thing up. Other than pitcher/catcher, everyone is the same. No need for positions on stat websites, trading cards, boxscores, or end of season awards. Democracy.

HappyFunBallMember since 2019
8 years ago
Reply to  Yirmiyahu

Yes, actually. That’s it exactly. There’s nothing sacred about a scorecard position number. They could just as easily refer to areas of the field as to the player most often standing in them.

AnonMember since 2020
8 years ago

I would bet anything that one of the 2B that was between 214-220 ft last year was Brandon Drury. I watched a DBacks/Tigers game last year where VMart was up and Drury was deeper than any 2B I have ever seen. He wasn’t as far over toward the line as Cano, but he was wayyyy out there.

YKnotDisco
8 years ago

If an infielder that is shifted in the outfield tracks a ball that statcast records the catch probability of it, then maybe that player should be recorded as an outfielder for the play.

Aggressively Mediocre
8 years ago

Similar to what Tom Tango said, I think that a possibly useful heuristic for “infielder” vs. “outfielder” labeling is: what kinds of defensive plays is the defender executing. By and large, infielders field ground balls and low line drives while outfielders field fly balls and high line drivers. Obviously there will be a gray area for positionings like Cano’s, but my intuition is that Cano, in that positioning, will more often be fielding ground balls or low line drives rather than tracking balls into the gaps. To me, then, Cano is still an infielder in that setup, albeit one pushing the boundaries of the label.

C BeisbolMember since 2026
8 years ago

My thought process:

Interesting question. I’d say you’re an IFer if you’re throwing the guy out at first and an OFer if you’re catching flyballs and chasing down linedrives.

Sees Cano: I think he can Schwarber out from there – infielder.

Sees Tango’s quote: I agree

Reads: Aggressively Mediocre’s comment: I agree

Monsignor Martinez
8 years ago

I approached this from the perspective that if I’m an official scorekeeper, a play involving Cano would most likely be identified as a ball fielded by position “4” which is 2nd base.

RonnieDobbs
8 years ago

Yawn… Where was he penciled into the official lineup? Was there a substitution or switch? I am guessing the answer to these questions is no. Who cares where he was shifted to…outside of fantasy eligibility purposes.

MichaelMember since 2025
8 years ago

Intfielder?

EasyenoughMember since 2016
8 years ago

Isn’t it great for the game to see this creative defensive strategy and then see the reaction by Gallo? Makes the game even more interesting to me.

JoserMember since 2021
8 years ago
Reply to  Easyenough

Agreed. This is what makes me return to baseball year after year, decade after decade, the ebb and flow of trends and strategies and counter-trends and counter-strategies, all of which we retrospectively identify as “eras” but at the time induce us to scratch our heads and/or tear our hair out.

bunslow
8 years ago
Reply to  Easyenough

Baseball: put the ball in play, advance without being put out.

MLB: delivering. I love this stuff. Literally “Baseball 101” there.

Baller McCheeseMember since 2016
8 years ago

I think he’d have to be considered an infielder. You can’t just say what position he isn’t (i.e., he isn’t a 2B), you also have to say what position he is. There aren’t four outfielder spots. Cano couldn’t be considered an outfielder unless it was in combination with an outfielder also being considered an infielder.

Jon
8 years ago

But what if there were 4 OF spots? What if a team played the entire game with 4 OF, all spaced evenly apart, all the same distance from home plate? (i.e. like left field close to the line, left-center, right-center, right field close to the line)

Since that 4th OF comes from somewhere, assume they had one infielder on the left side of the infield, playing halfway between 2nd and 3rd or so.

Is that infielder a SS? a 3B?

What are the 4 OF positions called? Is one of them the 2B or SS? Which one?

There aren’t great answers to these questions, which pretty much implies that position “titles” are becoming meaningless in some cases.

Ruki Motomiya
8 years ago
Reply to  Jon

I feel this kind of misses the point. If Cano was constantly in the outfield and they played 4 Outfield then we’d call him an outfielder and come up with a new name for it.

If you play 90% of the time at the infield, then go to the outfield for a shift, then you’re an infielder playing the outfield for a little while.

Baller McCheeseMember since 2016
8 years ago
Reply to  Jon

But there aren’t four outfielder spots. That’s the point. The positions either matter or they don’t. If they matter then you just can’t make up new ones. If they don’t matter, if they’re meaningless, that’s fine (I could see baseball moving to “formations”). But it’s also implying this entire conversation of whether he’s an infielder or outfielder is meaningless. And since we’re actually having this conversation, it’s obviouly not meaningless to us.

Mollycoddle
8 years ago

This stuff definitely makes the game more interesting to watch, it adds to the thinking and tension between pitches.

cjh
8 years ago

“We can even say that you are an ‘infielder’ if you have a reasonable chance of getting the batter out on a force play at 1B.”

By that definition, a right fielder on the warning track is an infielder when Albert Pujols hitting.

ScottyB
8 years ago

4s9. As is position 4 (2b), shifted to near traditional 9 (RF) position.

Jon
8 years ago
Reply to  ScottyB

This. If Gallo flied out to Cano in this case, I would say that:
1) Gallo flied out to right.
2) The player who caught the ball was the 2B (Cano) who was shifted to RF.

So in other words, I think a defender has a nominal position (one of the 9 “traditional” ones) that he is listed at in the batting order, but on a ball in play, the location of the fielder is what determines what the batter did.

So to give a crazy example: Say a team had a pitcher, a catcher, a first baseman, and 6 guys all holding hands near where the SS traditionally plays. The batter hits a grounder into that mob of guys, one fields it and throws him out. Then I’d say he grounded out to short, regardless of who fielded it.

I guess the question then is whether all 6 of those guys are credited with a game at SS for official scoring purposes. I don’t know, and I don’t know if it matters at all.

Jon
8 years ago

How about this game?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN201708160.shtml

Cabrera and D’Arnaud kept switching back and forth between 2B and 3B depending on the handedness of the batter.

Were they just shifting, or were they switching positions?

Jon L.Member since 2016
8 years ago

“We used to have a phone in the house that was attached to a wire, like a SmartPhone, but not smart . You could only use it for calls – they didn’t have texting then – and you couldn’t walk away from the phone, and you couldn’t take it with you.”

“Players used to have positions. There were nine of them. They were all a little like the pitcher and catcher are today, playing pretty close to one spot in the field for every batter, as if an invisible force field were holding them in place.”

WoundedSprinterMember since 2018
8 years ago

Look, I’m a cricket fan. (There are four quadrants, not one, in cricket.) I think it’s about time that baseball embraced various shifts.

But this one is just nuts. Not just Cano being played “out of position,” but also Segura and Seager. Not sure where the “regular” RF is — I assume he’s out-of-picture — but I can’t for the life of me see what this is supposed to achieve.

It looks, basically, like the sort of field that you would set if you were a total wonk and just counted up the percentages in prior at-bats. “Let’s see — Gallo pulls 27.5% as line-drives to mid-center-right. Let’s put our 2B there!”

Maybe the outcomes sez it works. But me, I’m dubious.

What I think I’m trying to say is, it doesn’t matter whether you classify Cano as an IF or OF here. What matters is, is it remotely sane?

John Autin
8 years ago

Look harder. (Or not on a phone screen?) The RF is in a perfectly standard position, partly obscured by the label that points to Cano.

More importantly … Was that a tongue-in-cheek remark about counting up percentages to determine fielder positioning? Because (obviously) that’s exactly what everyone does now.

CarBigDog
8 years ago

Many things are cyclical and I think some of these extreme shifts are just the pendulum swinging to the max or near the max of advanced analytics. I believe we will start seeing quite a few hitters start making adjustments to take advantage of some of these extreme shifts and that will start curtailing their usage. Wee Willie Keeler said “hit it where they ain’t” and when hitters continuously see base hits taken away by these shifts, they will adjust, at least on occasion. In the meantime, the poster who wrote that 4s9 would be the way they would score it, is absolutely correct. I just don’t understand the hand wringing over it and I’m as much of a traditionalist as anyone. To paraphrase Einstein “Old school baseball thinking, without analytics is blind but analytics without some traditional baseball thinking is deaf. It’s why I think we are nearing the peak of the “true outcome” era and that pendulum will start coming back towards more balls being put in play and more traditional alignments with some more modest shifts here and there. Hey a Willie Keeler quote and paraphrasing Einstein in the same comment is something I never thought I would see in my lifetime.

RoyalsFan#14321
8 years ago

In terms of position numbering, I’d like to point out that when a player gets caught in a rundown, like say between 2nd and 3rd trying to stretch a double into a triple, if the first baseman is involved, the put-out stills shows a 3 (like 8-5-4-5-4-3) even if the first baseman makes the play at third base.

I also like the (s) designation as noted above, 4s9, to designate the second baseman playing in the area of a right fielder.

Mean Mr. Mustard
8 years ago

From my view, the scoring should tell the entire story of a play, and the scorecards that are usually kept have always seemed woefully inadequate to me. Sure, they say that a particular at-bat ended in a pop fly at third, but that’s it and that’s all. I favor an equation approach, to the effect of: result=field_zone_begin + play_sub-type +field_zone_end/(position_designate ± position_designate)

So 9PO4/9-5 designates an out that originates in right field, involves both the right fielder and third baseman, and terminated at second base.

If you want to get more thorough, say 9PO5/8-4-5, which says the centerfielder-designate intercepted the ball in right, included the second baseman in the play, and terminated in a putout at third by the third baseman.

The nice thing about something like this is that it can be strung nearly endlessly on those weird plays that involve rundowns, errors, whatever.

3E1/1-3;3PO4/2-6 tells me that the pitcher made an error at first base relaying the ball to the first baseman. The catcher picked up the ball near first base and relayed it to the shortstop who made the putout at second. Sounds an awful lot like a bunt and attempted advance on error, no?

It’s a little unwieldy figuring out the mathematical notation, but with a little practice it’s almost like watching the game for me.