All Forums > Post-Update Fielding???
10/19/2012 4:05 PM
From the Knowledge Base:
We also use Log5 normalization for fielding and determining errors. The 4 key pieces here are: fielder's fielding percentage (FPCT), the league average from the fielder's season at the position, the league average from the hitter's season at the position and the league average from the pitcher's season at the position.
10/20/2012 1:18 PM
Here is a page that will explain the system better.

The problem is that normalization just doesn't work at the extremes.  If you run through the math, you will see that a 1.00 fielder will never commit an error no matter how awful fielding was in the pitcher's or hitter's year was.  Very high FP fielders are technically effected, but the effect is very small.  Basically, fielding normalization helps old-time player to become better fielders behind modern pitchers but doesn't really hurt good modern fielders too much.

WIS could solve this by (1) giving the pitcher greater weight in fielding normalization and (2) caping FP in a similar way as there is a floor on pitchers' BB/100PA or HR/hit.
10/20/2012 2:42 PM
Posted by zubinsum on 10/20/2012 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Here is a page that will explain the system better.

The problem is that normalization just doesn't work at the extremes.  If you run through the math, you will see that a 1.00 fielder will never commit an error no matter how awful fielding was in the pitcher's or hitter's year was.  Very high FP fielders are technically effected, but the effect is very small.  Basically, fielding normalization helps old-time player to become better fielders behind modern pitchers but doesn't really hurt good modern fielders too much.

WIS could solve this by (1) giving the pitcher greater weight in fielding normalization and (2) caping FP in a similar way as there is a floor on pitchers' BB/100PA or HR/hit.
With regards to a 1.000 fielder, he won't commit an error as long as his fatigue is 100%.
10/20/2012 2:46 PM
RIGHT ON!!!! You know the old saying: Don't make it complicated when it isn't!!!!!
10/20/2012 2:53 PM
Fielders field and hitters hit.  Whatever negative fielding curve that supposedly transpires is negligible!!!  I have 99 Vidro on a team playing 2B who only costs \$3mil for 530 PAs, but who also has 100+ RBIs.  So who cares what his fielding is like?  Especially when his defense won't make or break or be the difference maker of your team!!!
10/21/2012 1:44 PM (edited)
Posted by mixtroy on 10/20/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Fielders field and hitters hit.  Whatever negative fielding curve that supposedly transpires is negligible!!!  I have 99 Vidro on a team playing 2B who only costs \$3mil for 530 PAs, but who also has 100+ RBIs.  So who cares what his fielding is like?  Especially when his defense won't make or break or be the difference maker of your team!!!

Most people underestimate the impact of fielding and range.  A 1% drop in fp is equivalent to a .015 drop in batting average for a second baseman.

I calculated '99 Vidro's defensive adjusted averages as: .302/.337/.414 with a .978FP
If his FP drops to .968, his equivalent line drops to .287/.324/.397.

10/21/2012 3:07 PM
Hey Zube, out of curiosity, do you actually workout various formulas and what not when drafting a team?  Because I try to keep it as simple as possible: (1) search for players for the particular park I intend to play in; (2) check their normalized numbers (I pay no attention to their season's + numbers); (3) check their fielding ratings and pct; (at least a 'C' for CF, an 'A' for SS and a 'B' for 2B; and (4) if their performance history shows they'll hit and/or produce runs, I draft them, regardless of their range as long as the SS has a RFF of 4.50 or higher. Anyone else can be D-.  All of the various formulas that others use is way over my head. Ha ha ha!!!
10/21/2012 5:51 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 10/19/2012 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Yes it does...

Fielding is now normalized based on the fielder's season, the pitcher's season, and the batter's season.

That is the current system but the system that was being advocated for at that time was one in which the fielder would be compared to his fielder season and determined whether he was above average, average, or below average. Once that was figured out, based on the pitcher on the mound (not the hitter or a combination of the two), the fielder would field like a fielder of that grade in the pitcher's season. As a hypothetical, say Vidro was similar to the average fielder in 1999 for 2B, when 1910 Ford is on the mound, Vidro should field like an average 1910 2B and make errors at a similar rate.

All of this comes down to the fact that the extremes will always screw with the program unless a cap or floor is established on the particular number.
10/21/2012 5:53 PM
Posted by zubinsum on 10/20/2012 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Here is a page that will explain the system better.

The problem is that normalization just doesn't work at the extremes.  If you run through the math, you will see that a 1.00 fielder will never commit an error no matter how awful fielding was in the pitcher's or hitter's year was.  Very high FP fielders are technically effected, but the effect is very small.  Basically, fielding normalization helps old-time player to become better fielders behind modern pitchers but doesn't really hurt good modern fielders too much.

WIS could solve this by (1) giving the pitcher greater weight in fielding normalization and (2) caping FP in a similar way as there is a floor on pitchers' BB/100PA or HR/hit.

WIS could solve this by (1) giving the pitcher greater weight in fielding normalization and (2) caping FP in a similar way as there is a floor on pitchers' BB/100PA or HR/hit.

The above are the only ways to truely correct the problem so that the fielding issue is addressed properly.
10/21/2012 8:43 PM
Posted by mixtroy on 10/21/2012 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Hey Zube, out of curiosity, do you actually workout various formulas and what not when drafting a team?  Because I try to keep it as simple as possible: (1) search for players for the particular park I intend to play in; (2) check their normalized numbers (I pay no attention to their season's + numbers); (3) check their fielding ratings and pct; (at least a 'C' for CF, an 'A' for SS and a 'B' for 2B; and (4) if their performance history shows they'll hit and/or produce runs, I draft them, regardless of their range as long as the SS has a RFF of 4.50 or higher. Anyone else can be D-.  All of the various formulas that others use is way over my head. Ha ha ha!!!
No, I generally don't (or didn't) work out formulas when drafting teams.  My general strategy is to draft high FP behindold-timey pitchers and draft low FP old-time fielders behind modern pitchers,  I generally value range more than most and look for at least a C and short at second behind great pitching.  I think optimal range up the middle behind stud pitchers is C+ to B-.
of 3
All Forums > Post-Update Fielding???

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games