Posted by schwarze on 5/29/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):
I do something similar that is very easy to figure out. Consider the two hypothetical players. Using the performance history... Let's assume for simplicity both walk the same amount of time.
Player A: 600 AB, 180 Hits (=.300 AVG), 25 errors, 0 "+" plays, 20 "-" plays
Player B: 600 AB, 150 Hits (=.250 AVG), 15 errors, 15 "+" plays, 0 "-" plays
In comparing Player A to Player B, I simply adjust the batting average by the amount of extra plays made or lost.
Player A has 30 more hits but allows 45 more baserunners so I take Player B. (Note that "+" plays for infielders are almost always hits turned into outs, while "+" plays for outfielders often involve doubles turning into singles, so the comparison isn't quite the same for OFs). An A+++ infielder who can turn 30 or more "+" plays is worth the salary in my opinion (i.e., a .250 hitter with A+++ range = .300 hitter with avg range).
I ignore DPs since there is too much outside influence (i.e., bad pitchers = more baserunners = more DPs. High-K pitchers = fewer DPs). I can say that having a catcher with a good arm will help with the DPs turned. Can't get DPs when guys are stealing all the time.
I don't think double plays should be ignored. We know at least before the last update this was the primary benefit of high range IFers. Yes, pitcher K rates affect DPs as does a catcher's arm. But pitcher year (season played) affect errors and we still consider them. A pitcher's oavg has an affect of + and - plays and those are condiered as well.
My methods are a bit more complex and I hope more accurate. I adjust performace according to innings played on defense. As stated previously I not only adjust avg but also obp and slg.
I have Lemke as follows:
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
PA req/in |
0.51 |
0.50 |
0.49 |
0.48 |
0.47 |
0.45 |
0.44 |
0.43 |
0.42 |
def in |
1092 |
1118 |
1145 |
1173 |
1203 |
1234 |
1267 |
1301 |
1338 |
+ adj |
-0.7 |
-0.8 |
-0.8 |
-0.8 |
-0.8 |
-0.8 |
-0.9 |
-0.9 |
-0.9 |
- adj |
8.2 |
8.4 |
8.6 |
8.8 |
9.0 |
9.2 |
9.5 |
9.8 |
10.0 |
e adj |
12.0 |
12.3 |
12.6 |
12.9 |
13.2 |
13.5 |
13.9 |
14.3 |
14.7 |
te adj |
2.2 |
2.2 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
2.4 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.6 |
2.7 |
dp adg |
-1.9 |
-2.0 |
-2.0 |
-2.1 |
-2.1 |
-2.2 |
-2.3 |
-2.3 |
-2.4 |
da avg |
.333 |
.334 |
.334 |
.335 |
.336 |
.337 |
.339 |
.340 |
.341 |
da obp |
.392 |
.393 |
.393 |
.394 |
.395 |
.396 |
.397 |
.398 |
.399 |
da slg |
.390 |
.391 |
.392 |
.393 |
.394 |
.396 |
.397 |
.398 |
.400 |
Bip Roberts:
Batting |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
PA req/in |
0.51 |
0.50 |
0.49 |
0.48 |
0.47 |
0.45 |
0.44 |
0.43 |
0.42 |
def in |
1172 |
1200 |
1229 |
1259 |
1291 |
1324 |
1359 |
1397 |
1436 |
+ adj |
-2.8 |
-2.9 |
-3.0 |
-3.0 |
-3.1 |
-3.2 |
-3.3 |
-3.4 |
-3.5 |
- adj |
-17.0 |
-17.4 |
-17.8 |
-18.3 |
-18.7 |
-19.2 |
-19.7 |
-20.3 |
-20.8 |
e adj |
9.5 |
9.7 |
9.9 |
10.2 |
10.4 |
10.7 |
11.0 |
11.3 |
11.6 |
te adj |
1.7 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
dp adg |
-9.4 |
-9.6 |
-9.8 |
-10.1 |
-10.3 |
-10.6 |
-10.9 |
-11.2 |
-11.5 |
da avg |
.298 |
.297 |
.297 |
.296 |
.295 |
.294 |
.293 |
.292 |
.291 |
da obp |
.361 |
.360 |
.360 |
.359 |
.358 |
.357 |
.357 |
.356 |
.355 |
da slg |
.387 |
.386 |
.385 |
.384 |
.384 |
.383 |
.382 |
.380 |
.379 |
I could understand if it were close, you would consider your pitchers, catcher park, line-up position etc. However, this isn't even a close comparision. Lemke is hands down a better player at 2nd.
5/29/2012 3:47 PM (edited)