1922 Babe Ruth Range +/- Plays Vary in LF CF RF Topic

The Original Question was : For three OFs D/A- and D/C- and B/D+
which Field would they go in and why ... LF and CF and RF ...

But then I was looking at the stats for OF in my leagues (All Seasons) and noticed that the same OutFielder had widely varying Good or Bad (+/-) Play amounts according to which Out Field he was in ... It would seem that the Fielding Percentages for either LF CF RF would not be affected ...

Below Notice 1922 Babe Ruth --- Franchise: New York Yankees --- Season Type: Full --- All Seasons ...

Good Plays and Poor Plays


Career Totals for LF CF RF
5/18/2022 10:33 AM (edited)
Fielding All Seasons - Regular Season
League Owner Pos GP GS Inn E Throw E PO A DP Good Plays Poor Plays F. Pct SB CS C. ERA PB PK
133867 ldillard 1B 39 39 339.3 5 3 433 38 21 0 5 .989 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 wmays 1B 1 0 2.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 wmays 3B 1 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 FatDad CF 162 162 1,445.7 18 0 402 5 0 1 3 .958 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 bronco57 CF 74 74 638.7 8 0 201 1 0 0 2 .962 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 wmays CF 6 0 17.0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 ldillard CF 1 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 rmarksduke LF 158 158 1,325.7 10 0 252 4 0 6 0 .962 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 Current LF 143 143 1,219.3 13 0 242 2 0 9 0 .949 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 wmays LF 124 122 1,089.7 8 0 222 1 0 10 1 .965 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 ldillard LF 34 34 290.3 2 0 62 0 0 2 0 .969 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 ldillard RF 28 25 227.3 0 0 58 1 0 1 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 rmarksduke RF 4 4 36.0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133867 wmays RF 1 0 2.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133592 Ribbentrop 1B 2 0 2.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133592 snedden001 CF 6 0 15.0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133592 snedden001 LF 110 107 956.3 3 0 148 0 0 5 0 .980 0 0 0.00 0 0
133592 Ribbentrop LF 42 41 350.7 0 0 90 1 0 3 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133592 etownsend707 LF 4 4 34.0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 .800 0 0 0.00 0 0
133592 Ribbentrop RF 103 103 858.7 7 0 164 4 1 4 0 .960 0 0 0.00 0 0
133365 grizzly_one CF 85 85 773.7 4 0 207 4 0 0 4 .981 0 0 0.00 0 0
133365 contrarian23 CF 56 56 473.0 2 0 124 2 0 0 3 .984 0 0 0.00 0 0
133365 Ribbentrop LF 145 145 1,221.0 14 0 242 4 1 4 0 .946 0 0 0.00 0 0
133365 contrarian23 LF 106 106 942.3 8 0 197 0 0 1 1 .961 0 0 0.00 0 0
133365 grizzly_one LF 3 3 25.0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133365 champsx5 P 40 0 295.7 0 0 12 17 0 0 0 1.000 32 13 0.00 0 0
133365 grizzly_one RF 35 35 309.3 1 0 75 4 2 7 0 .988 0 0 0.00 0 0
133365 contrarian23 RF 1 0 1.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 krizzeg 1B 122 121 1,010.7 12 0 1192 108 90 9 0 .991 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 Norg26 1B 121 116 999.3 12 2 1102 90 71 5 1 .990 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 hawkkev 1B 124 117 996.3 11 4 1250 96 84 7 4 .992 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 jegro21 1B 108 108 972.0 6 1 1181 86 83 0 9 .995 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 bronco57 1B 31 31 272.7 3 1 304 43 21 0 3 .991 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 grizzly_one 1B 1 1 9.0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 Ribbentrop 1B 2 0 2.0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 bronco57 3B 5 5 43.0 1 0 5 11 0 0 1 .941 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 grizzly_one CF 84 84 725.3 6 0 181 1 0 0 6 .968 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 bronco57 CF 37 37 326.0 1 0 82 3 0 0 3 .988 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 krizzeg CF 7 0 18.0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 .800 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 Ribbentrop CF 1 0 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 ny2dave LF 162 162 1,400.0 10 0 295 4 1 1 9 .968 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 Ribbentrop LF 113 112 947.7 9 0 181 2 0 6 0 .953 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 Multiple LF 13 12 113.0 1 0 18 0 0 1 0 .947 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 grizzly_one LF 13 1 45.0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 jegro21 LF 4 4 35.0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 bronco57 LF 1 1 8.0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 hawkkev LF 4 0 6.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 Multiple RF 135 135 1,188.0 6 0 265 5 1 13 0 .978 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 bronco57 RF 87 87 773.7 8 0 152 3 0 9 0 .951 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 grizzly_one RF 25 25 226.0 1 0 55 3 0 3 0 .983 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 jegro21 RF 3 3 25.0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 .857 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 hawkkev RF 2 2 17.0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
133264 Ribbentrop RF 2 0 6.0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1.000 0 0 0.00 0 0
Career Totals P 40 0 295.7 0 0 12 17 0 0 0 1.000 32 13 0.00 0 0
Career Totals 1B 551 533 4,605.3 49 11 5473 463 370 21 22 .992 0 0 0.00 0 0
Career Totals 3B 6 5 44.0 1 0 5 11 0 0 1 .941 0 0 0.00 0 0
Career Totals LF 1179 1155 10,009.0 79 0 1978 19 2 48 11 .962 0 0 0.00 0 0
Career Totals CF 519 498 4,436.3 40 0 1209 16 0 1 21 .968 0 0 0.00 0 0
Career Totals RF 426 419 3,670.0 24 0 793 20 4 38 0 .971 0 0 0.00 0 0
5/18/2022 9:49 AM
With the same range grade, you will get more + and fewer - plays in either LF or RF vs CF. The thinking was that the baseline range for CF should be higher than LF or RF.
5/18/2022 4:30 PM
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 5/18/2022 4:30:00 PM (view original):
With the same range grade, you will get more + and fewer - plays in either LF or RF vs CF. The thinking was that the baseline range for CF should be higher than LF or RF.
Where is this info found?

5/18/2022 6:42 PM
I am always so intellectualy satisfied by this Sim League Baseball but it seems odd but it also opens up new avenues of thought for instance the trade off between an Outfielders Fielding Percentage and his Fielding Range and what field therefore to put him in etcetera ... It would be incorrect or not then to simply trade fielding errors for + plays minus - plays ... Thoughts please
5/19/2022 11:19 AM
Oh I do that all the time. If I make 130 errors but have 200 + plays, that’s a net 70 positive imo.
5/19/2022 11:55 AM
You’re correct that more context should usually be given to actually determine whether one is better than the other.

anecdotally, I can say that *most* OL teams avg between 20-30+ plays. In an OL I just finished (one of the few I didn’t draft for + plays), average number of errors was 70, + plays 25, and - plays 31. So average team was -76 on defense.

So in that league, they f I committed 130 errors, with 200 + plays, then my + 70 is actually a + 140 on the league
5/19/2022 1:14 PM
Ultimately, the bigger context is what those errors, + and - plus bring in terms of runs allowed. Zubinsum had a good thread on those values several years ago. I’m on my phone now, so finding it may be a challenge currently, but in short, the value of a +/- play is usually 1 base (it can be more, but in aggregate, it’s essentially a 1 base event). Errors vary more position to position. For OF, errors are usually 2 base events. For IF, usually 1 base events. All aggregated together the run value of a +/- play is around (from memory so might be off) 0.30-0.35 runs. Whereas an error has a run value of around 0.65-0.70 runs.

obviously these values will be heavily team dependent. If your team makes all of its errors in the OF, that’s going to equate to more runs allowed than your opponent if they made the same number of errors, but all in the IF. Likewise, you can’t just aggregate errors and +/- plays together for a detailed value as the breakdown of what position they come from changes that run value.

similarly, your catchers CS/SBA rate AND the number of attempts is valuable in deterring the defensive run value of your catcher. You could have two catchers with similar CS rates, but the one that reduced
SBA could be more or les valuable depending on what that rate is (from memory each SB is 0.18 runs and each CS is -0.27 runs).

In general, I do what ryno does when evaluating my defense and do a simple (+ plays) minus (errors plus - plays) to get a net defense event and multiply by around 0.42 runs. When it’s close I’ll multiply errors by 0.65 and the net +/- plays by .35 and and subtract the error value from the +/- play value.

I don’t usually bother to get more detailed than that even though it is more accurate.

I always calculate out catchers run values to the exact detailed value.
5/19/2022 1:55 PM
And to the original question, yes, RRF, will impact +/- plays differently from position to position. CF will see more for each RRF and get more chances in addition.
5/19/2022 1:57 PM
Posted by Mwett on 5/19/2022 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by chargingryno on 5/19/2022 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Oh I do that all the time. If I make 130 errors but have 200 + plays, that’s a net 70 positive imo.
I generally don't disagree, and I'm still learning/observing, but I'd caution care in a vacuum. If you make 130 errors while the average is 80, that's net negative -50. If you make 200 plus plays (seemingly better than 130 errors), but the average is 175, that's net plus +25. In this case, is more plus + plays really better than fewer - errors ?chargingryno has been involved in plus + plays experiments and published findings which is appreciated and I'll generally take at face value but also entertaining the flip side and entire picture. I'll echo Ribbentrop above : thoughts plz ?

I'll add also that this becomes more comprehensive relevant as I dabble in HBD which has 4 fielding grades per position ; range, glove, arm strength, accuracy. Maybe these 4 overlap into the 2 SLB fielding grades, maybe not; who knows.
You also have to consider that, for the most part, an error is putting a guy on base who wouldn't otherwise have been there - giving a team an extra out, if you will. Whereas a - play gives a player who is already on base an extra base. I feel like an error, in general, is more costly than a - play.
5/24/2022 10:24 AM
most minus plays are outs turned into hits
5/24/2022 1:30 PM
Posted by 06gsp on 5/24/2022 1:30:00 PM (view original):
most minus plays are outs turned into hits
Correct. *sometimes* it’s doubles turned to triples, or singles to doubles. But the vast majority are outs turned to hits because of their range factor, whereas errors are outs turned to hits because of fielding factor
5/24/2022 3:14 PM
Is there a breakdown somewhere? Not doubting you, but it'd be interesting to see a ratio if possible. I still feel like a higher % of errors put people on, than - plays put people on.
5/24/2022 3:31 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 5/24/2022 3:31:00 PM (view original):
Is there a breakdown somewhere? Not doubting you, but it'd be interesting to see a ratio if possible. I still feel like a higher % of errors put people on, than - plays put people on.
The simple fact that some - plays are simply extra bases vs out to a hit means errors will have a higher percentage than - plays because 100% of errors in the sim put someone on-base, right?
5/24/2022 4:25 PM
Posted by chargingryno on 5/24/2022 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 5/24/2022 3:31:00 PM (view original):
Is there a breakdown somewhere? Not doubting you, but it'd be interesting to see a ratio if possible. I still feel like a higher % of errors put people on, than - plays put people on.
The simple fact that some - plays are simply extra bases vs out to a hit means errors will have a higher percentage than - plays because 100% of errors in the sim put someone on-base, right?
No. It is a small number but at least some errors are of the variety of 'Player steals Y base and the throw sails into CF, all runners advance'
5/24/2022 5:16 PM
12 Next ▸
1922 Babe Ruth Range +/- Plays Vary in LF CF RF Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.