As in, in HBD a pitcher can have a long, successful career without many K's (or a poor K/BB ratio), without being an extreme groundball pitcher...just by having great splits. 

Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 11:09:00 AM (view original):
Looking at both equally really gives you a good perspective.  If you have an above average F%, with a positive balance of +/- plays, you are an above average defensive player.  If their F% is above average, but their +/- ratio is negative, they probably have poor range, but do the routine aspects of their job well, flip that, andthey probably have good range, and are lacking in either glove, or arm ability.

Well put.

Posted by r0b0t on 7/27/2010 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tisi29 on 7/27/2010 11:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by r0b0t on 7/27/2010 11:01:00 AM (view original):
It's not like HBD has advanced statistics like UZR and BABIP.

Well, you can figure BABIP from a player's stats, but HBD doesn't really work that way anyway.

It's too much work.

And doesn't really matter in the sim.  As I tried to explain above.

Posted by r0b0t on 7/27/2010 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 11:05:00 AM (view original):
b0t and Cheez clearly know what they are talking about.

+ = A good play; one which an average defender wouldn't have made

- = A bad play; one which an average defender would have made

It's different from errors, because errors can be charged liberally. The +/- places direct notation on the number of positive or negative defensive plays someone makes.

A SS can get charged for an error when your 1B with no range can't make the stretch to get a throw. And the fact is that errors are much more random than + or - plays.

This is a great post and the last sentence does a nice job summarizing the major issues.

Yep, that's good too.

Awesome.

The fact that it directly led to someone as incompetent as moy winning a WS should be the strongest argument on the side of the anti-tanking mob.

dubbs:  Is Shoeless Joe the world that used to be the collusion world?  Is that world not all kinds of screwed up in talent dispersion?

Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 11:19:00 AM (view original):
The fact that it directly led to someone as incompetent as moy winning a WS should be the strongest argument on the side of the anti-tanking mob.

Id be all for an "anti tank" rule in $

To his credit, he didn't tank in $. He's been ridiculously good at mining the international market.

Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 11:19:00 AM (view original):
The fact that it directly led to someone as incompetent as moy winning a WS should be the strongest argument on the side of the anti-tanking mob.

Id be all for an "anti tank" rule in $

Now that your tank job is almost complete?

Too hard to define "tanking"...you'd be an idiot to not hold back some win totals if you don't have a chance at going for it all.  That's tanking.  It's also what every good team does.  A minimum standard like 60 wins?  Different story.  I think that's what a lot of leagues use and I think we should, too.

Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 11:19:00 AM (view original):
The fact that it directly led to someone as incompetent as moy winning a WS should be the strongest argument on the side of the anti-tanking mob.

Id be all for an "anti tank" rule in $

Now that your tank job is almost complete?

Heh, my situation was weird, I dont feel I "tanked",but I'm not about to sit here and say I put forth a massive effort to keep my ML team competitive.  I wasnt about to overpay for a Victor Pascual carcas on my staff, and my major league players were all advancing in age, with contracts that didnt allow me to aquire my own new talent.  So I made several moves to pick up new talent, at a huge discount.  In doing that, I overhauled how I wanted my team constructed and run.  I stuck to my promotional plans, and didnt rush guys, and didnt overpay for marginal talent.   I dont think I'll return to the high major league player payroll budgets in $ for quite some time, instead I imagine Ill have a team that is consistently bringing in new players, developing them, and then letting them go to FA.  At least that way players dont get destroyed by being developed by people who dont know what they're doing.

That's fine until you have people taking over ravaged franchises with little or no chance of getting 60 wins in the first season or two.

Yeah, I know, you should always be able to get 60 somehow, but if you're really trying to rehabilitate a franchise long-term, doing whatever it takes to reach an arbitrary win plateau year to year can definitely be a hindrance.

I think rather than a 1 year win total, a 2 or 3 season rolling win total is a better indication of tanking vs not tanking