Defense Topic

tommy_cian
Posts: 289 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 3 42 68 137
Prospect
I feel my team is decent or better than decent, but I get a lot of errors/- plays, here are my ratings, let me know if I should do something different:

Pos    Range, Glove, Stregnth, Accuracy
SS     90,82,95,85 - Knight
CF     79,80,89,82 - Suarez
3B     77,74,80,77 - Merrick
2B     77,81,79,73 - Hunt
RF     68,47,65,56 - Sexton
LF     58,51,51,57 - Dixon
1B     42,31,34,41 - Kelly

Bench:
65,67,72,59 - Munoz (plays LF against lefties)
86,81,57,64 - Mateo (rotates in at 2B, CF, sometimes in right)
63,62,45,53 - Ayala (at one point was a stud 2B, now really just pinch hits, plays very little in field)

Besides catchers, thats it.  Should they be bottom half of the league?  Knight does well (like 11+ plays), the rest combine for more - than + plays.  Also, when I give knight an off day, I put Suarez at SS and Mateo in CF.
8/24/2010 11:49 AM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
Based on the average ratings from the 'Edit Rosters' page (see below), your guys should be somewhat below average.  With a glove of 82 at SS, I'd imagine Knight would have around 15-20 errors in a full season.  SS just get so many more chances than other positions.  And I was curious, so I looked up the numbers for the Major Leagues this year.  There are 30 SS that have logged more than 500 innings so far.  The number of innings per error range from 32 (Ian Desmond) to 200 (Derek Jeter), with an average of 72, and fielding percentages between .945 and .988, with an average of .974.  So if Knight logs 1350 innings, an average number of errors (based on MLB 2010) would be about 19 errors.
Position RA GL AS AA PC
C 10 30 75 75 50
1B 40 40 40 40 0
2B 80 75 55 65 0
3B 65 70 75 70 0
SS 80 85 85 85 0
LF 55 55 50 50 0
CF 85 85 60 65 0
RF 65 50 70 65 0
8/24/2010 12:39 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Range: above recs at SS (+10), 3B (+12), RF (+3), LF (+3), 1B (+2).  Below the recs at CF (-6) and 2B (-3)
Glove: above recs at 3B (+4), 2B (+6).  Below the recs at SS (-3), CF (-5), RF (-3), LF (-4), 1B (-9)
Strength: above recs at SS (+10), CF (+29), 3B (+5), 2B (+24), LF (+1).  Below the recs at RF (-5) and 1B (-6)
Accuracy: above recs at CF (+17), 3B (+7), 2B (+8), LF (+7), 1B (+1).  Below the recs at RF (-9).  Right at the recs at SS.

For the most part, errors are determined primarily by glove and secondarily be accuracy.
For the most part, +/- are determined primarily by range and secondarily by strength.

Based on this, this is what I'd expect from each position (ignoring the bench guys):

SS - lots of plus plays, but a handful of errors (slightly more than average)/
CF - a fair amount of both minus plays and errors.
3B - lots of plus plays, few errors
2B - a handful of both plus/minus plays, few errors
RF - a fair amount of errors
LF - some errors
1B - a fair amount of errors for the position

Defnsively, your CF is going to hurt you.  I'd consider playing Mateo there unless you're getting a lot more offense out of Suarez than you'd expect to get from Mateo, even considering the improvment in defense.
8/24/2010 12:51 PM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect

tec pretty much nails it, but the biggest thing is that I don't think it's linear.

Being 1-2 points below a rec is fine, but once you get into the 5-10 point range you're going to see some major minus plays and errors.  It's not a linear thing.  The farther below recs you get, the quicker the bad plays pile up.  Of course, the same can be said for being above the recs.

In general: GL and AA = errors, RA and AS = +/- plays

8/24/2010 12:56 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by iain on 8/24/2010 12:56:00 PM (view original):

tec pretty much nails it, but the biggest thing is that I don't think it's linear.

Being 1-2 points below a rec is fine, but once you get into the 5-10 point range you're going to see some major minus plays and errors.  It's not a linear thing.  The farther below recs you get, the quicker the bad plays pile up.  Of course, the same can be said for being above the recs.

In general: GL and AA = errors, RA and AS = +/- plays

+1 on the comment about it not being linear.
8/24/2010 1:00 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
God bless parabolas!
8/24/2010 1:07 PM
tommy_cian
Posts: 289 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 3 42 68 137
Prospect
Thanks guys, this is a ton of good advice for me, I'm going to change things up a little, but by moving Suarez to 3B, Merrick to RF, Sexton to LF, sitting Dixon and playing Mateo in CF, which gives me this lineup:

SS     90,82,95,85 - Knight  - lots of plus plays, but a handful of errors (slightly more than average)
3B     79,80,89,82 - Suarez - way above average in all areas
CF     86,81,57,64 - Mateo - slightly below average, but just about average
2B     77,81,79,73 - Hunt -  a handful of both plus/minus plays, few errors
RF     77,74,80,77 - Merrick - way above average in all areas
LF     68,47,65,56 - Sexton - about average, maybe slightly above
1B     42,31,34,41 - Kelly - high errors for his position

Bench:
58,51,51,57 - Dixon
65,67,72,59 - Munoz (plays LF against lefties)
63,62,45,53 - Ayala (at one point was a stud 2B, now really just pinch hits, plays very little in field)

Munoz will come in as def replacement for LF, Dixon at 1B.   I believe this is now an above average defense, no?
8/24/2010 1:58 PM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect
This alignment is a LOT better, but let's not get ahead of ourselves...... it's at least average now.  You're still a bit weak at 2B and CF, but I think you're taking better advantage of the talent you have, for sure.

The key to overall D is to look "up the middle".  If you have guys at SS, 2B, and CF with above average ratings, you'll be in business.

3B and 1B are important, but secondary to the above.  The COF spots are places to hide subpar defenders.

Take a look at Range Factor to get an idea of the relative importance of each position in terms of impacting "team" defence.  1B Range Factor will be skewed due to putouts on ground balls, and C will be skewed from Ks (for some reason they get credit), but you'll get a solid idea from the rest.
8/24/2010 2:05 PM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect
Posted by deathinahole on 8/24/2010 1:07:00 PM (view original):
God bless parabolas!

8/24/2010 2:08 PM
tommy_cian
Posts: 289 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 3 42 68 137
Prospect
So I had Suarez play SS for a good few seasons, over 7300 innings, his range factor at SS is 5.19.  Knight only has 950 innings in the majors at SS, he is a 5.03.  That seems strange to me.

I decided to but Dixon at 1B for Kelly, which leads me to think that I should be at or above average at all positions except maybe CF, at 2B I figure his arm attributes should help carry him to above average overall (he's also a 22 yo kid who is projected to 82,82,91,74, so he should work into that position pretty well...).
8/24/2010 2:16 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
You're probably right about Hunt's arm.  It should more than make up for the few points he's off on range.
8/24/2010 2:20 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by tommy_cian on 8/24/2010 2:16:00 PM (view original):
So I had Suarez play SS for a good few seasons, over 7300 innings, his range factor at SS is 5.19.  Knight only has 950 innings in the majors at SS, he is a 5.03.  That seems strange to me.

I decided to but Dixon at 1B for Kelly, which leads me to think that I should be at or above average at all positions except maybe CF, at 2B I figure his arm attributes should help carry him to above average overall (he's also a 22 yo kid who is projected to 82,82,91,74, so he should work into that position pretty well...).
Re: Suarez and Knight, and the difference in their range factors.

Your pitching staff could influence this.  A staff with more fly ball pitchers, or more strikeout pitchers, can cause fewer balls to be put in play on the infield, thus resulting in lower range factors.

You can't look at individual stats in a vacuum.
8/24/2010 2:23 PM
a_ersberg
Posts: 1363 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 75
Prospect
Make sure you don't have any lefties at 2b, ss or 3b.
8/24/2010 7:06 PM
aaronwayne
Posts: 397 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 1 239
Prospect
While we're on the topic here, I've got a former GG CF, but he's aging.  His range has dropped to 77, but his glove is still at 92.  His arm is 58/66.

I've got a young 2B with a range of 92 and a glove of 81.  Arm is 56/62.  The 2B won the GG during his rookie year at 2cd. 

Should I keep them playing at their natural positions, or do I switch them?  At the moment, I'm leaning towards keeping them as is, because my CF is surrounded by a  GG winner in LF from last season, range in the mid 70's and a league average RF.  I thought a good ranging LF may help pick up the slack from the CF. 

Thanks.  


8/25/2010 11:55 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by aaronwayne on 8/25/2010 11:55:00 AM (view original):
While we're on the topic here, I've got a former GG CF, but he's aging.  His range has dropped to 77, but his glove is still at 92.  His arm is 58/66.

I've got a young 2B with a range of 92 and a glove of 81.  Arm is 56/62.  The 2B won the GG during his rookie year at 2cd. 

Should I keep them playing at their natural positions, or do I switch them?  At the moment, I'm leaning towards keeping them as is, because my CF is surrounded by a  GG winner in LF from last season, range in the mid 70's and a league average RF.  I thought a good ranging LF may help pick up the slack from the CF. 

Thanks.  


I don't believe good range in LF and RF makes up for poor range in CF in HBD.

I'd put the 92 range guy in CF and move the 77 range guy to 2B (provided he's not a LH thrower).
8/25/2010 12:05 PM
12 Next ▸
Defense Topic
△Top△Bottom

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.