Trying to figure out a way to value defense (as I have always thought I didn't pay enough attention to that) in terms of runs prevented vs. offensive production. Player a (cf) has a range factor of 3.50 while player b, also cf has rf of 3.0. So player a contributes to .5 more outs per game. I took the league avg of runs vs. hits (minus hr) which was .44 runs for every hit. So .5 more outs times 162 =81 per season times .44 = 35 runs saved per season - if all 162 games played.

Does this make sense or am I way off.

Should be valuing-hope I'm better at basebal than spelling

Looking at individual players, you could be getting a small sample size effect. Factors involving your pitching staff such as ground ball/fly ball tendencies, strikeouts, etc. are going to impact individual defensive stats such as range factor.

For example: if you have a ground ball staff that also creates a lot of strikeouts, it follows that there will be less fly ball opportunities for your CF, thus leading to a lower range factor. That doesn't mean that he's not as good as the CF on another team . . . it just means he has less opportunities.

When looking at defense, pay attention to plus/minus plays. That will probably give you a better feel for your defense than will range factor.

I'm not sure you're answering his question.

WifS has said that a fantastic LF will not "steal" balls from your CF. So, if one CF is averaging 3.5 outs per game and the other is averaging 3.0 outs per game, you are correct in assuming that CF2 is allowing an additional 81 hits over the course of 162 games. How that correlates into runs is your call. But CF2 is effectively forcing your pitchers to throw 3 extra games per 162(81/27).

Part of what I was trying to do here was to relate it to offense. So if player a has 70 runs created per season and b has 90 but a also saves 35 runs per season I should be playing player a if my math/logic is correct.

That's assuming Player B isn't saving any runs. But, yes, your logic is sound on who to play. +105 is better than +90.

there is no FRAA-type stat in HBD

and as mentioned in a thread yesterday, range factor is dependent on opportunities provided by the pitcher and offensive opponent

take an extreme example of a team that strikes out 1 batter per inning versus a team that doesn't strike out any ... outs are going to happen eventually, so the CF (to take your example) for the no-K team will necessarily have a higher range factor than the team with the Ks ... but it is soley to do with opportunity, not his quality as a fielder

the RF stat is a lot like RBI in that regard

I knew I wasn't directly answering his question. I was just trying to point out that perhaps the approach he's using to try to quantify defensive contributions at an individual level may be flawed. There are other variables in play that could influence and/or muddy the defensive stats he's looking at and trying to draw quantifiable conclusions from. I don't have an answer to that.

I was assuming that he was attempting to determine starters on his team only. Of course, if he's trying to compare his players to players on another team, the whole exercise is pointless.

No stat is in a vacuum, but I've always found RF in particular is comparing apples to oranges to grapefruit to pomegranates.

For instance many of the great defenders get PH for frequently due to weak bats, or they are late inning defensive replacements. Unlike BA or OBP you get penalized heavily playing a partial game. A team that has a strong bench with great PH'ers and high setting for PH will see weak hitting great defenders RF plummet.

Even on the same team it's hard because since only one guy gets to play the position you are comparing different positions. And it's hard to give them equal innings every game if you PH or late inning replacement. It's not a useless stat, but it becomes a stat that is so muddled it's hard to reverse engineer value. I'd rather just use ratings we have available to see easily.

Yes, I was attempting to determine starters on my own team

Quote: Originally Posted By TheJester74 on 1/09/2010
No stat is in a vacuum, but I've always found RF in particular is comparing apples to oranges to grapefruit to pomegranates.

For instance many of the great defenders get PH for frequently due to weak bats, or they are late inning defensive replacements. Unlike BA or OBP you get penalized heavily playing a partial game. A team that has a strong bench with great PH'ers and high setting for PH will see weak hitting great defenders RF plummet.

Even on the same team it's hard because since only one guy gets to play the position you are comparing different positions. And it's hard to give them equal innings every game if you PH or late inning replacement. It's not a useless stat, but it becomes a stat that is so muddled it's hard to reverse engineer value. I'd rather just use ratings we have available to see easily.

Incorrect. Range factor is determined per 9 innings. Much like ERA. There is no penalty for partial games. It's all pro-rated.

Then you're fine by comparing RF. If you're talking about .5 per game for a CF, that's rather substantial. There's a difference. If it's .124, not so much.

However, as Jester somewhat insinuates, we do have ratings. If you have an 84/84/57/57 CF and another who is 85/84/57/57 who seems to make a substantial amount of more plays, other factors are at work.

Don't forget about sample size. Comparing a guy with 500 innings in CF to another guy with only 50 innings in CF may give you some skewed results because of the SSS for the 50 guy.

That might fall under "other factors".