Fielding grades are based on actual fielding percentage relative to peers at the same position for that season. 1994 Griffey gets a B/C+ rating because his .983 fielding percentage ranked 40th amongst qualifying OF and his Range Factor ranked 28th.

Ortiz gets D ratings at 1B every year because the stats determine it, not some arbitrary decision process. There is no "reputation" built into the fielding ratings.

So the letter grade ratings for each player at fielding and range are then subject to normalization when playing against players or with pitchers from other eras?

That is, a B+ from 1914 is different from a B+ from 1963 or 2011?

I never realized that.

Damn, no, sorry. It used to be that way. The letter grades themselves are assigned based on normalized fielding percentage, so they are comparable across eras when viewing them in the draft center. The underlying raw fielding percentage is what's adjusted in the actual in-game fielding percentage normalizations using pitcher year, batter year, etc.

Using your years as an example, 1914 Chief Wilson, 1963 Curt Flood, and 2011 Torii Hunter are all B+ fielders with FPCT# numbers of .985 or .986.

Wilson's actual fld pct was .983, Flood's was .988, and Hunter's was .989, so the grades reflect that fielding in general has improved over the course of baseball history. An older player can earn a B+ fielding rating with a lower raw fielding percentage due to the normalization of fielding percentages.

This is from the Knowledge Base: We also use Log5 normalization for fielding and determining errors. The 4 key pieces here are: fielder's fielding percentage (FPCT), the league average from the fielder's season at the position, the league average from the hitter's season at the position and the league average from the pitcher's season at the position.

We also represent these values broadly in our Player Search (FPCT#). These values use the historical averages for the pitcher's league average and the batter's league average.

Posted by contrarian23 on 2/23/2016 11:27:00 AM (view original):
You didn't address the issue. Please explain exactly how you think an arm rating should be calculated, and give examples.

To determine that, I need to know the difference between Range and Fielding, and their relationship to this sim. Not one person seems to address this appropriately in this forum.

If it works how the real life stats work, than it is a mixture of errors, assists and putouts into 2 separate stats. So theoretically, a player with a C/C is effectively the same as a player with a C+/C- or a C-/C+. Without knowing what the grade letters directly effect in the engine, there's no way to determine what I could do differently that I would see working *better*

Quite frankly, I'd like to see some sort of assists to throwing errors used for an arm accuracy or strength rating. I'd also like to see the fielding stats be entirely different from arm strength, as it has absolutely no relation. Some of the best fielders in history, have noodle arms. Rickey Henderson comes to mind (which is probably why he ranks at a D+/B in this sim)...

The problem with the sim, is that there's no way to differentiate their grades in the engine... Players with a low Fielding or Range rating will get an increase in errors. I have a B/D- Jeter that has nearly 2x as many errors as a C/C player on my team. Fielding % was created to make a % to work with, when determining Gold Glove awards..etc. It's a way to rank guys, based on a multitude of things... Giving them a letter grade associated to fielding %, is NOT an accurate way to represent a persons ability in an engine that cannot differentiate between letting a ball get over them for a double, compared to stopping people from getting to second on a short fly that falls.

I'd still argue, that it makes no sense how they can normalize some players, but not others... Ken Griffey Jr ranked 40th in 1994, so he deserves a B, regardless of his fielding ability? Perhaps all the players in that year deserve a higher grade and worth more money, instead of being marginalized.

Posted by skunk206 on 2/23/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Using your years as an example, 1914 Chief Wilson, 1963 Curt Flood, and 2011 Torii Hunter are all B+ fielders with FPCT# numbers of .985 or .986.

Wilson's actual fld pct was .983, Flood's was .988, and Hunter's was .989, so the grades reflect that fielding in general has improved over the course of baseball history. An older player can earn a B+ fielding rating with a lower raw fielding percentage due to the normalization of fielding percentages.

This is from the Knowledge Base: We also use Log5 normalization for fielding and determining errors. The 4 key pieces here are: fielder's fielding percentage (FPCT), the league average from the fielder's season at the position, the league average from the hitter's season at the position and the league average from the pitcher's season at the position.

We also represent these values broadly in our Player Search (FPCT#). These values use the historical averages for the pitcher's league average and the batter's league average.

So Ken Griffey Jr can have a .983 and be a B... Yet 1914 Chief Wilson can be a .983 and be a B+?

Please tell me how that supports your position on how Whatifsports does things, and please tell me how that's not coming up with their own fairy tale grading system, based on their own beliefs.

I'm curious how something like fielding can be normalized each year too. It's not as if the mound height, or bats used has any effect on people fielding the ball better or worse.

Wilson's .983 in 1914 was better relative to the rest of his peers than Griffey's .983 in 1994. That's why his letter grade would appear better.

Wilson's .983 Fielding percentage in 1914 was 2nd in the league for qualified OF. Griffey's .983 was 40th. That's what normalization is. It tries to compare player performance across different eras. It was harder/rarer to be a good fielder in 1914 than in 1994. A .983 fielding percentage in 1914 is more "impressive" than a .983 fielding percentage in 1994, for the same position.

Letter grades for fielding are like the # stats for batting or pitching. They don't really mean anything in the SIM. They're just a broad indicator of a player's general skill compared to historical averages. Actual SIM calculations don't use historical averages though. They use raw stats weighted by specific-year league averages.

Posted by lilspike0738 on 2/23/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skunk206 on 2/23/2016 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Using your years as an example, 1914 Chief Wilson, 1963 Curt Flood, and 2011 Torii Hunter are all B+ fielders with FPCT# numbers of .985 or .986.

Wilson's actual fld pct was .983, Flood's was .988, and Hunter's was .989, so the grades reflect that fielding in general has improved over the course of baseball history. An older player can earn a B+ fielding rating with a lower raw fielding percentage due to the normalization of fielding percentages.

This is from the Knowledge Base: We also use Log5 normalization for fielding and determining errors. The 4 key pieces here are: fielder's fielding percentage (FPCT), the league average from the fielder's season at the position, the league average from the hitter's season at the position and the league average from the pitcher's season at the position.

We also represent these values broadly in our Player Search (FPCT#). These values use the historical averages for the pitcher's league average and the batter's league average.

So Ken Griffey Jr can have a .983 and be a B... Yet 1914 Chief Wilson can be a .983 and be a B+?

Please tell me how that supports your position on how Whatifsports does things, and please tell me how that's not coming up with their own fairy tale grading system, based on their own beliefs.

I'm curious how something like fielding can be normalized each year too. It's not as if the mound height, or bats used has any effect on people fielding the ball better or worse.

skunk206 and contrarian23 are trying to explain that all the ratings here are based on statistics. Since gloves were either not in use or were worse in quality in the early 20th century, a fielder that had the same fielding percentage in centerfield or at SS as someone playing today might in fact have been a better fielder if they had a decent glove to play with. Having the same fielding percentage as Griffey or Ozzie Smith without using a modern glove is quite an accomplishment, wouldn't you say? So to take that into account, the players' fielding is first adjusted to their time period, and given a rating based on that, so that a B+ means that same quality form and for all eras, but what it takes to get a B+ in one era is different from another era. This is called normalization.

Why are there no .400 hitters anymore? It is harder now to hit .400. So that means it was easier to hit .400 in say, 1894. So hitting .400 in 1894 and hitting .390 in 1980 may be the same level quality of hitting or the .390 hitter from 1980 (Brett) may have hit better all told compared to the era he played in than someone who hit over .400 in an era when that was more common.

How good was Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs in 1927? How good was Sammy Sosa hitting 66 in 1998? Better than Ruth in 1927? Not likely, since we know that it was much less common to hit 60 home runs in 1960 (as in never) than to hit 66 in the steroids era. Normalization addresses this and the fielding ratings work on the same principle.

Site staff fielding (among other things) notes

In short, fielding grades are calculated using fielding percentage, with a possible normalization adjustment. In the SIM, it uses all the components mentioned in contrarian's post above.

I explain exactly how range works in this thread

Posted by uncleal on 2/23/2016 8:29:00 PM (view original):
Site staff fielding (among other things) notes

In short, fielding grades are calculated using fielding percentage, with a possible normalization adjustment. In the SIM, it uses all the components mentioned in contrarian's post above.

I explain exactly how range works in this thread

Thank you for posting this, Uncleal... Seriously, I've been looking for this for days.

It's apparent that my frustrations are not just me being picky, in a way... It seems that Whatifsports is doing the best they feel they can, with what they have, but they could stand to make improvement. It seems most people who posted in both forums linked, agreed with this. I still do NOT agree with many parts of this, especially the fact that it's claimed they can't effectively utilize assists and such to determine arm strength, but they still utilize it in the fielding equation, which could actually result in more or less errors in the sim, which is irrelevant to OF assists...etc. However; I have to swallow my pride here a bit, because I believe Contrarion is correct in that I cannot determine a way to do it better, without re-hauling the sim. I MUCH prefer to how Strat-o-matic does their Arm Strengths and fielding/error ratings. It's easier for them to do, given the way their sim works. Their online simulation is always ever fluctuating, which is something that Whatifsports will never do.

I don't agree that the normalization pros/cons wash each other out, it's very apparent from the results I see that the deadball era players always perform better... I think the Sim has totally made it so that Deadball era players are just better, to which I disagree completely. Quite frankly, I feel as though that deadball era batters wouldn't be able to hit .200 in a league filled with guys throwing 100 MPH, but that's purely my own opinion and no way to accurately know.

All in all, thank you for explaining the range/fielding factors.... Although I don't agree with the SIM much at all, because I'm a stubborn jackass, I at least understand it more and can figure out a way to work around it.

I don't think that deadball players (not counting pitchers) always perform better. They are more cost effective, because power is expensive in the SIM.

Take a hitter like 1899 John McGraw: his average performance in OLs is hitting .361 with a .501 OBP, which is pretty impressive. The modern player closest in price to him is 2004 Todd Helton. Helton's average performance is .373, with a .480 OBP and 19 home runs. I would say that Helton performs better, given the relatively close OBP, higher average and home run power which is lacking in McGraw. That McGraw plays a more valuable position, 3B, gives the overall advantage as a player to Helton, certainly as a hitter, though it is fairly close.

Deadball pitchers do not - Addie Joss excepting, though he did have the second lowest career WHIP in all of baseball history for starting pitchers if memory serves - perform better per se. It is that because they throw fewer pitches, because they struck out fewer batters, they cost less, so given a budget where you need to find a pitcher for $10 million or less, you are more often going to find that a deadball pitcher is better than a modern pitcher that costs the same. This is a flaw that we have brought up many times, in which pitches thrown are part of the cost structure, yes. But it is not better performance as such.

Normalization is frustrating in many ways - some players we all liked, having played in eras that favored this or that kind of performance, under-perform when up players from other eras or pitchers from other eras. But this is also part of the point: Bill James at one point in his Historical Baseball Abstract asks whether the 1961 Yankees, who could only hit home runs and do little else well, could play and win if they had to play against the 1914 Athletics, that is in a kind of game where home runs were rare, and where you had to bunt, steal, get several hits in a row. His answer is no. Of course it is fair to ask whether, say the 1904 Pirates or the 1914 Braves or 1906 Cubs could win in Coors field, or in Tiger Stadium against strikeout pitchers and fielders that have decent gloves on their hands. This is part of the fun here and I would say that it is important to try to keep having fun here.

Mark McGwire 1998, may have hit a lot of home runs in 1930 in the Baker Bowl, he might have hit a lot fewer in Dodger Stadium or the Astrodome in 1963. Sandy Koufax might not have been so un-hittable in a hitter's park or in an era when everyone was not trying to hit for the seats, against the John McGraw's, though I think he would have held his own. Joss in real life pitching in the steroid era in Fenway, given that he did not strike out many hitters? Good, maybe not so great. Greg Maddux against the McGraws in 1899 at say the Polo Grounds? My guess he would have been comparable to Christy Mathewson. But who knows? That's why we play the games.

I'm not sure I agree in regards to the deadball era, at all... The past 10 championship teams that I've looked at, all have Addie Joss and some combination of deadball pitchers... They give up less HR/9, are usually way less money and have astronomical innings pitched, that is always a recipe for success in the SIM. Almost every team seems to also really rely on guys like Buck Freeman, who always seems to over perform in the outfield and at the plate. The blatant reduced cost of deadball era guys, is evidence that they are favored in the standard sims. Perhaps the dynamic salary will address this issue. I certainly hope so.

One major problem, is that there's not an effective way to limit the crazy percentage game that people play, unless you create a detailed theme (even there, it still exists to a point)... People expose the weaknesses of the simulation to get people to perform better than they would. It literally has zero to do with how a player would perform in a given situation. I could fill a team with A/A defense across the board, and the best pitching in the history of the game. If I don't pick the right stadium, or don't tweak the lineup/pitching settings just right, than every single player I have will under perform and play poorly. You can't look me in the eyes and say that Tom Seaver would have a 5.00+ ERA, with equal 5K to 5BB Ratio, no matter which era he played in. You can't tell me that if Mark McGwire played against deadball pitchers, that he wouldn't hit HRs... I've had McGwire (I forget which season) hit less than 20 HR in an OL season before. That's ridiculous, he never hit less than 20 HR, in a full season, in his entire career spanning across 2 decades. It's just not something I'm willing to accept that should happen. That's not real, that's not fun. It's people exploiting the simulation. I can understand a decline in numbers, based on opposition, ballpark and such, but a clear and blatant elite status player to scrub is just not acceptable in my eyes. If my player with 40-60 HRs in a season goes 100+ ABs without one, his percentage to hit a HR should go up, because the chance that he hits one should rise, given he hit 40-60 in the season. On the reverse side, if he hit 20 HR in his first 200 ABs, than I expect his percentage to hit one to drop significantly. It doesn't in this simulation, not to my knowledge and not to the Admins knowledge who I've written to about my concerns multiple times.

WiS biggest flaw seems to be that they seem to take the easy way out. Maybe it's due to lack of staff, or just lack of caring, but once the league is set, once the initial percentages are there, that's it. They wash their hands of it. Every R or L handed player, hits and pulls the same way. Every R or L handed pitcher has the same effectiveness against their respective side of the plate. They openly admit that they do this. Even your post admits it.

Example: Lance Berkman was a phenomenal opposite field hitter. He's actually regarded as one of the best in baseball during his hayday (according to Sports Nation, lol). In this sim, he'll pull the ball to whichever side of the plate he's standing on. Someone will exploit the flaw in the simulation, to ensure he pulls it to the stronger fielding grades of the field. That's not a "Oh man, Berkman would really fail if he faced this scenario" and more of "Oh look, I found a gap in the sim and can exploit it."... Especially since there's no way to manage this during the game.

I've even written to WiS and asked them why they refuse to acknowledge other longtime statistics or exploits, that would improve the experience a little, to which they've responded that it's just not how their sim is designed, and it would cause more harm than good to change things abruptly like that.

Okay, I can accept that answer. I can accept that they have their design and it's easier to just roll with it than to continue to change and attempt new things. I have to realize that they're in this business to make money, and not make this experience greater for us. They just have to ensure we stay, to keep spending money. Which apparently they do fairly well, because I continue to try this Simulation site for sh*ts and giggles.

"The problem with the sim, is that there's no way to differentiate their grades in the engine... Players with a low Fielding or Range rating will get an increase in errors. I have a B/D- Jeter that has nearly 2x as many errors as a C/C player on my team. Fielding % was created to make a % to work with, when determining Gold Glove awards..etc."

The letter grade is comparing the player against others at the same position.....ie, Jeter is a b/d- vs other SS's. Raines, your c/c I'm assuming, is compared to other OF. The grades are not equal across the positions. A d/d 1b could have a better fld % than a b/b middle inf, due to the position they play. The grade just gives you a rough estimation. Look at the actual fld % and rrf of the player. Better yet, look at the fld%# to see how they normalize. You can search these in the draft center.

'03 Jeter's real world fld% was .968. The sim, thinking that it is easier to field nowadays vs 100 years ago, normalizes Jeter to a .959% . He fielded at a .961 clip for you, which I would say it right in line.

It looks like he made a ton of errors for you with 30, but he had a TON more chances as well. Real world 159 put outs, and 271 assists. In the sim, he gave you 328 putouts, and 418 assists. This huge difference is probably made up by the fact that you only had 1 pitcher that strikes out and walks batters. All of your other pitchers put the ball in play. So, the sim treated you fairly. Maybe, not what you expected, but looks fair.

"You can't look me in the eyes and say that Tom Seaver would have a 5.00+ ERA, with equal 5K to 5BB Ratio, no matter which era he played in. You can't tell me that if Mark McGwire played against deadball pitchers, that he wouldn't hit HRs.."

Not trying to attack you here, just trying to see if we can clear up some concerns....

This one comes up every so often, and I felt the same way when I started, but that has to be some give and take. Tom Seaver can't hav a 2.00 ERA and have Mcgwire hit 50-60 hr's. There's no Jose Lima's or John Wasdin's for Mcgwire to face. Also, Seaver is not pitching against any .225 hitters either.

The talent pool is so much greater in the sim than any normal team's lineup. Load up the '27 yankees and see what their salary totals to. Then look at any league you are joining. There is a huge disparity.

And this next part is a extremely small sample size, but is ammusing none the less... So, with every team in the sim having some form or another of an all-star lineup, here is Seaver's and Mcgwire's All-star statistics.....

Seaver with a 4.85 era and a 1.38 whip against all-star talent

All-Star Pitching

Glossary · SHARE · Embed · CSV · Export · PRE · LINK · ?

Year	Tm	Lg	Age	GS	W	L	W-L%	ERA	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	BK	WP	BF	WHIP	H9	HR9	BB9	SO9	SO/W
1967	NYM	NL	22	0	0	0		0.00	1	0	0	1	1.0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	4	1.000	0.0	0.0	9.0	9.0	1.00
1968	NYM	NL	23	0	0	0		0.00	0	0	0	0	2.0	2	0	0	0	0	0	5	0	0	0	8	1.000	9.0	0.0	0.0	22.5
1969	NYM	NL	24
1970	NYM	NL	25	1	0	0		0.00	0	0	0	0	3.0	1	0	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	10	0.333	3.0	0.0	0.0	12.0
1971	NYM	NL	26
1972	NYM	NL	27
1973	NYM	NL	28	0	0	0		0.00	0	0	0	0	1.0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	4	1.000	0.0	0.0	9.0	0.0	0.00
1975	NYM	NL	30	0	0	0		27.00	0	0	0	0	1.0	2	3	3	1	1	0	2	0	0	0	6	3.000	18.0	9.0	9.0	18.0	2.00
1976	NYM	NL	31	0	0	0		4.50	0	0	0	0	2.0	2	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	7	1.000	9.0	4.5	0.0	4.5
1977	CIN	NL	32	0	0	0		9.00	0	0	0	0	2.0	4	3	2	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	12	2.500	18.0	0.0	4.5	9.0	2.00
1978	CIN	NL	33
1981	CIN	NL	36	0	0	0		9.00	0	0	0	0	1.0	3	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	6	3.000	27.0	9.0	0.0	9.0
12 Yrs (8 GP)				1	0	0		4.85	1	0	0	1	13.0	14	8	7	3	4	0	16	0	0	0	57	1.385	9.7	2.1	2.8	11.1	4.00

And bigmac hitting only .200 with 0 HR's against all star talent

All-Star Batting

Glossary · SHARE · Embed · CSV · Export · PRE · LINK · ?

Year	Tm	Lg	Age	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB
1987	OAK	AL	23		3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	.000	.000	.000	.000	0	0	0	0	0	0
1988	OAK	AL	24	as 1B	2	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	.500	.500	.500	1.000	1	0	0	0	0	0
1989	OAK	AL	25	as 1B	3	3	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	.333	.333	.333	.667	1	0	0	0	0	0
1990	OAK	AL	26	as 1B	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	.000	.000	.000	.000	0	0	0	0	0	0
1991	OAK	AL	27		DNP
1992	OAK	AL	28	as 1B	3	3	1	1	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	.333	.333	.333	.667	1	0	0	0	0	0
1995	OAK	AL	31		DNP
1996	OAK	AL	32		1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1.000	1.000	1.000	2.000	1	0	0	0	0	0
1997	OAK	AL	33		2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	.000	.000	.000	.000	0	0	0	0	0	0
1998	STL	NL	34	as 1B	3	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	.000	.333	.000	.333	0	0	0	0	0	0
1999	STL	NL	35	as 1B	3	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	.000	.333	.000	.333	0	0	0	0	0	0
2000	STL	NL	36		DNP
12 Yrs (9 GP)					22	20	2	4	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	9	.200	.273	.200	.473	4	0	0	0	0	0

"Okay, I can accept that answer. I can accept that they have their design and it's easier to just roll with it than to continue to change and attempt new things. I have to realize that they're in this business to make money, and not make this experience greater for us. They just have to ensure we stay, to keep spending money. Which apparently they do fairly well, because I continue to try this Simulation site for sh*ts and giggles. "

This! (Above)

You have stated truth here. This site (as I understand it) is owned by Fox Sports------- a corporation!
While they may have the resources to make a much better "simulation" experience for us baseball nerds, their objective is to make PROFITS.
As long as the "game/SIM" is good enough that folks like me and you spend our money to play it............ why change it?
It's taken me awhile, BUT the "gaming" of the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and the unrealistic results yielded in MOST leagues (all open leagues) is just something you have to accept here. I ignore it (as much as I can) and play (almost) all progressive leagues and try to "pretend" and make moves based on my own baseball experience and knowledge. It's more fun for me that way than trying to be the best at the "game" of "WIS/SIM. The latter strategy requires employing tactics like dead ball pitchers and "cookie" position players. "Gaming the inaccuracies, etc". Winning at a SIM game. That's not for me. I could care less about my win pct. or player rating. I'm here to try and experience a "pretend" GM/managing experience using real historical ballplayers. Nobody's ever gonna give me a chance to manage the Diamondbacks so I play here.

BUT, I do agree with a lot of your complaints. I personally wish they'd vastly improve the hands on managerial aspects of the play. Letting US (somehow) decide when to remove a pitcher, or pinch hit.............. but I understand (I think) that that would really slow the play down to a crawl and most players here would leave. perhaps I should try the strat-o-Matic game and approach because I personally don't mind the random element of chance used by Strat (dice results, etc). heck I grew up on that system. it was fine, and generally realistic enough. And even when you had an unrealistic result you (at least) knew why. The answer was luck. Easy to get, and easy to live with.

Here, because of computers and algorithums we expect too much maybe. BUT, I also think you're right about the "lazy' part when it comes to this site's owners!! At least nowadays. Propbably more than 2 cents worth, but hey........... inflation.