Which of these is worse in the simulation? How are they determined? They seem pretty similar.

Poor plays are a factor of range and arm strength, while errors are a factor of glove and arm accuracy.
I don't think one is worse than the other, since they both allow a hitter to reach base (or take an extra base) when they shouldn't have.

IMO, an error should be worse because it results in the loss of an assumed out in most cases. A poor play represents a below average play which may result in an advance by baserunners or allow a runner. I think an out has much greater value.

Posted by GoldieGamma on 6/9/2018 5:27:00 PM (view original):
IMO, an error should be worse because it results in the loss of an assumed out in most cases. A poor play represents a below average play which may result in an advance by baserunners or allow a runner. I think an out has much greater value.

So you are saying that a poor play "results in the loss of an assumed out" less frequently than an error does?

How's that?

Lets look at these two extreme examples.

Player 1 = 60 range/90 glove
Player 2 = 90 range/60 glove

Player 1 records more poor plays than errors simply because he lacks the range to get to the ball. Those balls he is able to get to he fields well, cause his glove is very good.

Player 2 records more errors than poor plays. He gets to a lot more balls than Player 1, but when he does he is much more likely to muff it and record an error.

In both cases they didn't record an out when they should have..

Which could lead to an interesting theoretical issue ...

Toss out arm. This is purely getting to batted balls.

Which player would you prefer?

Player 1 = 60 range/90 glove
Player 2 = 90 range/60 glove
Player 3 = 75 range/75 glove

Posted by bruceleefan on 6/9/2018 7:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 6/9/2018 5:27:00 PM (view original):
IMO, an error should be worse because it results in the loss of an assumed out in most cases. A poor play represents a below average play which may result in an advance by baserunners or allow a runner. I think an out has much greater value.

So you are saying that a poor play "results in the loss of an assumed out" less frequently than an error does?

How's that?

Lets look at these two extreme examples.

Player 1 = 60 range/90 glove
Player 2 = 90 range/60 glove

Player 1 records more poor plays than errors simply because he lacks the range to get to the ball. Those balls he is able to get to he fields well, cause his glove is very good.

Player 2 records more errors than poor plays. He gets to a lot more balls than Player 1, but when he does he is much more likely to muff it and record an error.

In both cases they didn't record an out when they should have..

Both players you listed are Gold Glove candidates, depending on position. +/- plays are indicative of a players familiarity or awareness at a position. Poor plays can be completely eliminated by playing a good(not great) experienced defender at their best position. You could play the greatest defender of all time at his best position and he will eventually make an error.

Posted by GoldieGamma on 6/16/2018 12:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 6/9/2018 7:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 6/9/2018 5:27:00 PM (view original):
IMO, an error should be worse because it results in the loss of an assumed out in most cases. A poor play represents a below average play which may result in an advance by baserunners or allow a runner. I think an out has much greater value.

So you are saying that a poor play "results in the loss of an assumed out" less frequently than an error does?

How's that?

Lets look at these two extreme examples.

Player 1 = 60 range/90 glove
Player 2 = 90 range/60 glove

Player 1 records more poor plays than errors simply because he lacks the range to get to the ball. Those balls he is able to get to he fields well, cause his glove is very good.

Player 2 records more errors than poor plays. He gets to a lot more balls than Player 1, but when he does he is much more likely to muff it and record an error.

In both cases they didn't record an out when they should have..

Both players you listed are Gold Glove candidates, depending on position. +/- plays are indicative of a players familiarity or awareness at a position. Poor plays can be completely eliminated by playing a good(not great) experienced defender at their best position. You could play the greatest defender of all time at his best position and he will eventually make an error.

Goldie, you're o-for-2 here.

A (-) play is also the LF not getting to a fly ball that an average LF would have, so the same loss of an assumed out.

And there is no "experience" factor. This is all math. Player A and Player B (with the same ratings) play the position just as well if 1 has 15 seasons of experience and the other is playing his first game at that spot.

Posted by zbrent716 on 6/21/2018 10:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 6/16/2018 12:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 6/9/2018 7:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 6/9/2018 5:27:00 PM (view original):
IMO, an error should be worse because it results in the loss of an assumed out in most cases. A poor play represents a below average play which may result in an advance by baserunners or allow a runner. I think an out has much greater value.

So you are saying that a poor play "results in the loss of an assumed out" less frequently than an error does?

How's that?

Lets look at these two extreme examples.

Player 1 = 60 range/90 glove
Player 2 = 90 range/60 glove

Player 1 records more poor plays than errors simply because he lacks the range to get to the ball. Those balls he is able to get to he fields well, cause his glove is very good.

Player 2 records more errors than poor plays. He gets to a lot more balls than Player 1, but when he does he is much more likely to muff it and record an error.

In both cases they didn't record an out when they should have..

Both players you listed are Gold Glove candidates, depending on position. +/- plays are indicative of a players familiarity or awareness at a position. Poor plays can be completely eliminated by playing a good(not great) experienced defender at their best position. You could play the greatest defender of all time at his best position and he will eventually make an error.

Goldie, you're o-for-2 here.

A (-) play is also the LF not getting to a fly ball that an average LF would have, so the same loss of an assumed out.

And there is no "experience" factor. This is all math. Player A and Player B (with the same ratings) play the position just as well if 1 has 15 seasons of experience and the other is playing his first game at that spot.

Ok noted. How do you explain highly rated defenders in lower levels that make large amount of errors?

Posted by GoldieGamma on 6/22/2018 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 6/21/2018 10:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 6/16/2018 12:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 6/9/2018 7:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by GoldieGamma on 6/9/2018 5:27:00 PM (view original):
IMO, an error should be worse because it results in the loss of an assumed out in most cases. A poor play represents a below average play which may result in an advance by baserunners or allow a runner. I think an out has much greater value.

So you are saying that a poor play "results in the loss of an assumed out" less frequently than an error does?

How's that?

Lets look at these two extreme examples.

Player 1 = 60 range/90 glove
Player 2 = 90 range/60 glove

Player 1 records more poor plays than errors simply because he lacks the range to get to the ball. Those balls he is able to get to he fields well, cause his glove is very good.

Player 2 records more errors than poor plays. He gets to a lot more balls than Player 1, but when he does he is much more likely to muff it and record an error.

In both cases they didn't record an out when they should have..

Both players you listed are Gold Glove candidates, depending on position. +/- plays are indicative of a players familiarity or awareness at a position. Poor plays can be completely eliminated by playing a good(not great) experienced defender at their best position. You could play the greatest defender of all time at his best position and he will eventually make an error.

Goldie, you're o-for-2 here.

A (-) play is also the LF not getting to a fly ball that an average LF would have, so the same loss of an assumed out.

And there is no "experience" factor. This is all math. Player A and Player B (with the same ratings) play the position just as well if 1 has 15 seasons of experience and the other is playing his first game at that spot.

Ok noted. How do you explain highly rated defenders in lower levels that make large amount of errors?

Can you give an example?

Off the top of my head my answers would be we have different expectations for "highly rated." A 79/79/79/79 defender is an excellent defender I a vacuum, but would be error a - play prone at SS and CF. Give me a 90/90/60/60 for CF over a 79/79/79/79 anytime even though 300 is less than 316. You really need to get to 85/85/85/85 before you stop seeing a bunch of errors and - plays at SS.

That. ^