89 HJ SS | |||||||||

da avg | .301 | .301 | .301 | .302 | .302 | .302 | .302 | .302 | .302 |

da obp | .372 | .372 | .372 | .372 | .372 | .372 | .372 | .372 | .372 |

da slg | .508 | .508 | .508 | .508 | .508 | .508 | .508 | .508 | .508 |

98 OV SS | |||||||||

da avg | .352 | .354 | .355 | .357 | .358 | .360 | .360 | .360 | .360 |

da obp | .405 | .406 | .408 | .409 | .411 | .412 | .412 | .412 | .412 |

da slg | .435 | .437 | .439 | .441 | .442 | .444 | .444 | .444 | .444 |

Hojo might be a better player over 162 games, but if you are facing a deadballer or playing behind an ace, Vizquel is likely more valuable.

That being said, if the adjusted AVGs are close, then I'll almost always lean toward the better range guys, figuring the extra DPs will be the difference.

You will also get vastly different, + and - plays depending on pitcher oav and your park. You can get vastly different error numbers depending on your pitcher's season. My method just calculates a defensive adjusted line based on neutral (or as nuetral as you can get) contex. A decent owner will then look at these numbers and adjust for their particular teamPosted by schwarze on 5/30/2012 9:41:00 AM (view original):

I didn't mean to imply DPs are not important. Just that I'm not as convinced that the performance history is quite as useful as a predictive tool. I once entered two identical rosters into seperate open leagues (a roster full of 1880's A+++ range guys). I saved the league spreadsheet. While their errors were almost exactly the same (most players differed by 1 or 2), their turned DPs were vastly different. McPhee (2b) and Glasscock (ss) turned 71 and 82 DPs, respectively in one league while the same two players turned 87 and 99 DPs, respectively. That's a 33-DP difference. Again, the entire 25-man rosters were exactly the same, but the opposition was different.

That being said, if the adjusted AVGs are close, then I'll almost always lean toward the better range guys, figuring the extra DPs will be the difference.

HoJo has 2338 seasonsPosted by boogerlips on 5/30/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):

I'd say a different sample size is required for fld% prediction and DPs turned prediction. Fld% is mostly determined by the fielder. DPs turned are mostly determined by runner speed. So if the fielder is responsible for the smaller variable in the outcome, then it makes sense that a lot more data is needed to isolate that variable.

Vizquel... 70

Roberts... 2533

Lemke... 35

I'd perfer at least 100 seasons, but really 30 seasons should be okay as long as there aren't any really wacky uses of a player.

While I agree that 94 Lemke appears to be a pretty good 2B, I never implied that Bip was a better choice, but rather, only that Bip's offense and other things he gives you (i.e., speed, AVG, OBP, SB's, etc) outweighs (at least for me) the minus plays he'll make., especially in light of the fact that my starting pitchers in general have sub .200 OAV#. Other examples of D- infielders that I have no problem using in light of their offensive potential and cost efficiency are 99 Jose Vidro ($3.1 mil 2B - a killer at Hilltop), 01 Mark McLemore ($3.1 mil at SS) and 00 Rafael Furcal ($3.1 mil at 2B). As with 94 Lemke, I'm sure there are lots of good bargains on guys that play good defense. But the initial thread was about range being worth the cost, and I was merely pointing out that range is too expensive when you can win just as easily with D- fielders who are much cheaper.Posted by zubinsum on 5/29/2012 1:29:00 AM (view original):I actually go through the hassle of calculating such things, I from what I can tell '92 Roberts is not a good choice at second.Posted by mixtroy on 5/28/2012 2:11:00 AM (view original):

A couple of good examples of good fielders with poor range whose offensive output outweighs any negative effect of their range would be 92 Bip at 2B and 89 HoJo at SS. Neither of them will make many errors and will have a ton of minus plays. However, what they will give you on offense IMO clearly outweighs the negative effect of their minus plays.

Adjusting for defense and line-up position, Bip's equivalent line is:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 avg .298 .297 .297 .296 .295 .294 .293 .292 .291 obp .361 .360 .360 .359 .358 .357 .357 .356 .355 slg .387 .386 .385 .385 .384 .383 .382 .381 .379

For similar $/pa you can get '94 Mark Lemke, who will give an equivalent line of:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 avg .333 .334 .334 .335 .336 .337 .339 .340 .341 obp .392 .393 .394 .395 .396 .397 .398 .399 .400 slg .390 .391 .392 .393 .394 .396 .397 .398 .400

You will note that as Roberts moves down the line-up his equivalent line gets worse. This is because my model has him playing more innings at second and he turns out to be a defensive liability. Lemke is exactly the opposite. The further down the line-up you play his the more valuable he becomes because he is an asset on defense.

Fielding isn't based upon the grade, so inflating it wouldn't change the play of the game.Posted by italyprof on 5/25/2012 6:46:00 AM (view original):

I marvel at how many players - including some that many of us consider to have been good fielders when they played - have a D level range. Granted the stats used to determine the rating are objective, but the assigning of grades for a certain level of performance has a human element to it. I know since giving letter grades for performance is what I get paid to do.

So if a certain number of assists is required to get a C or higher, and the result is that the majority of major league players are at D range, it means you need to lower the standard a little. If the majority of students in m classes got Ds the Dean would eventually notice. Obviously the solution is not to lower standards substantially, but someone must have had a C range if that is the medium level.

I always laugh when I see a major league baseball player that has an A defense rating and a D range - essentially that means that he you can't hit the ball past him - so long as you hit it right to him. Or those with D defense and A range - can get to any ball hit, but then can't field it.

A few more Bs and Cs, even at the risk of "grade inflation" would be good, since a lot players here agonize over defense only to find their teams massacred by the Vern Stephens, Bip Roberts and Howard Johnsons of the world.

A good example is a catcher's arm. A+ could be a real-life 60% CS or 38%. The A+ iself is meaningless.

Any calculation that includes Bip's 85 speed and Lemke's 61?Posted by zubinsum on 5/29/2012 1:29:00 AM (view original):I actually go through the hassle of calculating such things, I from what I can tell '92 Roberts is not a good choice at second.Posted by mixtroy on 5/28/2012 2:11:00 AM (view original):

A couple of good examples of good fielders with poor range whose offensive output outweighs any negative effect of their range would be 92 Bip at 2B and 89 HoJo at SS. Neither of them will make many errors and will have a ton of minus plays. However, what they will give you on offense IMO clearly outweighs the negative effect of their minus plays.

Adjusting for defense and line-up position, Bip's equivalent line is:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 avg .298 .297 .297 .296 .295 .294 .293 .292 .291 obp .361 .360 .360 .359 .358 .357 .357 .356 .355 slg .387 .386 .385 .385 .384 .383 .382 .381 .379

For similar $/pa you can get '94 Mark Lemke, who will give an equivalent line of:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 avg .333 .334 .334 .335 .336 .337 .339 .340 .341 obp .392 .393 .394 .395 .396 .397 .398 .399 .400 slg .390 .391 .392 .393 .394 .396 .397 .398 .400

You will note that as Roberts moves down the line-up his equivalent line gets worse. This is because my model has him playing more innings at second and he turns out to be a defensive liability. Lemke is exactly the opposite. The further down the line-up you play his the more valuable he becomes because he is an asset on defense.

Also, how do you incorporate the quality of the pitcher they're fielding behind? A "-" play behind 08 Joss is less likely to result in a run than it would behind an average pitcher. In addition, 08 Joss would face fewer batters per inning, resulting in fewer opportunities for Bip to make a "-" play or Lemke to make a "+" play. (Ditto playing in a pitcher's park v. A hitter's park.)

And how would replacing Bip with a defensive stud in the 8th and 9th innings affect his value as compared to Lemke's?

No, my methodology doesn't take into account speed, pitching or managerial strategy. But again, if the comparison isn't close, those factors will not tip the scales.Any calculation that includes Bip's 85 speed and Lemke's 61?

Also, how do you incorporate the quality of the pitcher they're fielding behind? A "-" play behind 08 Joss is less likely to result in a run than it would behind an average pitcher. In addition, 08 Joss would face fewer batters per inning, resulting in fewer opportunities for Bip to make a "-" play or Lemke to make a "+" play. (Ditto playing in a pitcher's park v. A hitter's park.)

And how would replacing Bip with a defensive stud in the 8th and 9th innings affect his value as compared to Lemke's??

As far as pitching goes, you are correct that behind a low oav pitcher any individual defensive flub means less. However since minus plays are porportional to would-be-outs, bad range can really hurt behind a stud pitcher. Behind Joss or similar stud, I'd much rather have Lemke.

Posted by crimsonblue on 6/13/2012 5:04:00 PM (view original):

It seems very close if you look at it in this sense. Bips 17 more prorated hits (with Lemke's poor slugging% all of them would be extrabase hits(2.2 x17) is better than Lemke's compensation for Bips missed balls at 2b (1.2 x 30). With 2.2 equalling bips average bases for extrabase hits, and 1.2 the number that was given for bases allowed for each of Bips fielding mistakes and 30 the additional fielding missplays that Bip has.

Bip doesn't get any "extra hits." The methodology I used takes each players average performance and then adjusts it up or down to account for defense. Bip's better offensive performance (less speed/ stolen bases) is already embeded into the calculations. The biggest problem I see with my methodology is that I may still be mis-valuing +/- plays and errors. Other than that the methodology is pretty damn sound.

His slash line is .329/.388/.421

Over 660.1 PA (his PA/162 *1.05) he would play 1291 defensive innings at second

Over those innings he would:

Have 3.1 fewer + plays than an average 2b

Have 18.7 more - plays than an average 2b

Have 10.5 fewer errors than an average 2b

Have 1.9 fewer throwing errors than an average 2b

Assume:

A + or - play is worth a hit and 1.2 bases (which I admit now seems to be an overestimate)

An error is worth a hit and 1 base (another overestimate, I think)

A throwing error is worth a hit and 2 bases

Now, add (or subtract his defense from his performance history:

His +/- differential is worth negative 21.8 hits and 26.2 bases

His error differential is worth a positive 10.5 hits and 12.4 bases

His double-play differential is worth negative 10.4 hits and 10.4 bases

In total he costs 21.7 hits and 24.2 bases.

Subtract that from his line and his defensive adjusted slash numbers are .292/.342/.380

In truth, for about 4mil dollars, that isn't a bad line, but Lemke is still better.

Yes, grouping good offensive players help you score more runs, but such affects are small-- typically only about 1% for "very good" to "average" players. In the instant case, Lemke's an probably an above average hitter (in WIS terms) also.