I know Jack Glasscock had a great defensive reputation, but...
 

...Was it as great as a combined +65.4 ZR at 3B and SS over the course of a 112 game schedule would indicate? Holy mother of...

This has been around for awhile and I don't know if it's fixable. I ask because 6.5 wins coming from defense alone over 112 games is...well impossible. :laugh:

I think it stems from the fact that the in-game ZR and EFF may be set up to judge players using an all-time perspective, rather than as it should be, a unique perspective for the year in question. My guess is that 2B, 3B, and SS had a whole lot more groundballs hit to them back in ye olden days, and if you compare them to today's players, they come out looking like super heroes. If it's not fixable because it's the only way to get these metrics into the game, then I understand, but if it is fixable, I'd sure like to see it fixed to the way it should be. If that requires too much coding then I understand, but it looks way off the way it is right now.

I know, I know...Screenie or it didn't happen. Here it is:

Sorry for the immensity...Not very handy with the Paint.NET. :o :p :)

Yes, thank goodness for horizontal scroll! :mad: (J/k)

Well, I have nothing to add except for the fervent hope that this fellow wears a cup! :laugh:

Sorry. :o:p:)

That's OK. I could've used Ned Williamson as an example of this phenomenon too, but I had to go with Jack Glasscock for the larfs. :laugh:

Best. Name. Ever.

You could look him up. He played from 1879-1895, and really belongs in the Hall of Fame (not for his name, but for his game ;) ).

Well, thanks for sharing him but I hope you get an answer to your question!

I haven't looked it up or anything, but I bet the average fielding percentage for an infielder is a whole lot lower than .951.......without gloves and even with those early things they called gloves errors were very common and Mr. Diaphane Phallus was able to out perform his contemporaries by a much larger margin than is possible in today's environment......

How would it fit?;)

Like a glove.

I'd tend to agree. Would guess that the fielders weren't all that athletic in general, at least by today's standards. Probably some were what we'd consider low level college talents.

So I don't see any reason that it wouldn't be theoretically possible for a player of that time period who actually had modern MLB SS type range and a good glove to add 6 wins per year in the field. Not sure that Glasscock actually did that, but it seems it's at least possible.

Haha! I clicked this for the replies. Am not disappointed. :laugh:

I looked him up......in real life his range factor in 1884 was over a full chance per game more than the second place shortstop.....that is VERY impressive....however, his real life fielding percentage was no where near .951......a .951 fielding percentage in 1884 for a shortstop was about as possible as someone hitting 200 home runs today (just pulled that out my heinie; I have no math to support the claim).....