OOTP Developments Forums

OOTP Developments Forums (https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com//index.php)
-   OOTP 14 - General Discussions (https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com//forumdisplay.php?f=3858)
-   -   I know Jack Glasscock had a great defensive reputation, but... (https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com//showthread.php?t=235598)

actionjackson 08-20-2013 02:51 PM

I know Jack Glasscock had a great defensive reputation, but...
 
1 Attachment(s)
...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:

actionjackson 08-20-2013 02:54 PM

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

Déjà Bru 08-20-2013 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by actionjackson (Post 3557910)
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:)

actionjackson 08-20-2013 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru (Post 3557916)
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:

soxfan34 08-20-2013 04:12 PM

Best. Name. Ever.

actionjackson 08-20-2013 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soxfan34 (Post 3557998)
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 ;) ).

Déjà Bru 08-20-2013 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by actionjackson (Post 3558009)
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!

Questdog 08-20-2013 10:35 PM

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......

RchW 08-20-2013 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru (Post 3557916)
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:)

How would it fit?;)

The Wolf 08-20-2013 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW (Post 3558207)
How would it fit?;)

Like a glove.

Lukas Berger 08-21-2013 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog (Post 3558204)
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......

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.

Mr. Baseball 08-21-2013 01:29 AM

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

Questdog 08-21-2013 05:02 PM

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).....


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2018 Out of the Park Developments