Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel878
Which rating(s) are more important in determining a player's defensive abilities? The positional rating or the component's of that rating (for an IF: arm, range, error and turn double play)?
As an example, if you had one player whose positional rating at 2B was 15 and his component ratings were all 10's and a second player whose positional rating at 2B was 10 but his component ratings were all 15's, which would play better defensively in game? I understand the difference is experience at the position but would that mean the player rated a 15 at the position would play better than the 10 even though his components are well below those of the 10.
Thanks for the help!
|
Do you have such players? My understanding is that position ratings are a weighted composite of individual defensive ratings, including experience. Therefore the higher position rating is by definition the better defensive player at that position.
Based on that, unless experience is very low, the player with better individual defensive skills will always have the better position rating.