OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Fielding in Historical Games, impossible results

Garlon · 07-05-2019, 02:08 AM

Here is Ernie Banks. BBR has him as the 24th best defensive SS on the career list with +62 ZR. In OOTP he manages -440 though. If you are wondering what is perhaps the limit of what is possible, Derek Jeter has -186 on BBR and played 20 years at SS compared to roughly half of that for Banks. Had Banks continued to play SS the rest of his career in OOTP maybe he could have made it to -1000. Banks in the game only played about 1000 games at SS, whereas Jeter played over 2500.

Now take a look at his DefEff of .704. This means he was only making about 7 out of every 10 plays that an average SS was making in the game. For reference, Derek Jeter was possibly the worst defensive SS in the history of baseball and he was about .935 for his career.

Take a look at Banks FLD% of .950 in the game. His real SS FLD% was .969. You might ask, what are the odds of this happening just by randomness? Well this is fairly easy to answer. This can be tested using binomial probability. https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

For Banks we know that 3.1% of his plays (1.000 - .969 = .031) he made an error. In OOTP he had 3661 Total Chances at SS and made 182 errors, whereas had he fielded .969 for his career he should have made 113 errors in that many opportunities.

It turns out that the odds of him making this many errors or more just by luck or randomness, exceeds 1,000,000:1 against. It is that unlikely to happen. He is how to use the Binomial calculator in the link provided and how to understand the results: Where it says probability of success you can either type in the player real error rate as a decimal, for number of trials you type in the player's total chances at the position, and for successes you type in the player errors at the position. Then press calculate to get the results. You should then be looking at either the third to last or the last result, the ones that have P(X less than or equal to x) or P(X greater than or equal to x). For Banks we see that the odds of him performing this poorly by randomness is the last value of <0.000001, which means that for him to have made 182 or more errors is greater than 1,000,000:1.

07-05-2019, 02:08 AM	#2
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,756	Here is Ernie Banks. BBR has him as the 24th best defensive SS on the career list with +62 ZR. In OOTP he manages -440 though. If you are wondering what is perhaps the limit of what is possible, Derek Jeter has -186 on BBR and played 20 years at SS compared to roughly half of that for Banks. Had Banks continued to play SS the rest of his career in OOTP maybe he could have made it to -1000. Banks in the game only played about 1000 games at SS, whereas Jeter played over 2500. Now take a look at his DefEff of .704. This means he was only making about 7 out of every 10 plays that an average SS was making in the game. For reference, Derek Jeter was possibly the worst defensive SS in the history of baseball and he was about .935 for his career. Take a look at Banks FLD% of .950 in the game. His real SS FLD% was .969. You might ask, what are the odds of this happening just by randomness? Well this is fairly easy to answer. This can be tested using binomial probability. https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx For Banks we know that 3.1% of his plays (1.000 - .969 = .031) he made an error. In OOTP he had 3661 Total Chances at SS and made 182 errors, whereas had he fielded .969 for his career he should have made 113 errors in that many opportunities. It turns out that the odds of him making this many errors or more just by luck or randomness, exceeds 1,000,000:1 against. It is that unlikely to happen. He is how to use the Binomial calculator in the link provided and how to understand the results: Where it says probability of success you can either type in the player real error rate as a decimal, for number of trials you type in the player's total chances at the position, and for successes you type in the player errors at the position. Then press calculate to get the results. You should then be looking at either the third to last or the last result, the ones that have P(X less than or equal to x) or P(X greater than or equal to x). For Banks we see that the odds of him performing this poorly by randomness is the last value of <0.000001, which means that for him to have made 182 or more errors is greater than 1,000,000:1. Attached Images Last edited by Garlon; 07-05-2019 at 07:27 AM.