Defense

[Reikazawa]

No new features relating to defense were mentioned in the OOTPX newsletter so I don't know if there will be.

With defense being "in vogue" with both the statistical community and real life MLB (and deservingly so), I guess I'm a little surprised that there is not much clamor for advancements in this area of OOTP.

Defense on the macro level works now in OOTP. I can collect elite defensive players for my team, and my team BABIP will follow accordingly. I just dont have any measure of how much on a player level. Also, I dont think the AI uses defense much in evaluation, so this is another area that handicaps it.

A new complete model based say on tangotiger's body of knowledge might be too much for this version, but new stat tracking that would provide us with runs saved values is reasonable I think.

[satchel]

More defensive stats would be nice. The inclusion of range factor is already a huge plus.

When you conceptualize the aspects of a defensive player's skills, it's really pretty simple: range, arm, and frequency of errors just about covers it. I don't think that OOTP needs to expand on that too much.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Reikazawa

Defense on the macro level works now in OOTP. I can collect elite defensive players for my team, and my team BABIP will follow accordingly. I just dont have any measure of how much on a player level. Also, I dont think the AI uses defense much in evaluation, so this is another area that handicaps it.

I agree with this, especially that the player evaluation system undervalues defence.

Originally Posted by satchel

More defensive stats would be nice. The inclusion of range factor is already a huge plus.

When you conceptualize the aspects of a defensive player's skills, it's really pretty simple: range, arm, and frequency of errors just about covers it. I don't think that OOTP needs to expand on that too much.

There are two things I'd like to see (in addition to the defensive stats): The first would be much easier to apply to a fictional game than to a modern MLB or historical, and that is seperate error ratings for catching the ball and throwing it. I suppose most errors are on throws, so for most positions it wouldn't make much difference, but especially at first base, and to a lesser extent behind the plate, whether or not the fielder can corral bad throws is vitally important. I have no idea if that data is available for real players, but it should be easy enough to apply to fictionals.

Second, I think range factor may be being underutilized. In Strat-O-Matic each stadium has three foul zone values (down the right line, down the left line and behind the plate). I loved playing in Dodger Stadium because all three had the value 'huge', and every starter on my team had a range factor of '1', so I got a lot of free outs that other teams couldn't match.

This could be a very neat feature that would vary with eras. In the pre-Yankee Stadium period nearly every field had small to non-existant foul territories. From the '20s to the '80s there were several stadiums with enormous foul ground, sometimes biased to one side of the field or the other, and others with moderate to small areas. In the modern era foul ground is shrinking as the owners emphasize getting the spectators close to the field.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Curtis

In the modern era foul ground is shrinking as the owners emphasize getting the spectators close to the field.

Actually, I think it has to do with allowing batters extra swings since what used to be outs are now balls hit into the seats. The extra swings helps offense and that's what baseball is all about these days....offense. No one likes a good pitchers duel anymore. That's boring.

[ms2002]

Originally Posted by Reikazawa

No new features relating to defense were mentioned in the OOTPX newsletter so I don't know if there will be.

With defense being "in vogue" with both the statistical community and real life MLB (and deservingly so), I guess I'm a little surprised that there is not much clamor for advancements in this area of OOTP.

Defense on the macro level works now in OOTP. I can collect elite defensive players for my team, and my team BABIP will follow accordingly. I just dont have any measure of how much on a player level. Also, I dont think the AI uses defense much in evaluation, so this is another area that handicaps it.

A new complete model based say on tangotiger's body of knowledge might be too much for this version, but new stat tracking that would provide us with runs saved values is reasonable I think.

Yes, yes, and yes.

A better metric to evaluate an individual's contribution defensively, as well as improved AI evaluation of defense would be VERY welcome additions.

[Eumel]

Originally Posted by ms2002

Yes, yes, and yes.

A better metric to evaluate an individual's contribution defensively, as well as improved AI evaluation of defense would be VERY welcome additions.

Agreed. I'd really love to see someting like zone range incorporated into OOTP. The standard range factor is really pretty damn useless most of the time.

[Curtis]

Okay, I'll bite. What is 'zone range'?

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Okay, I'll bite. What is 'zone range'?

I'd like to know too. Because, I largely agree on his statement about range factor.

[Eumel]

Actually, I should have called it 'zone rating', not 'zone range'.

Essentially, you divide the field into zones for which each fielder is responsible. You then calculate the percentage of actual plays made by a fielder when a ball was hit into his zone.
You can also keep track of out-of-zone plays separately.

It's a better measure of range than the pure range factor because it's less dependent on the rest of the team.

See here, for instance:
Zone Rating (ZR) - Braves-Nation.com Forums: The Authority in Braves Baseball
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...s_zone_rating/

[CBL-Commish]

Don't we already have a zone rating equivalent: the range rating? Wouldn't a calculated zone rating just be a fuzzier, less accurate version of the player's infield or outfield range rating?

I'd think Markus could easily fake a zone rating by the formula ZR = Range ± Random Number, then scaled to whatever ZR or UZR number people want to see.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

No one likes a good pitchers duel anymore.

I find them fascinating. It's the high-run-total games that bore me.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Reikazawa

No new features relating to defense were mentioned in the OOTPX newsletter so I don't know if there will be.

With defense being "in vogue" with both the statistical community and real life MLB (and deservingly so), I guess I'm a little surprised that there is not much clamor for advancements in this area of OOTP.

Defense on the macro level works now in OOTP. I can collect elite defensive players for my team, and my team BABIP will follow accordingly. I just dont have any measure of how much on a player level. Also, I dont think the AI uses defense much in evaluation, so this is another area that handicaps it.

A new complete model based say on tangotiger's body of knowledge might be too much for this version, but new stat tracking that would provide us with runs saved values is reasonable I think.

I agree with most of this, however I see a lot of middle infielders rated highly in my leagues while having contact in the 40's (100 scale). Now that could be my AI eval setting at play. Those who use AI eval heavily based on stats are unlikely to see defense considered. I'll check further.

This thought came to mind, it would be nice if we could tweak AI eval to include defense by position. Say a 5 point scale so that SS 2B C etc could be evaluated more on defense. Of course that could cause problems in trading especially with power hitting infielders.

[Eumel]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Don't we already have a zone rating equivalent: the range rating? Wouldn't a calculated zone rating just be a fuzzier, less accurate version of the player's infield or outfield range rating?

I'd think Markus could easily fake a zone rating by the formula ZR = Range ± Random Number, then scaled to whatever ZR or UZR number people want to see.

Zone rating is a statistic, not a rating in game terms. Hence, it could be used to better judge the effects of the fielding ratings (not only range, but also turn DP and arm).

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by Eumel

Zone rating is a statistic, not a rating in game terms. Hence, it could be used to better judge the effects of the fielding ratings (not only range, but also turn DP and arm).

I understand that. But Zone Rating is a human accounting of how well a player does in a series of defined zones. To get the computer to come up with a zone rating you'd have to somehow simulate a person counting up how well a player does in relation to those zones. How well he does is based on his real, scout-neutral range rating ± (stuff the game does to try to simulate real world conditions).

I'm saying a shortcut to what might be a very complex thing, that few would pickup on, would be to just randomly (or maybe not so randomly) adjust the real range rating and scale it to ZR or UZR.

[RchW]

A few thoughts

For OF the primary position should match defensive ratings and skills. Further development should match their physical skills.

An OF with a poor arm should not be rated highest at RF
An OF with poor range should not be rated highest at CF. I think the game gets this right most of the time.
Fast OF with poor arms default to LF. See Bill James.
All OF should have some rating at all fields because there is no physical reason against that.

For IF, match best position to ratings and skill. How often do you see a SS in the draft who has good ratings only at 2B and 1B. Further to that match positions to player size speed etc. A 6' 4" 230lb guy is not typically a 2B or SS. Exceptions should be rare.

1B and 3B should be a subset of other IF. Very few 1B should be able to play 2B or SS. Some may be able to play 3B but with low ratings.
More 3B should be able to play 1B. Few should have ratings at 2B and SS and possibly OF due to their arm.

Most SS/2B should have ratings at all IF positions but there should be a cap on 1B rating. These players screw up the AI. If they are blocked by a better player the AI often plays them at 1B affecting proper substitution and blocking big slow power hitters from their natural position. It's very rare IRL to see a 2B/SS play 1B unless there are injuries or the player is changing positions a la Carlos Guillen.

Last but not least and my biggest peeve with player ratings is that poor hitting players, across the board, should be above average defensively. Either at the draft or have them develop defensive skills as their hitting skills stall.

IRL there is no way that I can see how a player with no bat could progress past college and even to the minor leagues without above average defensive skills. How else could they make any team? There are way too many no bat and poor defensive players in OOTP.

OTOH good bat no field players will progress as they can be used off the bench or hidden as 1B, LF or 3B or DH as happens all time.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by RchW

An OF with poor range should not be rated highest at CF. I think the game gets this right most of the time.

Just picking out this one point (and NOT trying to derail the thread this time). I've been playing this game off and on since I joined the forum, and I have never seen an outfielder whose highest rating was at CF when experience is set to a neutral value (such 200 at every position).

Granted, I don't search the leagues and do data dumps (no idea how), so I'm only familiar with the players who have cycled through my systems. I use the 'high granularity' 1-100 rating system, and half the time play with scouts off. Roughly two thirds of my outfielders rate highest in left and the rest in right. The guys I play in center are the ones who only drop off two or three points there.

[68pirate]

This is a pet peeve of my own as well, as a historical player. Players like Mario Mendoza and Mark Belanger often are imported with low low defense ratings making them even more useless than they were in real life. This is true of backup catchers as well. In real life, many of these guys are active major leaguers for 10+ seasons strictly for their defensive reputation, yet backups are almost universally rated low defensively with historical imports.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by 68pirate

This is a pet peeve of my own as well, as a historical player. Players like Mario Mendoza and Mark Belanger often are imported with low low defense ratings making them even more useless than they were in real life. This is true of backup catchers as well. In real life, many of these guys are active major leaguers for 10+ seasons strictly for their defensive reputation, yet backups are almost universally rated low defensively with historical imports.

This is a good point. It makes you wonder whether it's faulty criteria on the part of the makers of the data bases, or if it's faulty translation on the part of the game.

[satchel]

Even though it sounds like a player characteristic, "range factor" is a statistic derived from a player's defensive performance; OOTP currently includes this stat.

Originally Posted by Curtis

In Strat-O-Matic each stadium has three foul zone values (down the right line, down the left line and behind the plate). I loved playing in Dodger Stadium because all three had the value 'huge', and every starter on my team had a range factor of '1', so I got a lot of free outs that other teams couldn't match.

This could be a very neat feature that would vary with eras. In the pre-Yankee Stadium period nearly every field had small to non-existant foul territories. From the '20s to the '80s there were several stadiums with enormous foul ground, sometimes biased to one side of the field or the other, and others with moderate to small areas. In the modern era foul ground is shrinking as the owners emphasize getting the spectators close to the field.

Earlier this year, I submitted the suggestion for v10 that stadiums have ratings for their relative amounts of foul territory.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by RchW

Last but not least and my biggest peeve with player ratings is that poor hitting players, across the board, should be above average defensively. Either at the draft or have them develop defensive skills as their hitting skills stall.

IRL there is no way that I can see how a player with no bat could progress past college and even to the minor leagues without above average defensive skills. How else could they make any team? There are way too many no bat and poor defensive players in OOTP.

This makes sense in a MLB-centric universe. Not so much in other setups. I have a universe with 40+ leagues. Some big, rich, major leagues that more-or-less mimic today's MLB. Yep, they shouldn't be drafting players with 30/80 potentials across the board. I agree that the last X rounds of my MLB drafts tend to be really ugly, often stocked with players who realistically shouldn't ever make even my rookie league rosters. Except for the idea that it might somehow be better to have 18-year-old scrubs instead of last year's 19-year-old scrubs I'd do fine skipping the last half of the draft.

But I also have multiple low-level independent and foreign leagues. Some of these leagues are so small, and so cash-strapped that the stars have one or two ratings above 30/80. Not everyone who'd paid to play ball has a major league potential skill. I'd guess if you went to a real, live St. Paul Saints game you'd see multiple players who don't have an skill that would ever translate to the majors.