A problem with fielding above and beyond the norm using the neutralized database (Spritze/Garlon)

[actionjackson]

I'm just going to link to a post I just made in the Spritze/Garlon thread from OOTP9 section of the forum as I don't feel like repeating what I said there. It really needs fixing as it's creating triple and possibly quadruple digit Range Factors for certain players (depending on the position), which creates super fielders who rarely played IRL.

[Spritze]

This is the salient part of your other post. "without receiving their proper prorated IP"

Garlons formulas do not use IP by fielders.

I concur with you that this may be a significant omission but since B. James claims IP by fielders is useless info and one should just use GP that is how Garlon wrote his formulas.

I am sure he would be willing to refine his formulas if this omission throws yearly league wide numbers out of kilter.

Personally I would prefer it if OOTP just got fielding correct from the getgo without all this additional add-on foo-faw. The pitching/fielding/batting add ons are getting extremely unwieldy as they continue to grow in number and really should not be necessary.

[actionjackson]

Thanks for getting back to me Spritze. Just thought I'd post screenshots of Gilberto Reyes, so you can see what's going on. It does seem to be just a select few and what I'd really like to know is how to correct it for myself, but not if it's going to fubar my game (again). The first shot we'll call "Real Reyes" and the second shot we'll call "Super Reyes". As you can plainly see (my feeble attempts at using a brush in Microsoft Paint aside) his real life RFs are normal, while his neutralized RFs are through the roof. Let me know if there's anything I can do to correct my own game, so I don't have to be such a bother. Thanks again.

[Spritze]

I will peruse the Garlons formulas and see if a RF cap or a playing time adjustment are reasonable improvements in your stated cases.

[actionjackson]

Merci buckets for your quick responses. Like I said, not every limited playing time player gets the Michelin Man fielding boost.

It appears that the good news is that players who retired in 1955 or sooner do not get affected by this neutered bug, as they fall under the 8 innings per game rule, both in real life fielding and in neutered fielding. However in 1956, innings as well as GP start getting recorded (although they were recorded in real life from 1954 onward) and that's where we start seeing the craziness. Players who retired from 1956 onward are affected even if the year is pre-1956, especially the ones who have gap seasons because of the intermingling of innings and games in the calculations for those gap seasons due to the fact that Sir Garlon uses innings, not GP in his calculations.

Interestingly enough, Sir G appears to multiply games by 8 for the era where innings were not tracked, but (PO + A) by 9, which does help the fielder look better, but as long as it's done the same way for everybody, I suppose it doesn't matter. It all breaks down when innings get tracked though as the GP are adjusted properly, but innings are not and yet it's innings that wind up in the denominator. So I guess the solution is to either properly adjust the innings for the affected players or multiply the adjusted GP by 8, whichever is more palatable to Lord Garlon. Thanks again to both of you for what you do and like I said don't hesitate to tell me what I can do to fix my game, as long as I won't break it in the fixing of it. Either that or I will await your collective fix (hrrm, sounds like some sort of illicit chemical activity ) with baited breath. Cheers.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Spritze

......B. James claims IP by fielders is useless info and one should just use GP...........

This is totally idiotic. Using the GP system, some very good defensive players get screwed big time in range factor. Ken Berry is one that comes to mind off hand since he was about a 5 IP/G, more or less, type of player. Using the straight GP system makes him look like he had no range where his IP shows he had pretty good range.

That kind of mindset makes me wonder what he's smoking.

I bet he finds the IP info useless since somehow that kind of data won't support something he believes. That's pretty much how numbers people handle data that doesn't support their beliefs (useless, insignificant, irrelevant, etc). The three most used words by numbers people against someone doesn't agree with them.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

This is totally idiotic. Using the GP system, some very good defensive players get screwed big time in range factor. Ken Berry is one that comes to mind off hand since he was about a 5 IP/G, more or less, type of player. Using the straight GP system makes him look like he had no range where his IP shows he had pretty good range.

That kind of mindset makes me wonder what he's smoking.

I bet he finds the IP info useless since somehow that kind of data won't support something he believes. That's pretty much how numbers people handle data that doesn't support their beliefs (useless, insignificant, irrelevant, etc). The three most used words by numbers people against someone doesn't agree with them.

I could think of one reason to support James' view. Not because I want to support James specifically, but because I've used the concept myself.

If a player gets only 2 chances in a game because he came in as a replacement in the 8th inning, you can see how this player is hamstrung if you look at TC/G versus TC/Inn at this granular a level.

But over very large periods of time, if the player's quality of fielding isn't good enough to ever become a starting player (a truly superior fielder should have some level where the manager recognizes the value to the club even if he cannot hit), why consider him an elite fielder?

I'm not even saying I buy that entirely. It also could be a rationalization for Win Shares, since we have granular data for hitters and pitchers for every season for baseball, but we don't have innings played for fielders for the early seasons of baseball.

In one of my leagues, I used that the concept of playing time equals the quality of player for some ranking purposes. It is part of a concept that the quality of a stat is not equal to the quality of its complexity.

The idea is that over several seasons:

1. If a player is constantly injured, this reduces his quality in the sense that you can talk about how great C.C. Sabathia is, but quantitatively he's really not much better than Bruce Chen if he's on the DL for the majority of the last two seasons. He's theoretically much better, but not actually much better.
2. A team self-selects their best players for playing time. If you have Alex Cora starting at SS for several seasons straight, he must have some level of quality, because the lower the quality of a player, the greater likelihood that he will eventually be platooned, replaced by a backup player, replaced by a minor leaguer or replaced by a free agent.

Now, there will be exceptions, but as a general rule, it works surprisingly well. Not that I've ever seen any system that hasn't had an exception. As a matter of fact, the system had less complaints than an Elias-like system or a Win Shares based system ever had.

Part of that is because it doesn't try to be too fancy and people can understand the concept without a complex algebraic formula. The other part is that it didn't need to be too specific in what it was measuring. It wasn't really trying to measure that Player x is better than Player y because his rating was a few percentage points higher, it was used to group players based on their relative worth to their team.

Anyway, I really have digressed.

By the way, Ken Berry played 7.8 IP in the OF per game played over his career. 10184.1 IP / 1311 G (he had 1098 GS).

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Spritze

I will peruse the Garlons formulas and see if a RF cap or a playing time adjustment are reasonable improvements in your stated cases.

Bump. Any word Sir Spritze?

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by BMW

But over very large periods of time, if the player's quality of fielding isn't good enough to ever become a starting player (a truly superior fielder should have some level where the manager recognizes the value to the club even if he cannot hit), why consider him an elite fielder?

You must have missed the thread discussing Mark Belanger where somewere saying his bat didn't warrant him being an every day player even though no one could argue what a great defensive player he was.

Everyone is offense focussed and defense isn't valued so it's easy to understand why a great glove could be used just as a defensive replacement and not used as a starter.

My thinking is that good defense has a role in limiting the other teams offense. I have an OOTP team built on defense (all 8 positions are rated at 18-20 on a 1-20 basis) and it has been the main reason we have won 70% of the time for the past 6 seasons. As long as the ball stays in the park it's very hard for them to fall for hits. Our overall BABIP for the past 6 seasons has been .245 where the league BABIP has been in the .280's. Hard to lose that way.

[Spritze]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Bump. Any word Sir Spritze?

The Garlon is out of touch for a while but I certainly see room for improvement. I am going to include those improvements in my next Spritze db and when Mr. G gets back I'll see if he will approve those items for historical inclusion in OOTPx1.

Weirdly enough the improvements happen to include playing time adjustments sorta like what BMW has laid out as well as a few other adjusting adjustments.

See the Ken Berry fielding data attached.

This is on a 1-250 scale, note his range is 300 on that scale, the major league average for OF's 1871-2008 is exactly 100 on the same scale.

[actionjackson]

Bumpity, bumpity, bump, bump, bump.

[Spritze]

Garlon has possibly perhaps maybe returned from his OOTP sabbatical so perhaps he will see this thread and possibly respond. Garlon is the man in charge of the neutralized fielding formulas used in OOTP.

In a similar but completely different vein or artery I am possibly perhaps maybe but probably for sure including updated/different than OOTP neutered fielding and career fielding ratings as well as updated Pitch Repertoires (thanks BMW) and Draft Values in the next Spritze db which may possibly perhaps maybe also include the Gambo db within it if he really stops gamboling around and producing his db. These updates have all been completed and will be released concurrently with OOTP11 in the spring.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Spritze

Garlon has possibly perhaps maybe returned from his OOTP sabbatical so perhaps he will see this thread and possibly respond. Garlon is the man in charge of the neutralized fielding formulas used in OOTP.

In a similar but completely different vein or artery I am possibly perhaps maybe but probably for sure including updated/different than OOTP neutered fielding and career fielding ratings as well as updated Pitch Repertoires (thanks BMW) and Draft Values in the next Spritze db which may possibly perhaps maybe also include the Gambo db within it if he really stops gamboling around and producing his db. These updates have all been completed and will be released concurrently with OOTP11 in the spring.

Thank you again Sir Spritze. I find I'm much more of a capillary man.