Fielding ratings explained a bit more

[Biggio509]

In my historical league I have been playing around with some fielding ratings to try get ratings to reflect historical positions. I have found an answer to why sometimes playing a player at a position yields no results in ratings. A few things.

1. There seems to be no potential ratings for OF/IF range, arm, turn double play, and error nor for catcher arm or ability. I am not sure how this works with coaches if they can teach some of these things. Turn double play and error should be somewhat teachable but arm and range seem a stretch to teach.

2. Ratings are based on a combination of experience at position and range, error, arm, turn double play or catcher arm and ability.

The spectrum is from hardest to easiest in the IF SS-2B-3B-1B. What this seems to mean is two things. First error ratings have a larger effect on SS and 2B. If you have guy with low error rating (makes a lot of errors) he may never develop a SS rating even if you max experience at the position. 2B is also heavily dependent on error rating. So again a guy with a low IF error rating may never have a 2B rating. Arm seems to have the largest impact on 3B and SS. Turn DP affects 3B and 1B less but effects middle infield most.

I think what is happening is the basics of the ratings, range, error, arm and turn DP either change very slowly or not at all. So you will never get any rating at SS for a 1B with a 1 arm or 1 DP coming out of HS. His experience will max but his other ratings that go into SS rating will never register.

In the OF, OF error rating affects CF heavily. The process is similar to IF. So you might see a guy who low range and low error never get a rating at CF but he might get an average rating in RF and a rating at left. Range and error I have seen when playing around often make a guy something like 12 LF, 4 CF, 15 RF.

In short just playing a player somewhere does not guarantee a rating. They have to the other factors to make a position other than just experience. It seems once a player is created only experience can change. My guess is managers with teach fielding affect experience gain.

I think the problem is that often the game creates C without any other ratings, IF without OF ratings, and OF without IF ratings. This isn't a problem for Vets but for young guys they should have OF range even if they are IF and OF range if they are IF. This limits somewhat moving positions. A guy with a 10 OF arm should have above 10 IF arm but it doesn't work this way. A guy with a high OF range probably should have a high IF range but this does not happen. What players who haven't played IF should probably be weak at is turn DP. There should be some correlation between other ratings.

It does seem like error and turn DP should have some potential ratings and be able to be taught but this does not, to my knowledge, happen. Range is more about quickness or quickness and for speed for OF so this not increase is probably ok but it should decline over the career.

[SteveP]

There is actually a bigger problem lurking here (IMO) which especially comes into play in historicals. Since OOTP has only one set of fielding component ratings for each player (i.e., arm, error, range, DP), it is impossible to get realistic position ratings for guys who played more than one Inf or more than one OF position, and played all positions reasonably well in the same seasons IRL. For example, a good SS will get extraordinary ratings as a 1B, if he played both those positions frequently. The problem is even worse if you choose to use career stats for fielding ratings.

This problem is not widely understood yet, and I doubt that it is on the horizon for repair. But worth knowing about, because it can help solve some mysteries with position ratings.

[TribeFanInNC]

Most of your points appear valid to me as well. As you have noticed, guys with certain individual ratings (like your low error for 2B example) will not develop a rating despite plenty of experience. Also, the game is probably limited on how it creates players, though not as limited as is used to be. In fact to me, I wish it would limit it a little more sometimes (like MI's don't really need a rating at 1B).

Yeah, as SteveP notes, this is a pretty complex issue and is not the first time it has been bandied about. Especially with respect to historicals.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by SteveP

There is actually a bigger problem lurking here (IMO) which especially comes into play in historicals. Since OOTP has only one set of fielding component ratings for each player (i.e., arm, error, range, DP), it is impossible to get realistic position ratings for guys who played more than one Inf or more than one OF position, and played all positions reasonably well in the same seasons IRL. For example, a good SS will get extraordinary ratings as a 1B, if he played both those positions frequently. The problem is even worse if you choose to use career stats for fielding ratings.

This problem is not widely understood yet, and I doubt that it is on the horizon for repair. But worth knowing about, because it can help solve some mysteries with position ratings.

I have always thought that the defensive system is well thought out. It makes sense that a player may have a certain level of range in the infield, then factoring in his familiarity with a certain position tells you what his range is at that position.

I think a good SS with superb ratings at 1B is an interesting point. True, it happens. But normal baseball strategy would take care of this. If the player has a plus offensive talent, you'd probably be better off playing him at SS, because you're likely to have more good hitters capable of playing 1B in your system than good hitters capable of playing SS.

When you start out in baseball, you don't play SS because you have a "shortstop range skill." You play SS because you a certain skillset of reaction time, speed, agility, sure-handedness that would play well at any position - but given the importance of SS, they tend to put the player with the best defensive skillset there as opposed to 1B.

I always thought that the experience per position in OOTP needs to be a little less forgiving. Sure, it is too easy for a SS to have a superb 1B rating, but I think the worse aspect is that once he gets that superb rating, he really never loses it even if he goes five seasons without playing an inning there. There's no experience like in-game experience. Getting a and maintaining a 200 experience for a position should mean that the guy plays the position day-in-day-out.

[Gambo]

My feeling is that the only system that would work is having a set of cross the board ratings for...

1) Ground Ball Glove (how well grounders are fielded)
2) Fly Ball Glove (how well fly balls are fielded)
3) Catching Glove (how well a catcher fields balls)
4) Ground Ball Range (how well players cover ground on grounders)
5) Fly Ball Range (how well players cover ground on fly ball)
6) Arm (constant since players don't switch arms when changing positions)

This will give an ability to a player for all these aspects. From there the player is given an "experience" or rather an "ability" rating at each position that affects how these initial ratings are affected.

Take this player

GBG FBG CAG GBR FBR ARM C 1B 2B SS 3B LF CF RF P
80 40 10 60 50 90 00 00 55 70 00 00 00 00 00

This player comes into the league as a SS with a good glove but little range.
You can switch him to 3B and after 5 years he looks like this. But he can play any position due to the initial ratings (taking a hit on experience though)

GBG FBG CAG GBR FBR ARM C 1B 2B SS 3B LF CF RF P
80 40 10 60 50 90 00 00 45 50 60 00 00 00 00

He has not lost his ability to play SS or 2B but he has turned into an effective 3B. After another 5 years his physical abilities start to decline but he has more experience and it would look like this:

GBG FBG CAG GBR FBR ARM C 1B 2B SS 3B LF CF RF P
70 30 05 50 40 80 00 00 35 40 80 00 00 00 00

Now you have a 30 year old 3B who looks pretty good still and can play SS and 2B in a pinch.

I think this would more accurately reflect career progression as a fielder, help the user make decision like this for players and better reflect historical fielding.

A system like this was partially implemented in OOTPX for historicals but was limited and was changed this year but I think should be reinvestigated as an option.

Sorry about the way the "numbers" look. Also, I do agree with BMW though. I think the game functions just fine. Of course improvements would be nice and there may be issues with generating initial ratings but.

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by BMW

I have always thought that the defensive system is well thought out. It makes sense that a player may have a certain level of range in the infield, then factoring in his familiarity with a certain position tells you what his range is at that position.

You haven't fully understood the problem (which is OK -- few people do). The problem results from the way in which the game uses the component ratings to create a position rating -- the method didn't really take into account what would happen with utility-type players.

Gambo has been thinking about this problem, and I'm hoping some of his ideas get picked up by Markus at some point.

[knockahoma]

Hey, Beeg. Good topic. I always love the fielding threads.

A guy with a 10 OF arm should have above 10 IF arm but it doesn't work this way. A guy with a high OF range probably should have a high IF range but this does not happen.

I was a shortstop thru college. Here's my 2 cents worth in an age of potential inflation. I always found the difference between throwing mechanics fascinating. In my day, an infielder was taught to draw the ball up to the ear and get rid of it. I often threw side-armed, but the ball still started up around my ear. Conversely, an outfielder was taught to "run up" on a fly ball and sort of windmill his throw. The idea was getting momentum and body behind the throw. I had good zip on my throw, but it was really funny shagging flies in the of and throwing from the ear. Such a different throw.

I saw a few outfielders come to the infield and by the time they would up and fired to first with their strong arms, they might as well have thrown a three hopper by the stopwatch.

I don't know how easy it would be to change mechanics from outfield throws to infield ones for guys at that level. But, my own Denver Broncos are involved in that very experiment as we speak with Tim Tebow, trying to get him to a quicker release.

Another fascinating aspect of tools is quickness versus speed. I can think of lots of good ranging centerfielders who didn't steal a lot of bases. I think they had speed, but not a quick first step. They sort of rev up their speed on long fly balls. The shortstops get their job done in 4 steps or less usually. It's hard to over-appreciate the difference between quickness and speed for an infielder.

For example, a good SS will get extraordinary ratings as a 1B, if he played both those positions frequently.

Theoretically, that makes sense, doesn't it? But, I'm trying to think of a middle infielder moved to 1b who became extraordinary at that position. I guess Carew won a gold glove at 1st, didn't he? But what about so many others who moved to 1B?

My feeling is that the only system that would work is having a set of cross the board ratings for...

1) Ground Ball Glove (how well grounders are fielded)
2) Fly Ball Glove (how well fly balls are fielded)
3) Catching Glove (how well a catcher fields balls)
4) Ground Ball Range (how well players cover ground on grounders)
5) Fly Ball Range (how well players cover ground on fly ball)
6) Arm (constant since players don't switch arms when changing positions)

Sounds good, although I'm not sure I agree with 6 if you're talking about outfield versus infield. Quickness of release and accuracy are factors in the overall rating, right?

[SteveP]

Take a guy who played a lot at both SS and 1B IRL (so that he has 200 experience ratings at both positions). Say he's an average fielder at both positions. It is impossible in OOTP to come up with a set of fielding component ratings that will cause this guy to be get a position rating of average at both SS and 1B. He can be an average SS and the best 1B in the league. Or he can be an average 1B and the worst SS in the league. There is no solution for that problem. That's an extreme example. Most of the time it is hard to see the problem (unless you are using career stats for fielding ratings -- in which case it will pop up quite often).

[knockahoma]

Take a guy who played a lot at both SS and 1B IRL (so that he has 200 experience ratings at both positions). Say he's an average fielder at both positions. It is impossible in OOTP to come up with a set of fielding component ratings that will cause this guy to be get a position rating of average at both SS and 1B. He can be an average SS and the best 1B in the league. Or he can be an average 1B and the worst SS in the league. There is no solution for that problem. That's an extreme example. Most of the time it is hard to see the problem (unless you are using career stats for fielding ratings -- in which case it will pop up quite often).

I spend a lot of time editing on this very issue. I go thru the entire league and erase the 1B rating altogether for a number of middle infielders, or make sure they all have experience of 1. I also edit 1b ability with heighth in mind.

I'm blanking on the "turrible" shortstop for the Dodgers several years ago. Now, that's the toughest position to play on the defensive spectrum. First base should have been cake, theoretically, right? I don't think he was any great thing at first, either. Sorry, I'm blankin' on the guy's name. No, I'm not. Mariano Duncan.

[knockahoma]

Something else to consider regarding the Defensive Spectrum.

As I understand James, he's talking about the tools necessary to play a position. For example, a shortstop is the toughest position in the infield due to its physical requirements. Have to have a pretty good arm, be very quick,etc.

Just because you no longer need a good arm, that doesn't mean a move from SS to 1B is cake. There were plenty of major league outfielders who failed at 1B. You'd think that 1B would be the perfect position for Atlanta's Hank Aaron later in his career. 1B is lower than RF on the defensive spectrum, right?

Hank did play 200 or so games at 1B in 1972-- still three years away from his trade to Milwaukee where he was demoted to DH. Hank finished 100 games at 1B with a .988. And many other outfielders failed at 1B, too. In 1974 Hank played OF when the Braves had the likes of Mike Lum and Davey Johnson platooning at 1B.

It would be interesting to study that question. But I think it is worth noting that just because a certain position requires more tools, that doesn't mean moving to another position lower on the scale is an obvious success waiting to happen.

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

I'm blanking on the "turrible" shortstop for the Dodgers several years ago. Now, that's the toughest position to play on the defensive spectrum. First base should have been cake, theoretically, right? I don't think he was any great thing at first, either. Sorry, I'm blankin' on the guy's name. No, I'm not. Mariano Duncan.

I was convinced you were talking about Jose Offerman until you got to the end

Carew was a decent example. Carlos Guillen was the only one I could think of, though I don't think he was particularly adept at either position.

[knockahoma]

I was convinced you were talking about Jose Offerman until you got to the end

You know, I think I was. Mariano did play a little 1B. But, I think Offerman was trying to fight thru my foggy brain as an example.

Of course there's the other example. The turrible Dodger shortstop Marijose Dunckerman.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by Gambo

My feeling is that the only system that would work is having a set of cross the board ratings for...

1) Ground Ball Glove (how well grounders are fielded)
2) Fly Ball Glove (how well fly balls are fielded)
3) Catching Glove (how well a catcher fields balls)
4) Ground Ball Range (how well players cover ground on grounders)
5) Fly Ball Range (how well players cover ground on fly ball)
6) Arm (constant since players don't switch arms when changing positions)

Something I just thought about when looking at the system, does arm refer to strength, accuracy or both? You can have guys with a strong arm who are inaccurate. If arm is more about accuracy I can see why some IFs may have a good IF arm and no OF arm and OF have no IF arm. In the first case longer throws require more precision. In the second case, quicker throws are harder to aim.

The catching part is something that I think is missing in OOTP. It seems the only opportunity for an error is on the guy fielding the ball. I do not manage games a lot but I do not recall seeing say a good throw by the SS and the 1B missing the hop or just not catching the ball. It reminds of that awful Astros/Braves playoff game in 2001 or 2002 when Bagwell had torn his labrum. Julio Lugo wasn't very accurate at the time but he wasn't throwing uncatchable balls to Bagwell. IIRC, there was two or three times Lugo wasn't dead on and Bagwell's bum shoulder didn't allow him to get his glove on the ball. Although the errors were officially on Lugo Bagwell's diminished ability to catch was a factor.

I could be wrong but I think it is an automatic catch when the ball is thrown to someone if player A can field the ball and doesn't make a throwing error.

I am not sure if you need a separate category for line drives. That may be a little much but the reaction time, especially for IFs is much different.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Biggio509

Something I just thought about when looking at the system, does arm refer to strength, accuracy or both? You can have guys with a strong arm who are inaccurate.

I don't remember if it was in the manual or a forum discussion, but the Arm rating factors in accurracy, not just strength. It is the overall ability to make a good throw.

Here it is, from the manual:
Infield / Outfield Arm
Arm is a measure of the strength of a player's arm. Players with higher Arm ratings are more likely to throw out runners on a close play. Arm is factored into accuracy as well. Players have separate ratings for infield and outfield arm. These values can be fairly different, based on the player's experience.

Note: Arm is not strictly a measure of strength. If a player has a high infield arm rating, but a low outfield arm rating, it doesn't mean that his arm suddenly gets weaker in the outfield, of course. Rather, it implies that in the infield, his throws are strong, accurate, and timely. In the outfield, he is weaker, partly because of arm strength, but also because of experience, accuracy, hesitation, and so forth.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Biggio509

Something I just thought about when looking at the system, does arm refer to strength, accuracy or both? You can have guys with a strong arm who are inaccurate. If arm is more about accuracy I can see why some IFs may have a good IF arm and no OF arm and OF have no IF arm. In the first case longer throws require more precision. In the second case, quicker throws are harder to aim.

The catching part is something that I think is missing in OOTP. It seems the only opportunity for an error is on the guy fielding the ball. I do not manage games a lot but I do not recall seeing say a good throw by the SS and the 1B missing the hop or just not catching the ball. It reminds of that awful Astros/Braves playoff game in 2001 or 2002 when Bagwell had torn his labrum. Julio Lugo wasn't very accurate at the time but he wasn't throwing uncatchable balls to Bagwell. IIRC, there was two or three times Lugo wasn't dead on and Bagwell's bum shoulder didn't allow him to get his glove on the ball. Although the errors were officially on Lugo Bagwell's diminished ability to catch was a factor.

I could be wrong but I think it is an automatic catch when the ball is thrown to someone if player A can field the ball and doesn't make a throwing error.

I am not sure if you need a separate category for line drives. That may be a little much but the reaction time, especially for IFs is much different.

Believe me, I know for a fact that firstbasemen can and do drop throws. My guys do it more often than I like.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

I spend a lot of time editing on this very issue. I go thru the entire league and erase the 1B rating altogether for a number of middle infielders, or make sure they all have experience of 1. I also edit 1b ability with heighth in mind.

I'm blanking on the "turrible" shortstop for the Dodgers several years ago. Now, that's the toughest position to play on the defensive spectrum. First base should have been cake, theoretically, right? I don't think he was any great thing at first, either. Sorry, I'm blankin' on the guy's name. No, I'm not. Mariano Duncan.

You sure it wasnt Jose Offerman? Either way, they were both bad at SS.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

Something else to consider regarding the Defensive Spectrum.

As I understand James, he's talking about the tools necessary to play a position. For example, a shortstop is the toughest position in the infield due to its physical requirements. Have to have a pretty good arm, be very quick,etc.

Just because you no longer need a good arm, that doesn't mean a move from SS to 1B is cake. There were plenty of major league outfielders who failed at 1B. You'd think that 1B would be the perfect position for Atlanta's Hank Aaron later in his career. 1B is lower than RF on the defensive spectrum, right?

Hank did play 200 or so games at 1B in 1972-- still three years away from his trade to Milwaukee where he was demoted to DH. Hank finished 100 games at 1B with a .988. And many other outfielders failed at 1B, too. In 1974 Hank played OF when the Braves had the likes of Mike Lum and Davey Johnson platooning at 1B.

It would be interesting to study that question. But I think it is worth noting that just because a certain position requires more tools, that doesn't mean moving to another position lower on the scale is an obvious success waiting to happen.

Speaking as P/OF in high school, who was moved to 1B for a while because of shortage there (I was tall, and the only lefty on the team, so everyone immediately figured to try me). I can say I hated that position. Groundballs actually didnt phase me too much, what I had most trouble with was footwork on the bag when the fielders threw it to me. Especially our SS, whose throws had a tendency to tail now and again. I took it upon myself to work on catching his throws in practice a lot (enough so I wouldnt be emabarassed). But, when I got to go to the OF, i always felt like a dog that had been set free from a cage.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Believe me, I know for a fact that firstbasemen can and do drop throws. My guys do it more often than I like.

Yeah, I dropped in one game 2 waist level throws from that SS I mentioned. The first because it started tailing, the second because I got scared that it would tail and I kind of flailed at it. It did cause to work double time with him in practice, so I guess some good came out of it.