Fielding Ratings

[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!

[RchW]

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.

[Qwerty75]

In the situation you described, the player with 15 positional but 10 components will perform better in the short-term, but the player with 10 positional and 15 components undoubtedbly has much lower experience at the position than the former, so in the long-term his positional rating will be greater and his defensive performance likely better.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

In the situation you described, the player with 15 positional but 10 components will perform better in the short-term, but the player with 10 positional and 15 components undoubtedbly has much lower experience at the position than the former, so in the long-term his positional rating will be greater and his defensive performance likely better.

Yes AFAIK. However I don't see the latter player at all. Prospects who play max out on experience very quickly. Can you show me a screenshot of a player like you describe?

Keep in mind the weighting of certain skills is high. A weak arm kills any chance of a good SS rating. DP skills also and at 2B where arm doesn't matter nearly as much. Arm matters to 3B but DP much less.

[Archangel878]

That was just a theoretical example. I was just looking to gauge which is more important to look at when determining the better defensive player at a position, especially when looking at end of game defensive subs. I did find a couple players that provide a decent actual example with their ratings:

2B Jeff Baker rated an 8 at 2B - 10 (IF RNG), 12 (IF ARM), 10 (TDP), 14 (IF ERR)
3B Marquez Smith rated 4 at 2B - 14 (IF RNG), 16 (IF ARM), 8 (TDP), 15 (IF ERR)

Just on the face of the ratings...who is the better 2B? Smith's component ratings are overall better than Baker's, at least, from what I can tell. I know his TDP is a bit lower, but I would think (could be wrong, though) his higher rating on the other three ratings would make him overall better. Baker must have more experience also. But, who would actually play better defensively at the position. In this example,, Baker would actually start at 2B due to his offensive abilities, but if I'm looking at an end of game defensive substitution, would it be better to have Smith at 2B based on his D ratings versus Baker's?

Again, thanks for the all the input and help.

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by Archangel878

That was just a theoretical example. I was just looking to gauge which is more important to look at when determining the better defensive player at a position, especially when looking at end of game defensive subs. I did find a couple players that provide a decent actual example with their ratings:

2B Jeff Baker rated an 8 at 2B - 10 (IF RNG), 12 (IF ARM), 10 (TDP), 14 (IF ERR)
3B Marquez Smith rated 4 at 2B - 14 (IF RNG), 16 (IF ARM), 8 (TDP), 15 (IF ERR)

Just on the face of the ratings...who is the better 2B? Smith's component ratings are overall better than Baker's, at least, from what I can tell. I know his TDP is a bit lower, but I would think (could be wrong, though) his higher rating on the other three ratings would make him overall better. Baker must have more experience also. But, who would actually play better defensively at the position. In this example,, Baker would actually start at 2B due to his offensive abilities, but if I'm looking at an end of game defensive substitution, would it be better to have Smith at 2B based on his D ratings versus Baker's?

Again, thanks for the all the input and help.

Baker will be better in the short term. He's probably near maxed out in experience and won't get much better, while Smith has a lot of room to improve. My guess is his experience is around 60/200.

As to who to play at the end of the game at the moment, it's Baker or some other IF who has a better 2B positional rating. If you want to make Smith a viable second baseman, you can get him playing time there in the minors and in Spring Training. Players learn defensive positions faster in Spring Training than during the regular season, for what it's worth.

Truth be told, neither of them are very good defenders at 2B.