Positional/defense ratings... playing SS at 2b or LF at RF etc...

[xr21]

Got a 75 rated SS who isn't rated at any other position. Got a SS in AAA who is rated 70 but no ratings at any other positions. Both have solid IF range obviously.

If I promote the AAA SS and make him a 2B full time, how will that play out? Usually a stud SS can handle 2B admirably.

I have similar questions about the corner outfielders. I have players who are 60+ in RF etc but nonexistent ratings in LF. How would it play out having the player play in LF... will he end up making a ton of errors or bad throws etc?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[RBI Baseball]

Players can build up a rating at a new position. If you're moving them to an easier position (RF to LF or SS to 2B), it's definitely doable but they will struggle as they adjust. Spring training and minor league ball are where you want that to happen.

[jimmysthebestcop]

LF is like 1B it honestly doesn't matter as long as their offense is good you can start a defense log at LF or 1B. LF and 1B defense mean almost nothing I know there are threads about it floating around somewhere.

SS and 2B are pretty interchangeable. IF going 2B to SS you just have to double check the persons arm and range. A 40 arm can get by in 2B but not in SS. You can get by on 55 range for average SS.

[SirMichaelJordan]

For OOTP 22, i would like to see some sort of potential position ratings that are based on the player’s current fielding ratings. This way it would be easier to see how they could progress at a position if they gained enough experience there.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

LF is like 1B it honestly doesn't matter as long as their offense is good you can start a defense log at LF or 1B. LF and 1B defense mean almost nothing I know there are threads about it floating around somewhere.

One of the threads is in the studies link in my signature. Defence study by Argonaut

[ThePretender]

Uh, no, LF is not like 1B first of all, and neither should be ignored for defensive purposes. If there's a thread going on about it, it's based on faulty information. You want to toss Adam Dunn in LF or 1B be my guest, but it's not going to work out well if you just treat it like a place to put your DH.

[ALB123]

Originally Posted by xr21

Got a 75 rated SS who isn't rated at any other position. Got a SS in AAA who is rated 70 but no ratings at any other positions. Both have solid IF range obviously.

If I promote the AAA SS and make him a 2B full time, how will that play out? Usually a stud SS can handle 2B admirably.

I have similar questions about the corner outfielders. I have players who are 60+ in RF etc but nonexistent ratings in LF. How would it play out having the player play in LF... will he end up making a ton of errors or bad throws etc?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I think it's worth repeating...

In your scenario, if you know that AAA SS is going to be your MLB 2B then you better be playing him at 2B in AAA instead of SS. It will allow for a much easier start at 2B when you call him up to the Bigs...

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Uh, no, LF is not like 1B first of all, and neither should be ignored for defensive purposes. If there's a thread going on about it, it's based on faulty information. You want to toss Adam Dunn in LF or 1B be my guest, but it's not going to work out well if you just treat it like a place to put your DH.

In real life, perhaps, and perhaps this is where OOTP ought to model real life better (I have less than fond memories of Raul Ibanez stinking it up in left for the Mariners), but it’s been studied and in the actual game the difference between a great left fielder and a bad one is about 1 win per season. That’s not inconsequential but it’s a far way off from the 8.5 win difference you see from SS or CF or for that matter the 4 win difference you see in RF.

[ThePretender]

Well then I'd disagree with the study because a great defensive LF is 10-15 uzr and a bad one is -10 to -20 in ootp. That's a 2-3 win range. And it's the same thing in RF.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Well then I'd disagree with the study because a great defensive LF is 10-15 uzr and a bad one is -10 to -20 in ootp. That's a 2-3 win range. And it's the same thing in RF.

I’d highly recommend you read the study linked above.

[ThePretender]

I read the study. Both things we're arguing are true. Lf isn't an important defensive position, and it shouldn't be punted because we can end up with a 30 run difference if my guy is +15 and yours is -15.

His specific team(s) didn't do much better when the LF changed. That doesn't mean when we're looking at individual players you should ignore it. Again if you go with a guy who is giving you -15 runs he's costing your specific team 1.5 wins on defence.

At the end of the day the goal is to provide the most value whether that's through offence or defence. There is a point where a LF is costing you too much defensively that he's not providing you with better value than a player with better defence and less offence. Which is where I disagree with the study.

[Syd Thrift]

That's all well and good but the numbers we have indicate that the difference between a great LF and a bad one, in the OOTP engine, is about one win. You can argue all you want that the study is incorrect but in order to be convincing you'd actually have to bring numbers to your argument or at least be able to point out exactly what's flawed in the study ("they use different players" is not a flaw, not when things are averaged out over a hundred seasons).

[CBeisbol]

Something is obviously wrong

Either the study or OOTP's defensive metric (and then OOTP's WAR as well)

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

That's all well and good but the numbers we have indicate that the difference between a great LF and a bad one, in the OOTP engine, is about one win. You can argue all you want that the study is incorrect but in order to be convincing you'd actually have to bring numbers to your argument or at least be able to point out exactly what's flawed in the study ("they use different players" is not a flaw, not when things are averaged out over a hundred seasons).

I'm not saying the study is wrong I'm saying you're misunderstanding what the argument is. The study shows that LF isn't an important defensive position. That doesn't mean on an individual level that you ignore a player who runs a -15 UZR because he plays LF because that player isn't necessarily providing more value than a guy with slightly lesser offence and better defence in LF.

What you're arguing is you would take a 2 WAR LF over a 3 WAR LF if the 3 war guy has good defence and the 2 WAR guy has poor defence. I'm saying I would take the 3 WAR LF even knowing the relationship of the study isn't that strong.

That's the argument we're essentially having. I'm not dismissing the study I'm saying you shouldn't outright ignore defence even for LF.

[Syd Thrift]

I’m not outright ignoring defense in left, I’m contextualizing it in OOTP terms. I wouldn’t “rather” have a 3 (offensive) WAR guy with bad defense over a 2 WAR guy with good defense in left field, I’m saying they add the same amount of wins to a team. I’d probably use other factors to decide between those players - is one younger? Does one have personality traits I should look at? Does one do something else I like so that I can find a way to play both?

[ThePretender]

Ok so then you agree with me that even though we acknowledge LF isn't important compared to other positions, we still value on an individual level the player who provides more value whether that's offensive or defensive. That's what I've been saying and was confused why you would argue that.

[Syd Thrift]

Well, no, you created a straw man of my position and now you're moving the goalposts around. Have fun with that.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

SS and 2B are pretty interchangeable. IF going 2B to SS you just have to double check the persons arm and range. A 40 arm can get by in 2B but not in SS. You can get by on 55 range for average SS.

Weaker arm can be OK at 2nd base, but in addition to good range, you want good ratings in "turn double play".

[brian_msbc]

I think the study is very wrong. You don’t even need a 3rd party study, just open up fielding stats and look at LF, you will see a very large difference in performance with extreme correlation to LF defense.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by brian_msbc

I think the study is very wrong. You don’t even need a 3rd party study, just open up fielding stats and look at LF, you will see a very large difference in performance with extreme correlation to LF defense.

Two possibilities
1) The study was wrong
2) The stats are wrong