Let's talk about defense

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by TuckerDuckson

My right fielder who had -5.7ZR, but also hit at a 178OPS+ rate, with 71 HR, was worth just a bit over 6WAR. When Bonds hit 73 homers in 2001, he put up 12.4 offensive bWAR, and -1.2 defensive bWAR, granted he had an 1.379 OPS+, but my guy had a 1.102. I know this is inherently a bad comparison, but seriously, I would think nearly tying the MLB HR record would get you more than barely 6WAR, especially when my guy had a better defensive season than Bonds.

2001 Bonds was only a -5 run defender, the -1.2 dWAR was including the positional adjustment, which should be very similar to your RF. 2001 Bonds had a 259 OPS+, so a better comparison would be 1998 Bonds who had a 178 OPS+, same as your RF. In 1998 Bonds was a plus defender, but if you combine his 1998 oWAR of 7.2 when he had a 178 OPS+ with his 2001 dWAR of -1.2 when he was a -5 defender in an OF corner and remove the -6 run positional adjustment that is in both values so it isn't double counted, we've recreated your record setting RF and it comes out to about 6.6 bWAR. There will be a slight difference because I included 1998 Bonds' -1 baserunning runs in that oWAR, but I would guess that the baserunning runs that your RF posted that year will be in the range of -7 to -2 runs.

[Syd Thrift]

It should also bear mentioning that a 55 fielding SS is 55 compared with, more or less, anyone else who is listed at the position in the majors. There are a large number of 3rd and 2nd basemen in any league that are given a very low rating at SS that will skew the ratings of decent SSes upwards.

That said, I do agree that "65 or you can't win" is way overrated. In the league I'm running, which TBF is fictional (I think a lot of the people who say this play historical leagues where range, etc. might be distributed differently), 2 of the 4 playoff winners had SSes with ratings of (IIRC since I'm not at my OOTP computer) overalls of 55 and 50. The 50 was even worse, kind of, because in the final weeks the 50 guy got injured and was replaced with a converted 2B with a SS overall of I think 40. He had no range but his error rate was decent enough. Those guys did lose in the LCS but both had much larger issues than a SS with poor range.

It does and should give you a big boost to have a Gold Glove quality guy up the middle. If anything I think the effects are slightly smaller this year than they've been in years past but it's still potentially very significant.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by wallewalls

So because anything else below, say 65, in a handful of positions is unplayable, does that warrant a question about whether changes to defensive ratings should be looked at in the future?

For instance, if a 55 is unplayable, why is his rating 55? It should mean slightly above average like it does IRL.

A 55 is not unplayable. You could definitely argue its not optimal. Technically any player who is not league-best at their position is suboptimal, but tradeoffs have to be made unless you want to cheese the game. The quality of player you can get at any position is constrained by the quality of available players and your budget. I have won the World Series with a 40ish rated SS because the rest of the team was strong and I really didn't have good options at SS that year.

Personally, I find it too gamey to barrel down to the inner workings of the game and instead rely on the overall evaluations of the players to make my decision (like the AI).

For example, if I have a 55-rated shortstop who can hit and a 50-rated shortstop who is a gold-glover, I will play the 55 and use the 50 as a defensive sub even though technically I suspect I will win more games starting the 50.

[wallewalls]

Originally Posted by uruguru

A 55 is not unplayable. You could definitely argue its not optimal. Technically any player who is not league-best at their position is suboptimal, but tradeoffs have to be made unless you want to cheese the game. The quality of player you can get at any position is constrained by the quality of available players and your budget. I have won the World Series with a 40ish rated SS because the rest of the team was strong and I really didn't have good options at SS that year.

Personally, I find it too gamey to barrel down to the inner workings of the game and instead rely on the overall evaluations of the players to make my decision (like the AI).

For example, if I have a 55-rated shortstop who can hit and a 50-rated shortstop who is a gold-glover, I will play the 55 and use the 50 as a defensive sub even though technically I suspect I will win more games starting the 50.

I totally understand, I've had similar experiences while having a bad defensive shortstop. Perhaps "unplayable" is an exaggeration, but that is what others have said.

I guess what I mean really, is that if 55's at a position still grade out as negative, then maybe there needs to be an adjustment to what their rating is. Although, I'm not really up-to-date on how UZR fluctuates from year to year, but I have noticed guys who are alread negative don't usually get better in the next season.

[wallewalls]

Originally Posted by jfb8300

Be careful which screen ZR is taken from, there is a display issue in the bug forum that has gone unaddressed for weeks where ZR appears different on the player page vs roster/stat page - https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=339652

Yes, I noticed this today too, so now I have no idea which one is right. I thought I was going crazy.

I'm gonna guess that my 70 range SS isn't a negative ZR-wise, which is what I was looking at the entire time.