Outstanding Essay on OOTP Defense

[jpeters1734]

http://www.american-circuit.net/essa...fense_pt3.html

This is easily the best essay I've read on defense in OOTP and thought I'd give it a shout out since we're starting a new version.

[discodude5]

Thanks for posting this.

In part 3 they said something like for example the game may say your player can play ss but if we look at the ratings they really shouldn't.

Question, would it be good to draft an infielder who is projected to have great range 70/80 but only a 30/80 ss position projection and then let them develop in the minors? Can their position rating get way better than the 30/80?
Maybe with the player development lab?

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by discodude5

Thanks for posting this.

In part 3 they said something like for example the game may say your player can play ss but if we look at the ratings they really shouldn't.

Question, would it be good to draft an infielder who is projected to have great range 70/80 but only a 30/80 ss position projection and then let them develop in the minors? Can their position rating get way better than the 30/80?
Maybe with the player development lab?

30/80 means it's an 80-grade SS once he plays there enough. There's no defensive 'potential', so the denominator is just what he can reach with full experience.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by discodude5

Thanks for posting this.

In part 3 they said something like for example the game may say your player can play ss but if we look at the ratings they really shouldn't.

Question, would it be good to draft an infielder who is projected to have great range 70/80 but only a 30/80 ss position projection and then let them develop in the minors? Can their position rating get way better than the 30/80?
Maybe with the player development lab?

I'm a little unsure what you're asking by the way you represented the ratings.

Are you asking about if a player has a 30 SS potential rating on the 20/80 scale?

If so, a 30 SS potential will not likely increase much. If a player has 70 range, but only 30 SS potential, they have a noodle for an arm, a cinderblock for a glove, and the finesse of an uncoordinated toddler.

[Garlon]

This is a pretty good article.

When evaluating players defensively I really do not look at their Overall Defensive rating at a position. The overall rating is just an estimate that combines and weights their Range/Arm/Error/Turn DP Ratings.

When you are looking at an outfielder, their Range is most important. You can figure your corner outfielders are responsible for about 300 PO per season and the CF about 400 PO per season, while the corner OF might. The outfielders will make very few errors and very few assists over the course of a season. So, a 100 Error rating for an outfielder saves you only a few plays whereas it only takes 1% better range rating to save you a few plays.

For infield, your SS really needs great Range and Arm, your 3B needs to have a very good Arm, and for 2B the Range is far more valuable than Arm. For infielders you should also consider the era in which you are playing. In earlier eras, there were many more balls in play and many more Errors, so a higher Error rating for infielders is actually more valuable in 1935 than in 1985.

More plays go to SS and CF than anywhere else on the field. If you put below average defenders at those positions, it will definitely cost you wins.

In terms of fielding results in the game, I suggest focusing on the individual player EFF rating at a position more than their ZR rating. The EFF rating is their rate at turning balls in play in their zone into outs compared to league average where 1.000 is average, whereas the ZR rating is situational.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Garlon

In terms of fielding results in the game, I suggest focusing on the individual player EFF rating at a position more than their ZR rating. The EFF rating is their rate at turning balls in play in their zone into outs compared to league average where 1.000 is average, whereas the ZR rating is situational.

Individual EFF is just the rate-stat version of OAA, right? I think it's something like Attempts * EFF = OAA?

[Garlon]

You can basically get OAA with EFF.

For 2B/3B/SS use Assists and for LF/CF/RF use Put Outs.


For example, consider a SS with a 1.030 EFF and 375 Assists.

375 - (375/1.030) = 375 - 364 = +11 OAA



For example, a CF with a 0.950 EFF and 350 PO.

350 - (350/0.950) = 350 - 368 = -18 OAA


On average, each OAA is worth about 0.75 ZR. So, every 12 plays in either direction is roughly worth a win.



What I like about that article is that is tells you that defense should not be ignored in team building.

Consider two teams with average pitching and offense but one team makes +35 OAA (about +4 or +5 OAA at each position) and the other team makes -35 OAA. The first team is going to win 84 games, and the second team is going to win 78 games.

[Brad K]

There is no minimum acceptable fielding rating. It's always related to how well a player hits. This team won 107 games, the NL Pennant, and the World Series.

[WhiskyTango]

According to these articles it's going to be a long season because I don't have any defense and I play rotisserie league. Which doesn't surprise me and am glad someone finally said it.

That said, am playing a historical league and after running these ratings my 1933 MLB has about a half dozen each of SS, 2B and CF, according to these articles all the rest are slubs you want to avoid. Not sure what to make of that.

[WhiskyTango]

I defer to the writer's "experience" claim. However, the below quote raises the question for me: how OOTP uses fielding ratings. Is it as the author describes? Or is he assuming? I don't know. But as I said, MLB in 1933 had about 6 worthy SS, according to his ratings scale.


Having read Part II, you may be asking, “Why does my shortstop have to have better than average range? Isn’t having an average shortstop good enough?”

Asking those two questions together implies a misunderstanding about what the ratings mean. Having an average shortstop isn’t a problem; the problem is in thinking an infielder with average range is going to be an average shortstop.

Take a look at your shortstop’s Fielding Ratings. There’s no category for “SS Range”; it’s “INF Range”. Assuming 50 to be average, a shortstop with 50 INF Range doesn’t have average range for a shortstop; he has average range for an infielder. Well, first basemen and third basemen are infielders, and what’s average for them is not the same as what’s average for a middle infielder. 50 INF Range is quite good for a first baseman; it’s way below average for a shortstop. Same thing with INF Error, INF Arm, and Turn DP; same with the OF ratings. In order to be “average” at a position, a player needs to be much better than average in the categories that define that position. A center fielder needs to have much better than average range for an outfielder. A second baseman needs to have very good infield range and very good double play capabilities. A third baseman needs to have a very good arm. A shortstop needs to be real good at everything.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by WhiskyTango

I defer to the writer's "experience" claim. However, the below quote raises the question for me: how OOTP uses fielding ratings. Is it as the author describes? Or is he assuming? I don't know. But as I said, MLB in 1933 had about 6 worthy SS, according to his ratings scale.

He's not assuming. He's basing what he says on observations. I think he's right on how OOTP works. My objection to his analysis is him placing a minimum acceptable ability on fielding without considering the player's offensive contribution.

[deferittothegame]

Thanks for posting this, excellent read and backs up what I've seen work in the game! I definitely prioritize building the spine (C, SS, CF) as the core of my teams on great defense.

[WhiskyTango]

Also, there's question re data sampling. His is a fictional league. How are players generated? How do ratings compare to other scenarios? The assumption being made by the author is that the software more or less adequately models real-world inputs and outcomes. Perhaps it does but since the software is dynamic then how relevant are his findings with different settings? Like I said, in the spring of 1933, according to these recommended ratings guidelines, OOTP stated there were about a half-dozen SS that you'd want on your team. Now for less demanding positions (LF, 1B) the numbers were much better as you'd expect. So ya'd tink that might raise some of these questions, no? Maybe of course the author is totally right on. Maybe if you do any assessment of high-skill positions you'll find a pareto principle - that, maybe at least 80% of the talent is available in 20% or less of the available sample. Could be true. What is certainly true is that I play OOTPR.

Another nickpick is his claim about why a SS with an average field rating is worse than you think. Theoretically what he says is true, of course. But practically all I need to worry about any given game is whether my SS provides at least comparable D as the opponent's SS (all other things remaining equal which they don't, but...). So me trading away a star RF for an elite SS starts entering trade-offs and diminished returns into the discussion. And if I am usually facing SS's with 60 or less range then what am I doing?

[cheddah]

Originally Posted by WhiskyTango

According to these articles it's going to be a long season because I don't have any defense and I play rotisserie league. Which doesn't surprise me and am glad someone finally said it.

That said, am playing a historical league and after running these ratings my 1933 MLB has about a half dozen each of SS, 2B and CF, according to these articles all the rest are slubs you want to avoid. Not sure what to make of that.

This is all absolutely relative and I assume the OP is talking about a modern ratings environment. You can determine what is average for each position in your historical context and just try to stay above average.

[WhiskyTango]

Will play the next few seasons trying out this guy's theory. At least I won't be playing rotisserie anymore.

As I said, the bottom line is I don't need to worry about SS being 70+ range. I am only concerned whether he is usually as good as the SS in the other dugout, generally speaking, most nights. But even that is theoretical because it also depends on my options, which are ever-changing and will be different for every team. So while it is tempting to think defense can be solved by plugging in some numbers I don't see much relevance when GM. But will play next few seasons and will mandate those numbers and see what happens (besides getting fired by team owner).

[Guthrien]

I tend to keep both WAR and ZR (my fave DEF OOTP stat for anyone not a catcher) on my stat page. It makes it pretty easy to see the balance between bat and glove a player contributes to your team. You have a SS or CF hitting the high teens/twenties in ZR, they're going to be able to hit 20% worse than an average player and still easily contribute several wins to your team. There are plenty of the reverse in the world. Balance.

[uruguru]

The article presumes you can get a gold glover at every up-the-middle position. Sometimes you can't, and sometimes you have a player with a beast of a bat who is only decent in CF.

The RNG in OOTP is so strong that sometimes the best team on paper loses the division by 10 games. I do not think people truly realize that RNG is both out of your control and also one of the strongest determinants of success. To make RNG meaningless, you basically have to unrealistically trade-craft a team to All-Star levels at every position, and even then the short series in the playoffs will be a crapshoot.

I guess if this were some sort of online poker league where you were repeatedly simming to make money so that the law of large numbers would come into play, then mix-maxing your team to get every tiny calculated edge on the spreadsheet would make sense.

Otherwise it's almost as reliable, and a million times easier, to just rely on the overall rating at a position. At the end of the day, it's a solo game. There's no wrong way to play.

[Garlon]

What do you mean by RNG? If you are referring to (PO + A)/G that has no significant meaning because outs in play are different for every team. You can take two SS with the exact same rating and put one on a team that has the most strikeouts and another on a team with the fewest strikeouts and their RNG will be different because opportunities are not equal.

The best fielding metric to use when comparing defensive results for players is EFF.

Defense is not overpowered at all in OOTP.

The point of the threads to not put a player totally out of position where they become a liability and cost you wins, which will happen if you put a 2B at SS or a LF in CF.

[jaa36]

In this case, uruguru is using RNG to mean "random number generation." Which is admittedly confusing in a thread about defense where RNG typically means "range factor"

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by jaa36

In this case, uruguru is using RNG to mean "random number generation." Which is admittedly confusing in a thread about defense where RNG typically means "range factor"

Yes, the random number generator. Sorry for the confusion.