The Turn DP rating—does it do anything?

[Furious]

Originally Posted by kriscolic

But I would pose the following questions: What should the difference between the best and the worst DP turners be, and how did you arrive at that figure?

That is a good question and as I said in an earlier post, I don't know the answer to it. I think it's reasonable to err on the side of caution and make the difference between an adequate double play-turner and an outstanding double play-turner not overwhelmingly large.

But the difference between an actual second baseman and someone who has no business playing the position? Shouldn't that be a big difference? Saying it shouldn't be is essentially saying either a) "all players have a nearly equal ability to turn a double play" or b) "since we can't adequately measure the difference, we should pretend there is no difference". In which case, as I suggested in the original post, they should just eliminate the Turn DP rating altogether.

[kriscolic]

Originally Posted by Craig Scarborough

Well, I'd think you'd look at the empirical data and determine the best GDP/GDP opportunities vs. the worst and use that as your range that you're hoping for OOTP to generally replicate. However, I'd think a spread of 30 (probably below you're typical player that would earn any kind playing time as a major leaguer) to 200 is probably a larger swath and therefore the results to be outside "normal" range as seen by real data.

Yeah but there isn't really empirical data on how the worst would perform. There is data on how the worst *2B* perform (I'd argue that that data isn't particularly useful, but that's another matter). But there's no data on players who are the worst at DP because those players aren't played at 2B in the first place. Pick a player who you would assume would be lousy at DP. Yadier Molina, say. How many DP would he turn compared to average? There's just no way to know. We're in angels on pinheads territory here.

[kriscolic]

Originally Posted by Furious

b) "since we can't adequately measure the difference, we should pretend there is no difference". In which case, as I suggested in the original post, they should just eliminate the Turn DP rating altogether.

I'd be ok with that. Again, I think it's analogous to chemistry. Probably has some impact, but it's not quantifiable. There's an option to play without chemistry. Maybe make DP optional as well.

[Craig Scarborough]

Originally Posted by kriscolic

Yeah but there isn't really empirical data on how the worst would perform. There is data on how the worst *2B* perform (I'd argue that that data isn't particularly useful, but that's another matter). But there's no data on players who are the worst at DP because those players aren't played at 2B in the first place. Pick a player who you would assume would be lousy at DP. Yadier Molina, say. How many DP would he turn compared to average? There's just no way to know. We're in angels on pinheads territory here.

Right - which is why I said I think the range should extend greater than the empirical data, because a guy who can't turn a double play (e.g. a guy rated 30) would probably never earn a start as a second baseman.

[Craig Scarborough]

Btw - just ran a smaller test (only 5 seasons). Instead of only changing the "turn DP" to 200, I also changed the "Infield Arm" rating to 200. For the "bad" 2nd baseman, I made him rated 30 in both. Again, only 5 seasons...

200/200 fielder: 106 DPs on average
30/30 fielder: 92 DPs on average

[kriscolic]

Originally Posted by Craig Scarborough

Btw - just ran a smaller test (only 5 seasons). Instead of only changing the "turn DP" to 200, I also changed the "Infield Arm" rating to 200. For the "bad" 2nd baseman, I made him rated 30 in both. Again, only 5 seasons...

200/200 fielder: 106 DPs on average
30/30 fielder: 92 DPs on average

The problem with this whole argument is that I look at those numbers and my gut tells me that that's perfectly reasonable. 14 seems like a reasonably large difference. Other guts say the opposite. I dunno...

[Furious]

Originally Posted by kriscolic

The problem with this whole argument is that I look at those numbers and my gut tells me that that's perfectly reasonable. 14 seems like a reasonably large difference. Other guts say the opposite. I dunno...

It sounds like your gut thinks turning a double play is a very easy thing to do, so whoever is the best at it isn't all that much better than whoever is the worst at it.

I don't think it is that easy. I think there are players who are really good at it and players who aren't very good at it. I would not assume all players have an adequate level of skill at something just because there are no statistics to prove they don't.

[kriscolic]

Originally Posted by Furious

It sounds like your gut thinks turning a double play is a very easy thing to do

It would be extremely hard for, say, me. But yes, I'd say that I think it's something that a great many major league baseball players can do competently. I don't think that Yadi Molina would trip over second base and fall to the ground on a regular basis. I don't think that Pete Alonso is incapable of throwing the ball 90 feet quickly and accurately. I don't think that any big leaguer would run away in fear at the sight of a runner sliding toward them (at least when runners were allowed to do so). But I have no data to support that, just as you have no data to refute it.

Originally Posted by Furious

whoever is the best at it isn't all that much better than whoever is the worst at it.

You got it. Imagine a league where the average player hits 15 HR/500 AB. If the best player can hit 60 HR that's a very valuable skill. Now imagine a league where the average player hits 3 HR and the best player hits 7. Those 4 extra homers are worth something, but, on the whole, home run hitting in such a league would not be an especially valuable skill. My intuition is that DP skill is far closer to my second imaginary league than to the first. But I have no data to support that, just as you have no data to refute it.

Originally Posted by Furious

I would not assume all players have an adequate level of skill at something just because there are no statistics to prove they don't.

I would not assume all players *do not* have an adequate level of skill at something just because there are no statistics to prove they don't. Which is exactly what you are doing.

I'm not saying that either of us is right or wrong. I'm saying that we don't know and neither does anyone else. The developers are therefore justified in handling the issue as they have.

[Garlon]

Regarding Bill Mazeroski, he turned 1706 double plays in his career, and was 142 double plays above average using the Bill James formula. This puts him at 1706/(1706 - 142) = 1.09, making him 9% better than the league average and this is extremely good.

As for the issue of these players who have no business at 2B and still turning double plays, is this really an issue when these players are going to end up with like a 0.75 defensive efficiency and miss 100 grounders and end up -70 defensive runs for the season? Please post their defensive runs and defensive efficiency from these results.

So if you want to use an OF at 2B you can do that but you just lost 7 games from poor defense.

[Garlon]

There is a significant issue with fielding and that is players being extremely overpowered. I posted in another thread that Cal Ripken can make about 1000 more assists in his career than he actually did and ends up with a 1.29 defensive efficiency, when he actually had a 1.024 defensive efficiency, giving him 12x more plays above average than he should have made. That is a huge problem in the game. For reference, Ozzie Smith had a 1.05 career defensive efficiency, meaning he made 5% more plays than the average SS. When players like Cal Ripken overperform that means other players at the position underperform.

[Furious]

Originally Posted by Garlon

As for the issue of these players who have no business at 2B and still turning double plays, is this really an issue when these players are going to end up with like a 0.75 defensive efficiency and miss 100 grounders and end up -70 defensive runs for the season? Please post their defensive runs and defensive efficiency from these results.

I wasn’t the one who conducted the study that put outfielders at second base, so I don’t have the statistics you are asking for, but what you are saying is helping to prove my point. The non-second basemen in that study had terrible IF Range ratings, terrible IF Error ratings, and terrible IF Arm ratings to go along with their terrible Turn DP ratings, and they probably put up terrible Range stats, terrible ZR’s, terrible Fielding Pcts., and terrible EFF’s. What they didn’t put up were terrible double play stats. That’s because the other component ratings actually affect the statistics a lot, while the Turn DP rating hardly affects them at all.

The study I did, which was in response to Isryion’s use of a player actually created by OOTP, looked at a player who had normal Range, Error, and Arm ratings for a second baseman, but a poor Turn DP Rating. Those stats were posted in the attachment in the post that started this thread. All his defensive stats were acceptable for a second baseman, including his double play stats. Because the Turn DP rating barely does anything. (Or have I said that already?)

Originally Posted by Garlon

So if you want to use an OF at 2B you can do that but you just lost 7 games from poor defense.

So what you’re saying is “don’t use players with bad IF components ratings at second base; it’ll cost you dearly.” You are correct—except in the case of a bad Turn DP rating. That will cost you almost nothing.

[Garlon]

The value of a double play vs only getting one of the outs is an extra 0.23 runs saved. So to gain 10 runs on double plays you need to make 43 more double plays than average. We think the double play is worth more, but that is all that it adds over getting the out at 2B and not completing the play, but if you miss 100 grounders at your position you are going to lose 70 runs on defense.

[Furious]

Originally Posted by kriscolic

I would not assume all players *do not* have an adequate level of skill at something just because there are no statistics to prove they don't. Which is exactly what you are doing.

You are correct: that is what I’m doing.

Here’s why. We know that some positions are more difficult to play than others. That’s not a controversial statement, is it? Lots of players move from center field to a corner outfield position when their skills begin to erode, because corner outfield positions are easier to play than center field. Lots of players move from anywhere to first base when they get older, because first place is the easiest position to play. No one moves from first base to catcher, no one moves from left field to shortstop. The transition is always from the harder position to the easier one.

Have you ever heard of anyone moving from anywhere, other than shortstop, to second base? It’s happened, but it’s very rare. Second base is an extraordinarily difficult position to play. Players are moved away from second base a lot more often than players are moved to second base. Because it’s one of the hardest positions to play.

Now, if you ask people who have played second base what is the hardest thing about playing second base, I’ll bet close to all of them will say “turning the double play”. If you don’t know anybody who played second base, I’m sure a quick Google search will turn up loads of anecdotal evidence to support this, and very little evidence implying that turning a double play is something that any player can do just about as well as any other player.

It’s not proof, I suppose, but I’m buying it.

[kriscolic]

Originally Posted by Furious

You are correct: that is what I’m doing.

Here’s why. We know that some positions are more difficult to play than others. That’s not a controversial statement, is it? Lots of players move from center field to a corner outfield position when their skills begin to erode, because corner outfield positions are easier to play than center field. Lots of players move from anywhere to first base when they get older, because first place is the easiest position to play. No one moves from first base to catcher, no one moves from left field to shortstop. The transition is always from the harder position to the easier one.

Have you ever heard of anyone moving from anywhere, other than shortstop, to second base? It’s happened, but it’s very rare. Second base is an extraordinarily difficult position to play. Players are moved away from second base a lot more often than players are moved to second base. Because it’s one of the hardest positions to play.

Now, if you ask people who have played second base what is the hardest thing about playing second base, I’ll bet close to all of them will say “turning the double play”. If you don’t know anybody who played second base, I’m sure a quick Google search will turn up loads of anecdotal evidence to support this, and very little evidence implying that turning a double play is something that any player can do just about as well as any other player.

It’s not proof, I suppose, but I’m buying it.

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of the defensive spectrum. And yes, I am familiar with the legendary difficulty of hanging in there and making the pivot on a double play. A legend perpetuated almost entirely by those men who have done it at the big league level. You'll forgive me if I don't take their often backward looking self-aggrandizement at face value. Second base is a difficult position, and an important one, chiefly because of the range required to play it well. That is far more important than fast hands, or whatever it is that's supposed to separate the men from the boys while turning two. And more to the point,

Originally Posted by Garlon

The value of a double play vs only getting one of the outs is an extra 0.23 runs saved.

what he said.

[Furious]

Originally Posted by kriscolic

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of the defensive spectrum. And yes, I am familiar with the legendary difficulty of hanging in there and making the pivot on a double play. A legend perpetuated almost entirely by those men who have done it at the big league level. You'll forgive me if I don't take their often backward looking self-aggrandizement at face value. Second base is a difficult position, and an important one, chiefly because of the range required to play it well. That is far more important than fast hands, or whatever it is that's supposed to separate the men from the boys while turning two.

That’s some curiously selective cynicism. If those who claim that turning the double play is difficult (and I’m pretty sure it’s not “perpetuated almost entirely those who have done it at the big league level”) just say that to make themselves look cool, why pick the double play as the thing to promote as “legendarily difficult”? Why not tout range, if it is, as you claim, the “real” thing that makes the position hard to play? What do they gain by saying one aspect of playing the position is difficult if it isn’t, while glossing over the supposedly more difficult aspect of it?

You’re the only person I can recall who suggests that turning a double play is something that just any player can do. That doesn’t make you wrong, but since we have, as you claim, no reliable statistics to demonstrate that turning a double play is difficult, I’ll take the word of basically everyone who has played the position, their penchant for self-aggrandizing bull****ting notwithstanding.

And more to the point,

The value of a double play vs only getting one of the outs is an extra 0.23 runs saved.

That is entirely not the point. I’m not arguing the value of the double play. The value of a double play and the difficulty of a double play have nothing to do with each other.

It's pretty clear that I'm not going to convince you that turning a double play is hard, and you're not going to convince me that it's easy.

[Mat]

Originally Posted by Furious

You’re the only person I can recall who suggests that turning a double play is something that just any player can do. That doesn’t make you wrong, but since we have, as you claim, no reliable statistics to demonstrate that turning a double play is difficult, I’ll take the word of basically everyone who has played the position, their penchant for self-aggrandizing bull****ting notwithstanding.
.

Add me to the list. I only ever played C or LF but from my experience most double plays were easy.

The difficult plays were less common but always spectacular when someone pulled it off. That was usually due to better range, not for better skills on the turn.

[Furious]

Originally Posted by Mat

Add me to the list. I only ever played C or LF but from my experience most double plays were easy.

The difficult plays were less common but always spectacular when someone pulled it off. That was usually due to better range, not for better skills on the turn.

In an earlier post I mentioned that there are routine double plays that just about anyone could make. Obviously not all double plays constitute the same level of difficulty.

I also asked if there are statistics that indicate what percentage of double plays are "routine" and what percentage are difficult. I asked that because I don't know if such statistics exist. Knowing how rare these difficult plays are would be very helpful. Would a team encounter 10 of these plays in a typical season? 20? 50? I really have no idea.

[Craig Scarborough]

To those who've participated in this discussion, a big thank you. I've enjoyed reading the back and forth on this topic.

It's pathetic that I even have to call this out, but to see an internet "discussion" not degrade into a barrage of bickering and name-calling has been refreshing.

[Isryion]

Originally Posted by kriscolic

It would be extremely hard for, say, me. But yes, I'd say that I think it's something that a great many major league baseball players can do competently. I don't think that Yadi Molina would trip over second base and fall to the ground on a regular basis. I don't think that Pete Alonso is incapable of throwing the ball 90 feet quickly and accurately. I don't think that any big leaguer would run away in fear at the sight of a runner sliding toward them (at least when runners were allowed to do so). But I have no data to support that, just as you have no data to refute it.


You got it. Imagine a league where the average player hits 15 HR/500 AB. If the best player can hit 60 HR that's a very valuable skill. Now imagine a league where the average player hits 3 HR and the best player hits 7. Those 4 extra homers are worth something, but, on the whole, home run hitting in such a league would not be an especially valuable skill. My intuition is that DP skill is far closer to my second imaginary league than to the first. But I have no data to support that, just as you have no data to refute it.

.

I absolutely get the notion that double plays aren't that valuable on the whole, which is a reason I tested the player there in the first place. But, generally in OOTP a minimal skill rating means a player doesn't really have that skill, at least is so bad at it you cannot expect them to perform it. I'd just like that double play rating to fall within those general guidelines. If it doesn't, then I prefer it keyed off of other ratings since it doesn't really mean much and doesn't fall in line with what we generally expect on the ratings scale.

For example in your fictional world where home runs aren't valuable, would you expect players with minimal power to be hitting 2 or 3 home runs, regardless of how valuable HR are. I would not, because I would expect the ratings to still mean something, even if the stat they are representing does not.

Originally Posted by Garlon

As for the issue of these players who have no business at 2B and still turning double plays, is this really an issue when these players are going to end up with like a 0.75 defensive efficiency and miss 100 grounders and end up -70 defensive runs for the season? Please post their defensive runs and defensive efficiency from these results.
.

I did that study, and the reason it was done was to address one question: Are double plays the result of ratings besides the double play? I think the answer was pretty definitively no, or at least not enough to make a significant/noticeable change in the numbers. I did this because people questioned Furious's results because the players in the study all had other "good 2B skills." So, in my study, players with bad 2B skills still turned a double plays at the rate of a player with good 2B skills.

That means you can still reasonably put a fielder who has other solid ratings at 2B and not worry about the double play. I had previously thought these players should have been stuck at 3B or even 1B.

[quillenl]

2019
Jose Altuve had 49 Dps, or 57 per 1200 innings. Taking his ability to get to the ball into play he managed 74 DPs per every 600 chances (total chances, not DP chances). He was a pretty below average fielder across the board statistically n 2019 in my personal opinion. (He is 75/78 range/ Turn DP in game for 2019)

Yolmer Sanchez had a pretty good season for DPs in 2019. Ozzie Albies had more... but he played in a lot more innings as well. Yolmer avergaed 103 DPs per 1200 innings and 96 per 600 chances (Ozzie had 106 per 600 chances). (He is 59/64 range/ Turn DP in game for 2019)

Now, someone who just seemed terrible for 2019 was Eric Sogard. He had over 700 IPs fielded. He's a high ranged factor player so he gets a lot of chances... but only managed 53 DPs per 1200 innings and 58 per 600 chances. (He is 57/62 range/ Turn DP in game for 2019)

So, in real life we are looking at a spread of DPs between top and bottom STARTERS of just over 100 to the high 50s. In game even the low end starters have a 62/100 Turn DP. If you want to dip into players with far less play time you can find Tony Kemp at the bottom of the barrel where he averaged only 33 DPs per 1200 IPS (just over 200 IP at 2B). In game Tony Kemp has a Turn DP rating of 57.

No real point to the above numbers other than I found them interesting. I do, however, believe you can break any game when you start trying things in unintended ways. It's doubtful the game is balanced in any way for a 16/100 player (30 in the editor) to play 2nd. It would be nice to see that work better... but it's sort of a non issue to me since we're talking about a player with a 1 rating at 2B (Tony Kemp's rating when I edited him for 30 Range and Turn DP). Not knocking your concern... just adding in my 2 cent opinion since I bothered to make the post.