A Ruth in Every Pot

[Orcin]

The 100 Ruth has now slipped below the 100K mark. The three top teams in my league have him. I use mine as the DH. The other two play 1B. I see that a lot but the fielding performance on those two instances is horrid.

I am beginning to think that you can just ignore defense as long as you have great pitching. Jack those park factors up to 1.10 and outscore everyone.

[moalkha]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The 100 Ruth has now slipped below the 100K mark. The three top teams in my league have him. I use mine as the DH. The other two play 1B. I see that a lot but the fielding performance on those two instances is horrid.

I am beginning to think that you can just ignore defense as long as you have great pitching. Jack those park factors up to 1.10 and outscore everyone.

He doesn't get much love, or maybe it's a question of oversupply, but I think that under 100k he is the best bargain on the AH.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The 100 Ruth has now slipped below the 100K mark. The three top teams in my league have him. I use mine as the DH. The other two play 1B. I see that a lot but the fielding performance on those two instances is horrid.

I am beginning to think that you can just ignore defense as long as you have great pitching. Jack those park factors up to 1.10 and outscore everyone.

I have Ruth at DH vs LHP, but I have Williams at DH vs. RHP so Ruth has to play 1B. I keep looking for excuses not to, but the bat is too much.

[allenciox]

Originally Posted by moalkha

He doesn't get much love, or maybe it's a question of oversupply, but I think that under 100k he is the best bargain on the AH.

Well, I wouldn't go that far --- I still think LIVE Trout is the best value on AH. But peak Ruth < 100k is nothing to sneeze at, particularly since you don't "have" to play him at DH and take the batting penalty for DH.

Still, you convinced me to go ahead and pick him up, so I did, at 95k. I figure, at the very least with favorable park factors, he should be a PP magnet. Now we'll see how he does.

Interestingly, there is exactly one other card that has a higher POW rating than peak Ruth. It's Ruth(99), believe it or not.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by allenciox

Well, I wouldn't go that far --- I still think LIVE Trout is the best value on AH. But peak Ruth < 100k is nothing to sneeze at, particularly since you don't "have" to play him at DH and take the batting penalty for DH.

The fact that he can play 162 games and does not have a platoon disadvantage completely negates the DH penalty, making him the ideal player for that position.

[Mammoth_Mayhem]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The fact that he can play 162 games and does not have a platoon disadvantage completely negates the DH penalty, making him the ideal player for that position.

What’s his 162 game avg. triple slash for you? And what does he train up to at 1B?

[Orcin]

I have never played him at 1B so I can't answer that one.

Here are his stats for me... all as a DH.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by mammoth_mayhem

and what does he train up to at 1b?

52

[allenciox]

Originally Posted by Mammoth_Mayhem

What’s his 162 game avg. triple slash for you? And what does he train up to at 1B?

So, yeah, Mammoth, probably better for you not to run perfect Ruth while you are in the same division I am... we can't have two doppelgangers playing so many games against each other, right? Maybe you should wait for next season

I am training my Ruth at 1B since my outfield is full and I already have a good DH in Buck Leonard. You can take a look at the Southpaws to see how it is coming along. He has played 17 games so far (or about 1/9 of a regular season). Surprisingly, he only has 3 home runs in those games (a pace for 27 a season) but his OBP is crazily high (about .480). So far, he has only trained up to 16 at first base. I am going to run Yastremski as a late-game defensive sub at first. And my record during the games he has been with me has been atrocious actually, I have lost ten of those seventeen games.

[Orcin]

I watched the Cardinals infield go from one of the worst in baseball to one of the best this year, solely because of first base. Goldschmidt was outstanding and prevented errors by picking poor throws. The previous occupants (especially Jose Martinez) were basically Babe Ruth there. I don't know that PT models this effectively, but I have to believe that playing a 90 at 1B instead of a 50 will result in better overall infield defense.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I watched the Cardinals infield go from one of the worst in baseball to one of the best this year, solely because of first base. Goldschmidt was outstanding and prevented errors by picking poor throws. The previous occupants (especially Jose Martinez) were basically Babe Ruth there. I don't know that PT models this effectively, but I have to believe that playing a 90 at 1B instead of a 50 will result in better overall infield defense.

100 Ruth has been fulltime at 1B since I got him. He is a 52 and hasn't killed me on defense and has been been good production. Maybe he is killing me and I don't understand fielding metrics....

Batting and fielding:

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

100 Ruth has been fulltime at 1B since I got him. He is a 52 and hasn't killed me on defense and has been been good production. Maybe he is killing me and I don't understand fielding metrics....

That career -100 ZR tells me that he is a lot worse than average. I was concerned because my first basemen (Boggs and Brett) combine for a career -24 ZR in slightly more games at the position.

But then, maybe it is me that doesn't understand fielding metrics and the importance of defense. I'm not being sarcastic, I am serious.

I see other teams playing 100 Brett at 2B in a jacked-up ballpark, yet their matador defense doesn't hurt them at all as they roll to a 130-win season and another title.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by Orcin

That career -100 ZR tells me that he is a lot worse than average. I was concerned because my first basemen (Boggs and Brett) combine for a career -24 ZR in slightly more games at the position.

But then, maybe it is me that doesn't understand fielding metrics and the importance of defense. I'm not being sarcastic, I am serious.

I see other teams playing 100 Brett at 2B in a jacked-up ballpark, yet their matador defense doesn't hurt them at all as they roll to a 130-win season and another title.

I agree `100%. I didn't think you were being sarcastic, you just are not sure and neither am I.

My team is built around infield defense and I'm elite except for Ruth. Maybe the offensive sacrifice would be worth it, not sure.

[pappyzan]

Originally Posted by Orcin

That career -100 ZR tells me that he is a lot worse than average. I was concerned because my first basemen (Boggs and Brett) combine for a career -24 ZR in slightly more games at the position.

But then, maybe it is me that doesn't understand fielding metrics and the importance of defense. I'm not being sarcastic, I am serious.

I see other teams playing 100 Brett at 2B in a jacked-up ballpark, yet their matador defense doesn't hurt them at all as they roll to a 130-win season and another title.

I've no idea on the importance of ZR for 1B/3B, from what I can tell a +ZR at corner infield positions is hard to come by regardless or defensive ratings.

Take a look at what a couple of great gloves have done for me at 3B over the past 20+ seasons.

94 Trammell:

• at 2B has a career ZR of +45 over 3100 innings
• at SS has a career ZR of +54 over 6400 innings
• at 3B has a career ZR of +9 over 4300 innings
• at 1B has a career ZR of -2 over 600 innings

84 Pesky:

• at 2B has a career ZR of +11 over 1800 innings
• at SS has a career ZR of +178 over 14500 innings
• at 3B has a career ZR of 0 over 3800 innings

From what I can remember, 97 A-Rod had a ZR between -2 and +2 each season playing 1B for me for a few seasons, same for 97 Lajoie (they're both 80+ def at 1B, A-Rod close to 90). I now use Boggs/100 Brett at 1B, and their stats are similar to what you posted.

TLDR: High +ZR at corner infield spots in PT is nearly nonexistent, and like some of you I have no idea if it's really anything to worry about or not. I personally feel a great glove at 1B/3B is overkill, but I think a glove as bad as 100 Ruth's is not something I'm going to use either.

[Mammoth_Mayhem]

Don't worry, Allenciox, I just nabbed Gorgeous George, so I won't be getting Ruth anytime soon. Those stats you mentioned sure are perplexing; I'm sure they'll straighten themselves out (but hopefully not against me!).

[dkgo]

Historical zone ratings are useless since they get re-baselined every season based on your new league

3B especially seems to get crushed. My 97 Brooks Robinson is always positive during the season then loses like 15 points when you look back after the new week starts. I really don't think the numbers shown are helpful at all

[allenciox]

So ZR gives you the number of plays above or below average that a player did over a season. The trick is how they define "average" here. The input to this (I believe) is the "advanced" fielding stats (number of routine, easy, average, very difficult, etc. compared to the average fielder at that position in the current league . The key there is that ZR from past years gets redefined in the scope of the current league. If you check ZR for a player one year and then check that same player in a succeeding season for his history, it will change. So it doesn't give you what the player truly did.

Since it is compared to average, that also means that a player might be a really good fielder at a position but in a league where all the teams have good fielders, it won't look great. So, for example, I have Johnny Pesky (84) at SS on my lefty team. Even though he has a 103 DEF, everybody in my league runs elite players at SS. Just about every year he has negative ZR (this year it is -1.2). Here is the funny thing: even though it is negative this year and just about every year during the year, it always shows his past years' ZR as positive (for a net +78.3 over fourteen years).

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by allenciox

So ZR gives you the number of plays above or below average that a player did over a season. The trick is how they define "average" here. The input to this (I believe) is the "advanced" fielding stats (number of routine, easy, average, very difficult, etc. compared to the average fielder at that position in the current league . The key there is that ZR from past years gets redefined in the scope of the current league. If you check ZR for a player one year and then check that same player in a succeeding season for his history, it will change. So it doesn't give you what the player truly did.



Since it is compared to average, that also means that a player might be a really good fielder at a position but in a league where all the teams have good fielders, it won't look great. So, for example, I have Johnny Pesky (84) at SS on my lefty team. Even though he has a 103 DEF, everybody in my league runs elite players at SS. Just about every year he has negative ZR (this year it is -1.2). Here is the funny thing: even though it is negative this year and just about every year during the year, it always shows his past years' ZR as positive (for a net +78.3 over fourteen years).

It's more that the way things get handled for past seasons in PT, we actually just use a predefined average. The current year uses actual data.

So for your Pesky example, say we "expect" that a SS will make 98% of routine plays, 80% of likely plays, etc... So if he makes 98.5% of routine and 85% of likely plays, then his past year ZR will be positive. But if everyone else is running Cronin and Aparicio, maybe your current league will actually have 99% of routine and 88% of likely plays, hence his current season will show negative.

3B, for a reason I still haven't quite nailed down, never seems to end up all that close to our "expected" values, and hence why past year 3B stats tend to change more than other positions.

[Orcin]

After all of this discussion, which was very helpful, I still feel like having a 90 at first base is better than having a 50 at first base.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by Orcin

After all of this discussion, which was very helpful, I still feel like having a 90 at first base is better than having a 50 at first base.

Depends.....Keith Hernandez was a great first baseman but over the Bambino?

Well, move Ruth to DH you say? Then it would be Hernandez over Greenberg and Ted Williams....ticket sales and wins would crash!