|
||||
|
09-28-2013, 03:18 PM | #61 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
|
Quote:
Since the ratings under discussion in this thread are based on 2012 results Cano should have the same or better defensive ratings than both of them. Am I missing something obvious? Cano was the better defensive 2B in 2012. How can this be argued?
__________________
Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit |
|
09-28-2013, 04:26 PM | #62 | |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 649
|
Quote:
|
|
09-28-2013, 04:38 PM | #63 | |
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,883
|
Quote:
Historical is a whole different kettle of fish. It's nothing I have anything to do with. I tinker with it, but I'm no expert. You'd need to ask Spritze or Gambo or even Markus about that. And you aren't even just dealing with straight historical, sounds like you're mixing historical and fictional, which is even more problematic. Remember, once you make a clone of a historical player, and import him into another league, then the game no longer knows who he is. He's just another player with high ratings to the ai and will be subject to the vagaries of the OOTP development engine just like any fictional player would be. Last edited by Lukas Berger; 09-28-2013 at 04:50 PM. |
|
09-28-2013, 04:44 PM | #64 | |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 292
|
Quote:
Wolf, my Forum Conversations Enhanced (FCE) metric puts you at a woeful -27 for this season. Given that this is a number, and therefore data, and was created With Science (tm), I presume that you accept this finding as fact. I therefore hope that you will confine yourself in future to flaccid polemics against RBIs, through which it's hard to add much value or do much damage. Last edited by struggles_mightily; 09-28-2013 at 04:53 PM. |
|
09-28-2013, 04:47 PM | #65 | |
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,883
|
Quote:
Kinsler especially is being overrated by some of the folks on this thread, and I'd agree that Cano is being underrated by many posters. After looking at the metrics for the last few years, I think Kinsler actually needs to have his ratings cut more. I don't see any objective evidence at all that he's better defensively than Cano. Pedroia does seem to be the pick of the litter defensively among second basemen. But regarding Cano, again I want to reiterate, his ratings now are actually very good. He comes out rated 63 at 2B. That's very good. The reason it appears he's underrated is that too many other guys have gotten overrated, for one reason or another, which has conditioned OOTP players to think that really, really high defensive ratings are actually normal. They shouldn't be. Last edited by Lukas Berger; 09-28-2013 at 05:57 PM. |
|
09-28-2013, 04:48 PM | #66 | |
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,883
|
Quote:
It's what I was trying to say in several posts, but didn't do nearly as accurately or concisely as you have. |
|
09-28-2013, 04:56 PM | #67 |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 292
|
Thank you. And, I mean, I'm faaaaar from an expert on defensive metrics. I've read a handful of articles and did some Googling just now to support things I wasn't sure about in making that post. It doesn't take much effort to get at the specifics of these methods if you're interested in them, and I think it's far better to do that than just snootily dismiss other posters as "fools" whilst shouting non-specific stuff about "facts" and "science".
|
09-28-2013, 05:54 PM | #68 | |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 649
|
Quote:
|
|
09-28-2013, 07:25 PM | #69 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,162
|
Quote:
The roster set isn't supposed to recreate the 2012 season. If it were, PECOTA projections wouldn't be used to rate players; 2012 stats would be instead. The roster set is supposed to be rated so that players are most likely to perform how they will (did?) in 2013. In the sabermetric community, I think it's accepted that you need about 3 years worth of defensive stats to say anything reliable about someone's glove. So it would be a mistake to rate a defender very highly only because of a stellar 2012 season. It's only if that season were consistent with previous seasons (or with scouting reports in the case of a younger player) that high ratings would make sense. |
|
09-28-2013, 07:34 PM | #70 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit |
|
09-29-2013, 01:41 AM | #71 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,162
|
Quote:
|
|
09-29-2013, 03:21 AM | #72 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,403
|
Every time I see this thread's title I think it says, "Robinson Crusoe in OOTP 14".
|
09-29-2013, 09:35 AM | #73 | |
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,883
|
Quote:
Even when I'm lowering some of the ratings here, I'm not lowering them a lot if the guys' a great defender. Beltre, for example went down to a 160 range. That's still high, however you figure it. You make a good case for keeping him at 190 by putting the SS question in reverse. You're probably right on that. Even if Beltre's debatable, I can't see how there could be much debate that Utley or Longoria having a 190 range is just plain wrong. As to the second point. While Beltre's range might be academic compared to Ryan, that of the 2Bmen isn't. They all have decent to great dp ratings and as you can see by tinkering with the position ratings, that even giving them very, very, weak arms does not keep them from having overall positional ratings at SS very much comparable to the elite SS's. Which I think we'll all agree shouldn't be the case. I'm hardly undertaking a comprehensive overhaul of defensive ratings on my own. I just made some adjustments to a few ratings that really appeared to be out of whack. Even if there's a good case for Beltre to have a 190 range rating, which I could definitely see, in fact I changed him back just now, I can't see any similar argument for Longoria and Utley f.e. Can you? We'll have to talk more about this, getting Howard and hopefully Markus involved too. Your list of median defensive ratings would be a great help if you can dig it up. Last edited by Lukas Berger; 08-18-2014 at 12:16 AM. |
|
09-29-2013, 12:07 PM | #74 | |
All Star Starter
|
Quote:
Unless there is a keystroke error in entering a player's rating, I think it is best to not be hasty in knocking down/bumping up player ratings, especially in light of the fact that OOTP IS using a new aging model in v14. I have data for just one league (but 99 years worth) and in that league the playing time for shortstops and second basemen over a career was greatly reduced in comparison to version 13. Different from RL, I have a large number of 3B in my HOF (my standards, not OOTP's) but very few SS/2Bmen where I define the position of entry as the most appearances at an IF position if IF appearances > OF appearances. In version 13, I had many more SS/2B enter the HOF. On this limited data, I am inclined to believe that the aging modifier may be too harsh on reducing IF skills. If that is the case, then arbitrarily reducing IF ratings due to an eyeball catch will exacerbate an effect which has been newly introduced to the game. |
|
09-29-2013, 01:36 PM | #75 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 863
|
|
09-29-2013, 03:13 PM | #76 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,162
|
Quote:
1. Evan Longoria 2. Adrian Beltre 3. Chase Utley 4. Elvis Andrus 5. Ian Kinsler 6. Ryan Zimmerman 7. Dustin Pedroia 8. Brendan Ryan 9. Chone Figgins 10. Alexei Ramirez If you do the same ranking for just the 2013 season, the top infielders are: 1. Manny Machado 2. Andrelton Simmons 3. Nolan Arenado 4. Evan Longoria 5. Dustin Pedroia 6. Josh Donaldson 7. Alcides Escobar 8. Mike Moustakas 9. Mike Napoli 10. Todd Frazier though Ben Zobrist and Chase Utley, two names who have shown up in this thread, are 11th and 12th. Range Runs is not a rate stat, so (above average) players with more playing time have an advantage. I understand all the caveats about sabermetric fielding stats, so I mention this just to point out that there is at least some evidence that these guys should be rated as elite defenders. There are a few difficulties we run into when assigning fielding ratings. Fielding ratings are different from, say, batting ratings in that no one understands just what statistical output to expect from a given rating. A player with 50/100 Power is a guy we know will hit about 16 HR in a year. I think only Markus knows just what the difference is between a 100/100 IF Range shortstop and a 60/100 shortstop. I think we also need to make it harder to play shortstop to begin with - that is, the IF Arm threshold needs to be higher (or perhaps the influence of IF Arm on the SS rating needs to be higher). We made very small progress with those thresholds this year, but because of league conversion issues, it's not easy to persuade Markus to make any significant changes. But the current model allows most elite-fielding 2B to become elite-fielding SS, and that's just clearly wrong. Last edited by injury log; 09-29-2013 at 03:15 PM. |
|
09-29-2013, 06:03 PM | #77 | |
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,883
|
Quote:
To further discuss the first point in your original post, which seems to be most important: I think it's unlikely that fielding ratings are actually designed on a different scale than batting ratings, as you hypothesize. At any rate, I'd need some documentary evidence to be convinced of it. The main reason that it seems unlikely is how the fielding ratings actually show up in game. First that they show up using the same color coding for each value range as the hitting ratings. There's no difference at all. Second, the fielding ratings also show up as 1-10, 1-20 or 1-100 values using exactly the same conversions as the batting ratings. If in fact if this quote is true "a green fielding rating is just around average, at least at some positions" then you're essentially saying that there's a contradiction between the fielding and hitting ratings. Thus it would follow that the color displayed on fielding ratings is wrong. This could be either due to a bug, or maybe because Markus just didn't bother to fix the color coding. But if that's true then it seems to logically follow that you also have to assume that the fielding ratings as displayed are also incorrect since both for batting and fielding ratings. the in game conversion of the real 1-200 ratings consistently occurs on the exact same scale for both batting and fielding ratings. So it could be true of course, that the fielding and batting ratings use different scales and the fielding ratings are simply displaying the incorrect color and overall rating, but I don't see any reason to assume that it's true. Mostly because, if this was how things are supposed to work, it'd have been simple for Markus to adjust the conversion scale so that the fielding ratings displayed in game in on the same scale as the hitting ratings even if the 'real' ratings in the editor in fact needed to be significantly different for both batting and fielding. Clearly he didn't make any such adjustment, which leads me to understand that the fielding and batting rating scales in game are actually identical. From what I can see the reason you're assuming the color coding and overall ratings for defense must then be wrong is that fictional leagues' median defensive ratings tend out to be fairly high. Isn't it more likely that if the ratings generated in fictional leagues are that high they're simply being created too high by accident or due to old coding that hasn't been updated? My memory is hazy but wasn't there something this year where the game needed to downgrade contact ratings in league that had been created under 13? I hope this post makes sense, I'm not feeling well and have had a long day. Reading it over again I feel like I may not be explaining my logic clearly enough. If that's true then I'm sorry, I'll try again tomorrow. Of course it may just be faulty logic. If so feel free to pick holes in it Either way, it seems that we may need Markus to weigh in on this at some point. Last edited by Lukas Berger; 09-29-2013 at 07:17 PM. |
|
09-29-2013, 06:28 PM | #78 | |
All Star Starter
|
Quote:
I think you are missing part of what IL is saying. I do not mean to speak for IL, but this is what I got from his post: Since the IF ratings are not position specific, the ranges of the 2B/SS will have a higher median than 50. Because the median is higher this will result in much worse play for a corner IFer being converted to a MI position by the very nature of the OOTP structure which compares abilities of players to the league population and then introduces selected historical (or user selected) modifiers to produce resultant outcomes. Since the IF ratings are not broken down as MI and corner IF (as HR power and gap power are for hitters), there is no way that a median range for a MI should be 50. If 2B/SS were graded as separate entity, then, ok. As far as 2B playing SS too well, I think some modifier on how the poor armed SS handles balls to the 56 hole is where the adjustment should take place (if it is not taking place already). A competent 2B will make plays on balls in front of him and to his left much in the same way he would make plays on balls to his right at the 2B position. I do think the hit of the new aging modifiers need to be examined and their effects fully understood before wholesale markdowns of IF range ratings are made in order to get what seems to "look right". The results are what need to look right. Cano, Pedroia, and Kinsler are all damn good 2Bmen. I think Pedroia is slightly better. I also think Kinsler and Cano, though different in their fielding games, are approximately equal in defensive value. Last edited by VanillaGorilla; 09-29-2013 at 06:29 PM. |
|
09-29-2013, 07:16 PM | #79 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
|
I also suspect that some of Cano's lower and more variable defensive stats might be a result of him cheating up the middle to compensate for Jeter's low range at SS. Kinsler has no such need with Andrus and Pedroia has has a mixed bag but also had some good SS.
__________________
Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit |
09-29-2013, 07:25 PM | #80 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,162
|
The game's attitude to ratings scales was something that preoccupied me a bit early in beta this year. I started a thread about it in beta, and I've just bumped that, so it should be at the top of the pile there if you're interested in reading it.
I don't think there really is a coherent design approach to ratings - or at least, there isn't any longer. It's possible there was ages ago, but the entire pitching models and fielding models have since been changed, as have the maps between ratings and performance. There didn't seem much interest on beta in discussing that issue, but I think the game would be a lot more intuitive if it was easier to understand, at a glance, what a '60/100' rating means. It probably should mean 'above average', but in many cases it doesn't. And... get well soon buddy! |
Bookmarks |
|
|