Robinson Cano in OOTP 14

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by The Game

Can you, or anyone else tell me which costs a team more, lack of range or E?

It depends on how much lack of range, and how many errors are made.

To make it simple. If player A has 20 errors and player B has 10 errors, then player A allowed ten more baserunners than player B.

But the players don't only allow baserunners on errors, they also allow baserunners on balls that they can't reach.

So to be an equally good fielder, player B would need to get to 10 more balls that player A couldn't get to. If he gets to 11 more balls, that player A couldn't have reached, then yes, he's a better fielder and has saved his team runs. So in your example, the question is whether Wilson, given equal playing time as Jeter, would have reached something like 30+ more balls than Jeter. According to the range measurements, he reached balls that Jeter didn't at a significantly greater pace than that. So he actually surrendered fewer baserunners and saved his team more runs than Jeter.

Now it's not always that simple to measure, because there are a lot of factors that go into fielding chances other than a players range. The handedness of the pitchers he's playing behind, their gb%'s, the range of other players on the team that could take chances away from him by reaching balls themselves, the speed of the balls hit etc.

But generally speaking better fielding infielders are those that get to more extra balls rather than those who make the fewest errors.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

It depends on how much lack of range, and how many errors are made.

To make it simple. If player A has 20 errors and player B has 10 errors, then player A allowed ten more baserunners than player B.

But the players don't only allow baserunners on errors, they also allow baserunners on balls that they can't reach.

So to be an equally good fielder, player B would need to get to 10 more balls that player A couldn't get to. If he gets to 11 more balls, that player A couldn't have reached, then yes, he's a better fielder and has saved his team runs.

Now it's not that simple to measure, because there are a lot of factors that go into fielding chances other than a players range. The handedness of the pitchers he's playing behind, their gb%'s, the range of other players on the team that could take chances away from him by reaching balls themselves, the speed of the balls hit etc.

But generally speaking better fielding infielders are those that get to more extra balls rather than those who make the fewest errors.

Better said then Vaniilla in another thread. Most convincing argument I have heard.
How many of Wilsons errors were throwing errors that allowed a runner to score and/or a runner to advance to 2B? Jeter's lack of range probably gave up more singles then doubles or triples. Doubtful too many more runners scored off of Jeter's lack of range vs Wilson's potential 40 E.

[Fyrestorm3]

Wolf, you're missing the point - I'm not trying to argue that your eyes are a better evaluation of players than statistics. They're not. All I'm saying is that he's not outright WRONG in saying that Cano is better than Pedroia and Kinsler. That's his opinion, and it was reached in a different method than yours. And sure, it's probably hyperbole - he's a Yankee fan, of course he's going to put Yankee players first. But there's no reason to put him down for saying he thinks Cano is better, because he wasn't talking about it in terms of statistics.

X3 - first lesson of the forums. Don't mind The Wolf. He actually knows a bit of what he's talking about, when you get past his argumentative nature.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by The Game

How many of Wilsons errors were throwing errors that allowed a runner to score and/or a runner to advance to 2B? Jeter's lack of range probably gave up more singles then doubles or triples. Doubtful too many more runners scored off of Jeter's lack of range vs Wilson's potential 40 E.

I don't know the answers to that.

You're absolutely right though, that's one of the things to figure out, along with those I mentioned, and some others too, that is if any of the errors resulted in runners taking multiple bases.

I'm sure the info is out there, even though I don't have it handy. In fact any of the fielding metrics should have that sort of info calculated and included in their final assessments.

[D-BacksJosh]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Learn to look at the numbers and not the field. Your eyes will lie to you. Hard data doesn't.

I don't have an "opinion." I have data.

Makes you wonder how baseball ever maintained itself pre-sabermetrics (1960's) with all of those 'fools' running around scouting players on the field.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

Makes you wonder how baseball ever maintained itself pre-sabermetrics (1960's) with all of those 'fools' running around scouting players on the field.

I suspect that they made some mistakes. They could have learned a lot from sabermetrics.

But they also knew a lot and no doubt could teach the sabermetrics crowd a great deal too.

It's always foolish for any individual to think they've somehow cornered the market on knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

That's equally true of followers of sabermetrics who think that their "facts" are infallible and that anyone who disagrees with the current metric of the day is a fool, as it is for grizzled old scouts and players who think the fact that they "played the game" means they know everything about it and that anyone who didn't is a fool. Neither group is right and both miss out on a great deal if they aren't open to insights from one another. No matter how much you know, you should always be looking to learn more and should also take some time to question and re-asses the things you think you do know.

When you start thinking that you hold a monopoly on truth, it only means you don't really know all that much, and also means you're going to be missing an awful lot of chances to learn more.

[Lukas Berger]

btw, took a look and found a few other 2B and even 3B with inflated ranges high enough that they were capable of being elite SS's.

Chase Utley and his 190 range is the most egregious example There were a few others too. They're fixed now.

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Kinsler:

range: 170 to 145

dp 166 to 146

Pedroia:

range: 180 to 149

Cano:

no changes


That's just a quick and dirty fix based off my gut impressions. I haven't compared ratings or fielding metrics to see where that puts them compared to all other 2Bmen.

I'm going to suggest to haveband that sometime between now and beta that the roster team take a look at all the 2b and SS fielding ratings and see if anything else needs fixing. Maybe we'll even try to take a look at coming up with some kind of fielding ratings matrix. No promises, there's a lot on our plate so it may not happen, but it'd be nice if we could squeeze it in.

Ugh, while I do agree that Pedroia and Kinsler are way to high, I think that may be too low.... we should get an average pf the leagues 2nd base... I can export the data and get it on Monday.... but honestly i think we probably need to downgrade them just a few points and up Cano a few more....

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by The Game

Better said then Vaniilla in another thread.

I seek not to compete with Lukas. I can only aspire.

Cheers.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

Ugh, while I do agree that Pedroia and Kinsler are way to high, I think that may be too low.... we should get an average pf the leagues 2nd base... I can export the data and get it on Monday.... but honestly i think we probably need to downgrade them just a few points and up Cano a few more....

I really think that's about right. 140-150 is still a darn high rating. Even Cano's solid 120's across the board are actually pretty good. You want to remember that they're rated on the same scale as SSs and all other infielders are. So the best ratings should go to shortstops. If any of the 2Bmen actually had truly elite range, they'd play SS, not 2B.

It's also important to realize that the ratings don't mean much in and of themselves. It seems I say this constantly, but with good reason, as it's incredibly important.

The ratings don't individually determine a players abilities in and of themselves, they're actually compared to all the other ratings in the db and then placed against the league modifiers to determine what share of a leagues output a player produces.

So too many high ratings doesn't mean that there are many great players. It actually ends up having the effect of simply blurring the line between great and good players, and creating a league full of pretty good players, but without any true greats. Which is neither good nor realistic.

Anyhow, I'd appreciate it if you could do that. More data is always helpful. We can change the ratings again if warranted.

I did take a better look later. There was some silly stuff, like Utley being a 190 range. A few other 2B had really high ranges, like Zobrist, Ellis and Phillips. But other than that most 2B were in the 120-130 range, which is about right. Cano's individual fielding ratings are all in the 120 range and he ends up with a nice overall rating at 2B, 63 of 100, or so. In the green anyway, which is quite good.

So giving the top guys a 140-150ish range also seems right. Especially so since Pedroia, Phillips, Kinsler, Ellis etc also have higher dbp and error ratings than most other guys at 2B. They should since they're all great fielders. But even at 140-150 ranges, with their other high stats, the overall ratings for those guys end up being very, very impressive.

The way I checked as a quick method, was to give the guys with really high range ratings 200 experience at SS and to see what happened. If you put the range much higher than 150, then they ended up being rated as really elite at SS, even with low arm ratings.

But if you cap the range at 150 or so, then the ratings look better if you move them to SS. Maybe some guys at second should be rated as elite SS type players, idk. It seems unlikely, but I'd have to take a good look at the fielding metrics to be sure, and don't really have time to do so right now.

I think that with those few other guys that were too high being lowered too, things look better now.

Overall it seems that the top end of the fielding ratings scale seems to be used much more frequently than the top end of the batting ratings scale is.

So we might have somehow had some ratings creep over time that boosted the fielding ratings too high on too many guys, which would have the effect of essentially nerfing the great fielders abilities, since their ratings aren't all that much higher than a lot of other guys right now. Which isn't right.

It seems that we may need to knock a lot of fielding ratings down. At least we'll look into the situation and see if there may be an issue. I think there is.

Along those lines, I'll be eager to see what you come up with when you average out the ratings

[Lukas Berger]

btw, thanks for bringing this up X3. There definitely appears to be an issue here with some ratings being too high, which seems to go back to some changes made in the db nearly two years ago. We'll take a good look at it now. But it might not have been caught for a long time, if you hadn't brought this up. So good job, glad you noticed this, it's much appreciated!

[The Game]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

btw, took a look and found a few other 2B and even 3B with inflated ranges high enough that they were capable of being elite SS's.

Chase Utley and his 190 range is the most egregious example There were a few others too. They're fixed now.

Who is mostly responsible for assigning ratings to players?

[thehatfield]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

What Cano does Pedroia and Kinsler cannot do.

This is true. Cano just allows balls to go through into right field if he can't stretch for them, and Pedroia and Kinsler can't do that. They dive and make the play.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by The Game

Who is mostly responsible for assigning ratings to players?

There're a lot of different people that have touched the ratings over the years. Especially during beta a lot of people get involved, each working on different projects.

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

btw, thanks for bringing this up X3. There definitely appears to be an issue here with some ratings being too high, which seems to go back to some changes made in the db nearly two years ago. We'll take a good look at it now. But it might not have been caught for a long time, if you hadn't brought this up. So good job, glad you noticed this, it's much appreciated!

No problem, to be perfectly honest, what cought my attention was the gap between Cano and the other two more than how high of ratings Pedroia and Kinsler have...

Also, it looks like we have some high ratings at 3B:



I'm going to take a wild guess Evan has nowhere near the range of Brendan Ryan....

I think this would all make sense if the Range was relative to the actual position rather than the "infield"

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

I'm going to take a wild guess Evan has nowhere near the range of Brendan Ryan....

Holy hell, if Longo was actually rated that high at third, I never would have gotten rid of him in my Rays dynasty. That game was started in OOTP13, so I'm going to say something got messed up with these ratings in '14's development.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by X3NEIZE

No problem, to be perfectly honest, what cought my attention was the gap between Cano and the other two more than how high of ratings Pedroia and Kinsler have...

Also, it looks like we have some high ratings at 3B:



I'm going to take a wild guess Evan has nowhere near the range of Brendan Ryan....

I think this would all make sense if the Range was relative to the actual position rather than the "infield"

Yep, you caught another one of the weird range ratings. I found that last night and modified it too. Beltre also has crazy high range at 3B. He's a great, great defender, but even he's not that great. And Longoria certainly isn't even as good as Beltre, never mind Brendan Ryan!

Anyhow, all this will be fixed in OOTP15 one way or another. I think we'll end up taking a look at all the fielding ratings. Still, the absurdly high IF range ratings only affected 10 guys or so. So it could've been worse.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I really think that's about right. 140-150 is still a darn high rating. Even Cano's solid 120's across the board are actually pretty good. You want to remember that they're rated on the same scale as SSs and all other infielders are. So the best ratings should go to shortstops. If any of the 2Bmen actually had truly elite range, they'd play SS, not 2B.

Hmmm not sure I agree with you. My understanding is that most 2B end up being there due to arm (Pedroia) or a combination of arm and circumstances such as an existing SS in place (Jeter). I'll risk the possible wrath of others by stating that 9 years of observing (gasp!) Cano suggests that he has exceptional range at 2B and I expect he would have exceptional range at other positions should he play them. If range was a critical skill for a SS he would have played there more often in the low minors even if blocked by Jeter. The transition to 2B from SS is considered fairly easy by most commentators. He didn't. This indicates that he was not considered a definite SS prospect. Pedroia OTOH was a SS in college and played half his minor league games at SS including AAA in 2006. The Sox had a revolving door at SS from 2006-9 yet Pedroia remained at 2B. For both these players I'd suggest that range had little to do with them ending up at 2B.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by RchW

Hmmm not sure I agree with you. My understanding is that most 2B end up being there due to arm (Pedroia) or a combination of arm and circumstances such as an existing SS in place (Jeter). I'll risk the possible wrath of others by stating that 9 years of observing (gasp!) Cano suggests that he has exceptional range at 2B and I expect he would have exceptional range at other positions should he play them. If range was a critical skill for a SS he would have played there more often in the low minors even if blocked by Jeter. The transition to 2B from SS is considered fairly easy by most commentators. He didn't. This indicates that he was not considered a definite SS prospect. Pedroia OTOH was a SS in college and played half his minor league games at SS including AAA in 2006. The Sox had a revolving door at SS from 2006-9 yet Pedroia remained at 2B. For both these players I'd suggest that range had little to do with them ending up at 2B.

That's possible. I don't think you're exactly right, but there's definitely something to what you say. It's a complicated question that we could discuss for a long time and I don't really have the time to get into it right now

I'm talking more from the perspective of how OOTP ratings work than exactly how rl works. Try going into the editor and changing Pedroia or Kinsler f.e. as currently rated to SS, giving them a 200 experience rating at SS. Even with their marshmallow arms, the game still rates them as 17 or 18 defensively at SS.

So according to OOTP, the arm doesn't keep them from being an elite SS. That's because a 160-190 range rating is just so darn high.

Do this too, check the batting ratings in game, then figure out how many guys have individual contact or power ratings in the 160-180 range. It's very few.

Then do the same check on fielding range. There's a ton of those guys. This just isn't right. Somehow there been an upward creep in the MLB rosters sets fielding ratings. That's probably because the fielding ratings are set by us manually, while the hitting ratings depend on PECOTA's projections, which are more objective.

The problem with this is that, as I discussed above, if too many guys have too high ratings, then the impact of the truly great defenders, Iglesias, Simmons etc. is severely blunted.

[The Game]

Lukas what about players being rated too low, like Ken Griffey Jr. I have imported Junior from is rookie year and he was a 3 in CF. When you use entire career he is a 5 in CF a 3 in RF. RF was too high in my opinion CF still too low at 5. These are leagues where I use 100% scouting.
Why is it when one mixes historical and fictional players the real players tend top get benched for the fictional player defensively?
Why is is clones of legendary defensive wizards like Ozzie Smith and Luis Aparicio suck by their 5th year. Now yes these are clones and not the actual player so the recalc for them is different, but I have had to edit Ben arnold (Ozzie) twice so he has fielding ratings. At age 31 he is now retired after being a FA for teh last 2 seasons and being a 0 at all IF spots.
Nicky Lee (Little Louie) is still around but barely. He is at AAA for a team with the worst defensive SS in my league yet he is at AAA with a 3 for SS. Neither was ever over a 5. (1-10) scale.