The 1906 Cubs Defense

Garlon · 07-15-2018, 08:00 AM

The 1906 Cubs had a FIP of 2.55 and allowed 2.46 R/G. The NL had a FIP of 2.73 and allowed 3.56 R/G. The Cubs probably should have allowed 2.55*(3.56/2.73) = 3.32 R/G The difference of 3.32 - 2.46 = 0.86 R/G is quite significant and is approximately 132 runs saved over the course of the season. A portion of this might be due to luck but the bulk of it must be due to defense, so I decided to take a look at their defense and neutralize their statistics.

Here is what I found based on plays made:

Catchers: Threw out +31 base stealers above average. Their opponents attempted 51 fewer SB attempts against them than expected for the number of times reaching base. They prevented 8 fewer Passed Balls than league average. I have them making an additional 3 plays made on defense as well. This may be approximately 30 runs saved by catcher’s defense. (Note: The fact that opposing teams attempted 51 fewer SB's than expected may actually have turned out in the opponents favor since the league success rate was only 45%. This may reduce the runs saved by at least 10. So perhaps the Cubs catchers runs saved should be at the most 20.)

1Bmen: I have them at -0.64 runs saved for the season, but this does not include the possibility of Independent PO above or below average. It is a very big calculation and probably won’t be a significant amount. I may return to this though.

2Bmen: 24.6 runs saved for the season.

3Bmen: -15.3 runs saved for the season

Shortstops: 44.3 runs saved for the season. This seems extreme but I have Tinker at 54 assists above expected.

Outfielders: 19.7 runs saved above average. They were below average in assists but above average in put outs.

Pitchers: Threw 7 fewer Wild Pitches than expected. They fielded their position well too. I have them at 12.3 runs saved above average.

Double Plays. The team turned about 25 more double plays than expected. I have this worth 5 runs saved for the season.

The Cubs also made about 65 fewer errors than league average. I have this as perhaps saving an additional 38.1 runs for the season.

This comes out to 146 runs saved for the season. Very close to the expected 132.

Position: Neutralized, Davenport FAA, Davenport FAA2, Fangraphs, Humphreys
P: 12, 20, 19, NA, NA
C: 20, 34, 34, 4, 5
1B: -1, 33, 33, 12, 9
2B: 24, 20, 17, 15, 22
3B: -15, 4, 3, 6, -7
SS: 44, 35, 33, 22, 36
OF: 19, 11, 8, 24, 40
Total: 103, 157, 147, 83, 105

That 103 does not include the additional 5 runs saved from double plays or the additional runs possibly saved from errors.

The Cubs and their opponents scored 7.138 R/G. So 132 runs saved on defense is worth about 18.49 wins that season.

Garlon · 07-26-2018, 03:30 AM

I wanted to find out who were the best fielding SS in the NL in 1906 so I neutralized their statistics as per Bill James method.

There is probably very little value in using PO to evaluate infielders as many of these plays are discretionary since a SS or 2Bmen can decide to call off the other players on pop ups in the infield. This happened with Philadelphia as Doolin apparently called for as many infield flyballs as possible since he has an extreme PO total and their 2Bmen have the fewest PO in the NL...he was simply taking more than his share of those plays. It is possible that he was taking more throws on SB attempts as well. I am going to include the results of PO here for completeness, even though their actual value is limited. Assists are the best way to evaluate the infielders because those are not discretionary plays. Positive values are good even for errors, meaning that’s how many errors you saved better than average.

Team SS +/- A/PO/DP/E/Defensive Runs Saved

Brooklyn -7/-37/-12/-9/-7

Boston -35/50/-7/-10/-27

Chicago 54/-10/23/10/44

Cincinnati -7/-35/3/2/2/-5

New York -40/-25/-12/1/-32

Philadelphia 32/67/4/-3/25

Pittsburgh 26/41/17/4/22

St. Louis -22/-48/-5/5/-17

Here are the starting SS for each team and their +/- A /DP/Runs Saved. An Assist is worth 0.76 Runs Saved and a DP is worth 0.12 Runs Saved. It is possible that the run values for these plays were different in 1906, but these are the modern values.

Lewis -4/-8/-4

Bridwell -17/-2/-13

Tinker 50/18/40

Corcoran 4/10/5

Dahlen -38/-12/-30

Doolin 35/4/27

Wagner 37/19/31

McBride -2/0/-1

Here are the Defensive Runs Saved for these players Neutralized, Fangraphs, Davenport, Humphreys

Lewis -4, -10, -15, -8

Bridwell -13, -6, -18, -13

Tinker 40, 20, 32, 34

Corcoran 5, -3, -4, -11

Dahlen -30, -2, -15, -11

Doolin 27, -5, 26, 3

Wagner 31, 10, 17, 17

McBride -1, -1, 5, -4

Every metric here has Tinker as the best SS.

Here is their ranking by each method:

Neutralized/Fangraphs/Davenport/Humphreys

1. Tinker/Tinker/Tinker/Tinker
2. Wagner/Wagner/Doolin/Wagner
3. Doolin/McBride/Wagner/Doolin
4. Corcoran/Dahlen/McBride/McBride
5. McBride/Corcoran/Corcoran/Lewis
6. Lewis/Doolin/Lewis/Corcoran
7. Bridwell/Bridwell/Dahlen/Dahlen
8. Dahlen/Lewis/Bridwell/Bridwell

The Neutralized method uses the defensive innings as available on baseball reference. These other methods probably used estimated defensive innings and got them wrong. This ends up producing an incorrect value for defensive runs saved if you don’t have the correct innings played. It is possible that these other leagues were using the total MLB values for the position and not just NL values. It is of note that the neutralized process gives us 4 SS above average and 4 below, Fangraphs says that only Tinker and Wagner were the only ones positive (this seems unlikely), Davenport has 4 above and 4 below, and Humphreys has 3 above and 5 below.

Since we can determine the rate above or below average that infielders made plays from the neutralization process, it should be possible to properly translate these to ratings in OOTP.

Reed · 07-26-2018, 12:29 PM

Darn, I drafted Birdwell before reading this post.

Garlon · 07-29-2018, 09:16 AM

Here are the results for the American League SS

Team SS Defensive Runs Saved
Boston -13
Chicago -2
Cleveland 53
Detroit -11
New York -4
Philadelphia 2
St. Louis 13
Washington -36

Player +/- A/DP/Defensive Runs Saved

Parent -23/1/-17

Davis 2/5/2

Turner 66/18/52

O'Leary -21/-7/-17

Elberfeld 6/-11/3

Cross 2/8/3

Wallace 16/9/13

Altizer -44/-7/-35

Terry Turner was the outstanding defensive SS. The neutralization process has him at 52 Defensive Runs Saved, Fangraphs has him at 34, Davenport has him at 43, and Humphreys has him at 49. I may attempt to neutralize the defensive statistics for every position for the 1906 season.

Garlon · 07-29-2018, 12:44 PM

Here are the results for the 1906 team outfields.

Team +/- PO/A/Defensive Runs Saved
BRO -5/-3/-4
BSN -32/8/-13
CHC 45/-7/20
CIN -7/11/2
NYG -2/-6/-5
PHI 10/-2/4
PIT 4/-6/1
STL -6/5/0

BOS -19/-2/-10
CHW 16/9/13
CLE 33/-21/7
DET -22/13/-5
NYY 1/-6/-3
PHA -3/-3/-3
SLB 19/-1/9
WSH -23/8/-8

The Cubs had the best defensive outfield. They caught flyballs about 5.8% more often than average.

Garlon · 07-31-2018, 08:23 PM

I have neutralized the fielding statistics for every team in 1906. I then translated these into ratings in OOTP, using 119 on the 200 scale as league average.

Here are some encouraging results. The Cubs had the best FLD% and DEF in OOTP just as they really did in 1906. They had the highest ZR in the game as well. Cleveland had the second best FLD% and second best DEF in the game just as they really did in 1906.

The Cubs catchers had a 53.5% CS, very close to their real value of 57%. The Cubs three starting OF'ers ended up as 1st in DEF in LF, 1st in CF, and 2nd in RF. They had 1.033, 1.038, and 1.018 DEF. They really fielded about 1.058 in 1906 and in the game they ended up with about 1.030.

The entire fielding DB can be updated so that OOTP can reference +/- plays made by infielders and outfielders and easily create the most appropriate fielding ratings in the game. This could be done easily for the stats from 1954-present, and if I had a bit of help with assembling some additional data from lahman into a spreadsheet I should be able to program the fielding formulas myself and generate +/- Assists, PO, E, DP, and CS for every player. From there it should be quite easy to update how the ratings are imported into the game.

For 1871-1952 we don't have innings played in lahman. For this example, I was able to get the innings played from baseball reference to make the calculations. We also don't have discrete LF/CF/RF data from Lahman, but we can get some improved data on this as well and enter it into the DB. So with a bit of work and a bit of help I think we could have better fielding results in the game.

Spritze · 08-02-2018, 10:20 PM

OOTP does not use Lahman and has not used it for 4 years. The reason it is no longer used is its incompleteness. BBref has way more good stuff. I know in beta for OOTP19 you were informed of this but maybe you forgot?

Defensive runs saved are already in the game and are probably more accurate than the ones you are coming up with as OOTP uses real innings and other data available from BBref. That said the ones you are coming up with match to within +-4% of what OOTP currently uses. The difference between 52 and 54 runs saved is fairly minimal and that is the most extreme difference I noted from your posts..

It does seems as if something is bugging you about how OOTP is choosing to use this data to generate ratings though. Since the runs saved data currently in use is an extremely close match to your own cowculations you might direct your efforts there to greater effect?

Reinventing the wheel while in the middle of a freeway seems a little pointless. But go ahead if it adds to your happiness.

Garlon · 08-03-2018, 01:01 AM

Unfortunately the OOTP database has bad data. It is not he BBR data. I have a league and just looked at Johnny Evers real fielding stats and his innings do not match what is on BBR.

The catcher SB and CS data is not there either.

What we actually need for OOTP is a +/- count of A/DP/E for infielders and PO/A for outfielders. From there we should be able to create proper ratings. If you help me collate some data I can write the formulas for getting what we need.

I have just updated a copy of the lahman database with inningouts for 1901 and 1902 for all positions. The database I have has correct inningouts for 1871-1900.

If I create a completely updated database we should be able to use it in OOTP though, right? Even if we need to move some columns or format it the way you have it in there.

I'm skeptical that the data we have is being used properly. Please send me a copy of the fielding file we are using.

Spritze · 08-03-2018, 01:19 AM

Catcher and pitcher sb/cs against are in the database

innings are from bbref as they existed 4 years ago

we will just need to disagree on this I guess

feel free to continue your 1906 updates

I will check for updated innings from bbref for ootp20. bbref continually updates stuff and the latest should be in the fielding file but you never know.

the fielding file no longer has ratings in it, they are done programmatically in the game. you will need to ask others for that information.

Garlon · 08-03-2018, 01:23 AM

Here's basically how fielding ratings need to be created in OOTP.

Joe Tinker in his career had 10259 total chances at SS ad made 635 errors. The league average ss fld for his career was .926. The league average ss would have made 759 errors given that many total chances, so Tinker was +124 errors saved above average. His error rating should be 759/635 = 1.195. We then take this value and multiply it by what is considered league average error rating for infielders. If league average on the 250 scale is 100, then his Error rating should be 120 (rounded), if we use 120 as average then he gets a 143.

In OOTP he imports with a 196 error rating. His real FLD rating for his career at SS was .938. In his simulated career he fielded .954. This is a difference of about 161 errors for his career as he had 10285 chances in the game and made 476 errors. This is over 14 full seasons, so he was performing about 12 errors better per season. 476/637 = .74, so he made substantially fewer errors than he should have. This is not due to randomness either. So for every player like Tinker making substantially fewer errors than he should there are players at the other end making for more errors than they should as well..

This is a significant problem in the game and it needs to be corrected and it is not that hard to correct.

Garlon · 08-03-2018, 01:26 AM

If you load players into the game do their innings match what you see in the database? They do not match what is on BBR. So something is amiss. And the catcher SB and CS do not import into the player stats before 1954.

So what is the issue?

I can't verify if the data is correct in the database without looking at it. What I see is what imports into the game, so I assume that's what is in there.

Spritze · 08-03-2018, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garlon

If you load players into the game do their innings match what you see in the database? They do not match what is on BBR. So something is amiss. And the catcher SB and CS do not import into the player stats before 1954.

So what is the issue?

I can't verify if the data is correct in the database without looking at it. What I see is what imports into the game, so I assume that's what is in there.

Nothing is amiss as far as innings. It may be that some need updating which is a standard practice during beta.

the C/P sb/cs data is in the database back to 1909. if ootp does not choose to display it that would be up to them

Garlon · 08-03-2018, 03:51 AM

It appears that OOTP is just taking player GS*9 + ((G-GS/3) to come up with some sort of estimated innings for any season before 1954. This yields ridiculous sets of stats that are not even close.

In OOTP Cap Anson imports with 10.2 innings at catcher in 1886, with 32 PO, 18 A, and 9 PB...that's quite a 10.2 innings of work behind the plate. He really had 58 innings at catcher that season.

If Defensive Runs are in the DB from 1954 to present we could potentially try to use them. But do we have Defensive Runs Saved from 1871-1953?

Translating DRS to +/- plays made can be tricky since we don't know exactly what their formulas are and how much they are valuing each play and if the values of a play made is different in different seasons. Basically 3 DRS = +4 defensive infield plays and 2 DRS = +4 OF plays.

So if we have a SS with 12 DRS, we can say he made 16 additional plays. If he had 390 Assists, then we can say 390/(390-16) =1.0427 and from there give him Range and Arm ratings that are 4.27% better than average.

The fielding ratings are not implemented correctly and are causing issues. Others do not notice them because we focus on batting an pitching stats.

There is also a ridiculous penalty for playing a player out of position. Johnny Evers was used one season at SS by his team even though he does not have a rating at that position (I suspect his team simply did not have any other SS). He ended up with 120 errors at SS. Now I can understand him getting a range penalty for playing that position and not be able to make as many plays ad having a below average Def Eff, but for him to accumulate that many errors is absurd. The game is simply not using his Infield Error rating while applying a substantial penalty for being out of position.

Spritze · 08-03-2018, 09:39 AM

Innings for Ozzie Smith are a perfect match to BBref. Tinker is not. More than likely older innings played data has been updated by bbref over the last few years. I'll write myself a note to update that if time permits during OOTP 20 beta.

Thanks for noticing that issue.

The standard game is even further off on innings so I will share the updates with them.

Garlon · 08-03-2018, 01:01 PM

Every innings value before 1954 is essentially wrong because they are using some formula instead of the actual data that exists. It has nothing to do with BBREF updating to more accurate innings. BBREF never had the absurd innings totals that you see in the game. They either had the real innings data for a player or they reported no data. This formula might be some sort of old formula the game used and when the new data was available it was not removed from the import process. They may be ale to fix this issue easily.

Spritze · 08-03-2018, 01:45 PM

The innings in both the historical and the standard game are off. Blame whomever you wish. The historical database shows the last bbref innings download was in 2014. Four years ago. It has not been updated since then just because nobody thought of it nor has anyone cared before. Plus the team has been busy with many new tasks and revisiting old ones is not always a priority. Right now the 1938 and 1947 negro league seasons are being updated. Something is always going on. No rest for the wicked and all that.
I am sure both databases will be updated in about 6 months.
Until then proceed as you wish to.

RMc · 08-05-2018, 08:16 AM

These are the saddest of possible stats,
Tinker to Evers to Chance!
Vying for accuracy, instead falling flat,
Tinker to Evers to Chance!
Ruthlessly pricking ol' Spritze's stat bubble
What should be a putout is really a double
Numbers are weighty, and nothing but trouble,
Tinker to Evers to Chance!

--Anon.

Spritze · 08-05-2018, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMc

These are the saddest of possible stats,
Tinker to Evers to Chance!
Vying for accuracy, instead falling flat,
Tinker to Evers to Chance!
Ruthlessly pricking ol' Spritze's stat bubble
What should be a putout is really a double
Numbers are weighty, and nothing but trouble,
Tinker to Evers to Chance!

--Anon.

I hope you realize civilization turns on these weighty matters.

Garlon · 09-16-2018, 07:22 PM

1906 Gold Gloves

Catchers CS +/- and PB +/- and (DRS)
NL: Kling 19 and 7 and (16)
AL: Sullivan 14 and 3 and (11)

1B Assists +/- and (DRS)
NL: Tenney 20 and (15)
AL: Jones 31 and (23)

2B Assists +/- and DP +/- and (DRS)
NL: Huggins 34 and 17 and (34)
AL: Lajoie 27 and 53 and (27)

3B Assists +/- and DP +/- and (DRS)
NL: Devlin 38 and 3 and (29)
AL: Tannehill 52 and 1 and (39)

SS Assists +/- and DP +/- and (DRS)
NL: Tinker 50 and 14 and (40)
AL: Turner 63 and 31 and (52)

LF PO +/- and A +/- and (DRS)
NL: Shannon 24 and -5 and (10)
AL: Stone 22 and -7 and (9)

CF PO +/- and A +/- and (DRS)
NL: Seymour 28 and -1 and (14)
AL: Jones 31 and 2 and (19)

RF PO +/- and A +/- and (DRS)
NL: Dolan 25 and 6 and (17)
AL: Niles 5 and 19 and (14)

Garlon · 09-17-2018, 02:28 AM

I finished making the calculations for pitcher defense.

I then calculated the Defensive Runs Saved for every player. As per The Fielding Bible values, Catcher CS are worth 0.62 (I used this same value for PB as well), Infielder A are worth 0.75 and DP worth 0.15, Outfielder PO and A are both worth 0.56.

In the NL The Cubs sum to 114 Defensive Runs Saved. Based on their FIP they should have saved 123. They were the best in MLB. The best in the American League was Cleveland with 68 Defensive Runs Saved, while their FIP suggests about 86.

I have not factored in the value of Errors Saved as their is some overlap with the extra plays made. For example, a player might be + 5 plays made but also +5 Errors saved. So maybe the + 5 plays made are just the result of not making those errors. Though some errors occur when an put could not have been made anyway. Having said that, both the Cubs and Cleveland were about 61 Errors better than average. I think an Error is worth about 0.20-0.25 defensive runs saved using this method. So that would give each team about another 12 Defensive Runs Saved for the season. This puts them pretty much right at their expected value based on their FIP. Their combined FIP is 209 DRS, their calculated DRS combined is 182...if we give them about 24 DRS for the Errors saved that gives us 206 DRS vs the expected value of 209 for the season.

The Cubs DRS of 114 is worth 16 wins since in the NL in 1906 it was about 7.3 runs per win that season.

In the NL Boston had the worst DRS with -55 while their FIP expects them to have -40. In the AL Washington has -55 DRS while their FIP expects about -67. So these two worst teams have -110 DRS and their FIP suggests -107. Boston had -70 Errors and Washington had -19 Errors for the season.

07-15-2018, 08:00 AM	#1
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	The 1906 Cubs Defense The 1906 Cubs had a FIP of 2.55 and allowed 2.46 R/G. The NL had a FIP of 2.73 and allowed 3.56 R/G. The Cubs probably should have allowed 2.55*(3.56/2.73) = 3.32 R/G The difference of 3.32 - 2.46 = 0.86 R/G is quite significant and is approximately 132 runs saved over the course of the season. A portion of this might be due to luck but the bulk of it must be due to defense, so I decided to take a look at their defense and neutralize their statistics. Here is what I found based on plays made: Catchers: Threw out +31 base stealers above average. Their opponents attempted 51 fewer SB attempts against them than expected for the number of times reaching base. They prevented 8 fewer Passed Balls than league average. I have them making an additional 3 plays made on defense as well. This may be approximately 30 runs saved by catcher’s defense. (Note: The fact that opposing teams attempted 51 fewer SB's than expected may actually have turned out in the opponents favor since the league success rate was only 45%. This may reduce the runs saved by at least 10. So perhaps the Cubs catchers runs saved should be at the most 20.) 1Bmen: I have them at -0.64 runs saved for the season, but this does not include the possibility of Independent PO above or below average. It is a very big calculation and probably won’t be a significant amount. I may return to this though. 2Bmen: 24.6 runs saved for the season. 3Bmen: -15.3 runs saved for the season Shortstops: 44.3 runs saved for the season. This seems extreme but I have Tinker at 54 assists above expected. Outfielders: 19.7 runs saved above average. They were below average in assists but above average in put outs. Pitchers: Threw 7 fewer Wild Pitches than expected. They fielded their position well too. I have them at 12.3 runs saved above average. Double Plays. The team turned about 25 more double plays than expected. I have this worth 5 runs saved for the season. The Cubs also made about 65 fewer errors than league average. I have this as perhaps saving an additional 38.1 runs for the season. This comes out to 146 runs saved for the season. Very close to the expected 132. Position: Neutralized, Davenport FAA, Davenport FAA2, Fangraphs, Humphreys P: 12, 20, 19, NA, NA C: 20, 34, 34, 4, 5 1B: -1, 33, 33, 12, 9 2B: 24, 20, 17, 15, 22 3B: -15, 4, 3, 6, -7 SS: 44, 35, 33, 22, 36 OF: 19, 11, 8, 24, 40 Total: 103, 157, 147, 83, 105 That 103 does not include the additional 5 runs saved from double plays or the additional runs possibly saved from errors. The Cubs and their opponents scored 7.138 R/G. So 132 runs saved on defense is worth about 18.49 wins that season.

08-02-2018, 10:20 PM	#7
Spritze OOTP Historical Czar Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bothell Wa Posts: 7,254	OOTP does not use Lahman and has not used it for 4 years. The reason it is no longer used is its incompleteness. BBref has way more good stuff. I know in beta for OOTP19 you were informed of this but maybe you forgot? Defensive runs saved are already in the game and are probably more accurate than the ones you are coming up with as OOTP uses real innings and other data available from BBref. That said the ones you are coming up with match to within +-4% of what OOTP currently uses. The difference between 52 and 54 runs saved is fairly minimal and that is the most extreme difference I noted from your posts.. It does seems as if something is bugging you about how OOTP is choosing to use this data to generate ratings though. Since the runs saved data currently in use is an extremely close match to your own cowculations you might direct your efforts there to greater effect? Reinventing the wheel while in the middle of a freeway seems a little pointless. But go ahead if it adds to your happiness. __________________ It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it!

08-03-2018, 01:19 AM	#9
Spritze OOTP Historical Czar Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bothell Wa Posts: 7,254	Catcher and pitcher sb/cs against are in the database innings are from bbref as they existed 4 years ago we will just need to disagree on this I guess feel free to continue your 1906 updates I will check for updated innings from bbref for ootp20. bbref continually updates stuff and the latest should be in the fielding file but you never know. the fielding file no longer has ratings in it, they are done programmatically in the game. you will need to ask others for that information. __________________ It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it!

08-03-2018, 09:39 AM	#14
Spritze OOTP Historical Czar Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bothell Wa Posts: 7,254	Innings for Ozzie Smith are a perfect match to BBref. Tinker is not. More than likely older innings played data has been updated by bbref over the last few years. I'll write myself a note to update that if time permits during OOTP 20 beta. Thanks for noticing that issue. The standard game is even further off on innings so I will share the updates with them. __________________ It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it! Last edited by Spritze; 08-03-2018 at 11:08 AM.

08-03-2018, 01:45 PM	#16
Spritze OOTP Historical Czar Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bothell Wa Posts: 7,254	The innings in both the historical and the standard game are off. Blame whomever you wish. The historical database shows the last bbref innings download was in 2014. Four years ago. It has not been updated since then just because nobody thought of it nor has anyone cared before. Plus the team has been busy with many new tasks and revisiting old ones is not always a priority. Right now the 1938 and 1947 negro league seasons are being updated. Something is always going on. No rest for the wicked and all that. I am sure both databases will be updated in about 6 months. Until then proceed as you wish to. __________________ It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it! Last edited by Spritze; 08-03-2018 at 02:22 PM.

07-26-2018, 03:30 AM	#2
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	I wanted to find out who were the best fielding SS in the NL in 1906 so I neutralized their statistics as per Bill James method. There is probably very little value in using PO to evaluate infielders as many of these plays are discretionary since a SS or 2Bmen can decide to call off the other players on pop ups in the infield. This happened with Philadelphia as Doolin apparently called for as many infield flyballs as possible since he has an extreme PO total and their 2Bmen have the fewest PO in the NL...he was simply taking more than his share of those plays. It is possible that he was taking more throws on SB attempts as well. I am going to include the results of PO here for completeness, even though their actual value is limited. Assists are the best way to evaluate the infielders because those are not discretionary plays. Positive values are good even for errors, meaning that’s how many errors you saved better than average. Team SS +/- A/PO/DP/E/Defensive Runs Saved Brooklyn -7/-37/-12/-9/-7 Boston -35/50/-7/-10/-27 Chicago 54/-10/23/10/44 Cincinnati -7/-35/3/2/2/-5 New York -40/-25/-12/1/-32 Philadelphia 32/67/4/-3/25 Pittsburgh 26/41/17/4/22 St. Louis -22/-48/-5/5/-17 Here are the starting SS for each team and their +/- A /DP/Runs Saved. An Assist is worth 0.76 Runs Saved and a DP is worth 0.12 Runs Saved. It is possible that the run values for these plays were different in 1906, but these are the modern values. Lewis -4/-8/-4 Bridwell -17/-2/-13 Tinker 50/18/40 Corcoran 4/10/5 Dahlen -38/-12/-30 Doolin 35/4/27 Wagner 37/19/31 McBride -2/0/-1 Here are the Defensive Runs Saved for these players Neutralized, Fangraphs, Davenport, Humphreys Lewis -4, -10, -15, -8 Bridwell -13, -6, -18, -13 Tinker 40, 20, 32, 34 Corcoran 5, -3, -4, -11 Dahlen -30, -2, -15, -11 Doolin 27, -5, 26, 3 Wagner 31, 10, 17, 17 McBride -1, -1, 5, -4 Every metric here has Tinker as the best SS. Here is their ranking by each method: Neutralized/Fangraphs/Davenport/Humphreys 1. Tinker/Tinker/Tinker/Tinker 2. Wagner/Wagner/Doolin/Wagner 3. Doolin/McBride/Wagner/Doolin 4. Corcoran/Dahlen/McBride/McBride 5. McBride/Corcoran/Corcoran/Lewis 6. Lewis/Doolin/Lewis/Corcoran 7. Bridwell/Bridwell/Dahlen/Dahlen 8. Dahlen/Lewis/Bridwell/Bridwell The Neutralized method uses the defensive innings as available on baseball reference. These other methods probably used estimated defensive innings and got them wrong. This ends up producing an incorrect value for defensive runs saved if you don’t have the correct innings played. It is possible that these other leagues were using the total MLB values for the position and not just NL values. It is of note that the neutralized process gives us 4 SS above average and 4 below, Fangraphs says that only Tinker and Wagner were the only ones positive (this seems unlikely), Davenport has 4 above and 4 below, and Humphreys has 3 above and 5 below. Since we can determine the rate above or below average that infielders made plays from the neutralization process, it should be possible to properly translate these to ratings in OOTP.

07-26-2018, 12:29 PM	#3
Reed All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,933	Darn, I drafted Birdwell before reading this post.

07-29-2018, 09:16 AM	#4
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	Here are the results for the American League SS Team SS Defensive Runs Saved Boston -13 Chicago -2 Cleveland 53 Detroit -11 New York -4 Philadelphia 2 St. Louis 13 Washington -36 Player +/- A/DP/Defensive Runs Saved Parent -23/1/-17 Davis 2/5/2 Turner 66/18/52 O'Leary -21/-7/-17 Elberfeld 6/-11/3 Cross 2/8/3 Wallace 16/9/13 Altizer -44/-7/-35 Terry Turner was the outstanding defensive SS. The neutralization process has him at 52 Defensive Runs Saved, Fangraphs has him at 34, Davenport has him at 43, and Humphreys has him at 49. I may attempt to neutralize the defensive statistics for every position for the 1906 season.

07-29-2018, 12:44 PM	#5
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	Here are the results for the 1906 team outfields. Team +/- PO/A/Defensive Runs Saved BRO -5/-3/-4 BSN -32/8/-13 CHC 45/-7/20 CIN -7/11/2 NYG -2/-6/-5 PHI 10/-2/4 PIT 4/-6/1 STL -6/5/0 BOS -19/-2/-10 CHW 16/9/13 CLE 33/-21/7 DET -22/13/-5 NYY 1/-6/-3 PHA -3/-3/-3 SLB 19/-1/9 WSH -23/8/-8 The Cubs had the best defensive outfield. They caught flyballs about 5.8% more often than average.

07-31-2018, 08:23 PM	#6
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	I have neutralized the fielding statistics for every team in 1906. I then translated these into ratings in OOTP, using 119 on the 200 scale as league average. Here are some encouraging results. The Cubs had the best FLD% and DEF in OOTP just as they really did in 1906. They had the highest ZR in the game as well. Cleveland had the second best FLD% and second best DEF in the game just as they really did in 1906. The Cubs catchers had a 53.5% CS, very close to their real value of 57%. The Cubs three starting OF'ers ended up as 1st in DEF in LF, 1st in CF, and 2nd in RF. They had 1.033, 1.038, and 1.018 DEF. They really fielded about 1.058 in 1906 and in the game they ended up with about 1.030. The entire fielding DB can be updated so that OOTP can reference +/- plays made by infielders and outfielders and easily create the most appropriate fielding ratings in the game. This could be done easily for the stats from 1954-present, and if I had a bit of help with assembling some additional data from lahman into a spreadsheet I should be able to program the fielding formulas myself and generate +/- Assists, PO, E, DP, and CS for every player. From there it should be quite easy to update how the ratings are imported into the game. For 1871-1952 we don't have innings played in lahman. For this example, I was able to get the innings played from baseball reference to make the calculations. We also don't have discrete LF/CF/RF data from Lahman, but we can get some improved data on this as well and enter it into the DB. So with a bit of work and a bit of help I think we could have better fielding results in the game.

08-03-2018, 01:01 AM	#8
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	Unfortunately the OOTP database has bad data. It is not he BBR data. I have a league and just looked at Johnny Evers real fielding stats and his innings do not match what is on BBR. The catcher SB and CS data is not there either. What we actually need for OOTP is a +/- count of A/DP/E for infielders and PO/A for outfielders. From there we should be able to create proper ratings. If you help me collate some data I can write the formulas for getting what we need. I have just updated a copy of the lahman database with inningouts for 1901 and 1902 for all positions. The database I have has correct inningouts for 1871-1900. If I create a completely updated database we should be able to use it in OOTP though, right? Even if we need to move some columns or format it the way you have it in there. I'm skeptical that the data we have is being used properly. Please send me a copy of the fielding file we are using.

08-03-2018, 01:23 AM	#10
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	Here's basically how fielding ratings need to be created in OOTP. Joe Tinker in his career had 10259 total chances at SS ad made 635 errors. The league average ss fld for his career was .926. The league average ss would have made 759 errors given that many total chances, so Tinker was +124 errors saved above average. His error rating should be 759/635 = 1.195. We then take this value and multiply it by what is considered league average error rating for infielders. If league average on the 250 scale is 100, then his Error rating should be 120 (rounded), if we use 120 as average then he gets a 143. In OOTP he imports with a 196 error rating. His real FLD rating for his career at SS was .938. In his simulated career he fielded .954. This is a difference of about 161 errors for his career as he had 10285 chances in the game and made 476 errors. This is over 14 full seasons, so he was performing about 12 errors better per season. 476/637 = .74, so he made substantially fewer errors than he should have. This is not due to randomness either. So for every player like Tinker making substantially fewer errors than he should there are players at the other end making for more errors than they should as well.. This is a significant problem in the game and it needs to be corrected and it is not that hard to correct.

08-03-2018, 01:26 AM	#11
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	If you load players into the game do their innings match what you see in the database? They do not match what is on BBR. So something is amiss. And the catcher SB and CS do not import into the player stats before 1954. So what is the issue? I can't verify if the data is correct in the database without looking at it. What I see is what imports into the game, so I assume that's what is in there.

08-03-2018, 03:51 AM	#13
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	It appears that OOTP is just taking player GS*9 + ((G-GS/3) to come up with some sort of estimated innings for any season before 1954. This yields ridiculous sets of stats that are not even close. In OOTP Cap Anson imports with 10.2 innings at catcher in 1886, with 32 PO, 18 A, and 9 PB...that's quite a 10.2 innings of work behind the plate. He really had 58 innings at catcher that season. If Defensive Runs are in the DB from 1954 to present we could potentially try to use them. But do we have Defensive Runs Saved from 1871-1953? Translating DRS to +/- plays made can be tricky since we don't know exactly what their formulas are and how much they are valuing each play and if the values of a play made is different in different seasons. Basically 3 DRS = +4 defensive infield plays and 2 DRS = +4 OF plays. So if we have a SS with 12 DRS, we can say he made 16 additional plays. If he had 390 Assists, then we can say 390/(390-16) =1.0427 and from there give him Range and Arm ratings that are 4.27% better than average. The fielding ratings are not implemented correctly and are causing issues. Others do not notice them because we focus on batting an pitching stats. There is also a ridiculous penalty for playing a player out of position. Johnny Evers was used one season at SS by his team even though he does not have a rating at that position (I suspect his team simply did not have any other SS). He ended up with 120 errors at SS. Now I can understand him getting a range penalty for playing that position and not be able to make as many plays ad having a below average Def Eff, but for him to accumulate that many errors is absurd. The game is simply not using his Infield Error rating while applying a substantial penalty for being out of position.

08-03-2018, 01:01 PM	#15
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	Every innings value before 1954 is essentially wrong because they are using some formula instead of the actual data that exists. It has nothing to do with BBREF updating to more accurate innings. BBREF never had the absurd innings totals that you see in the game. They either had the real innings data for a player or they reported no data. This formula might be some sort of old formula the game used and when the new data was available it was not removed from the import process. They may be ale to fix this issue easily.

08-05-2018, 08:16 AM	#17
RMc All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,418	These are the saddest of possible stats, Tinker to Evers to Chance! Vying for accuracy, instead falling flat, Tinker to Evers to Chance! Ruthlessly pricking ol' Spritze's stat bubble What should be a putout is really a double Numbers are weighty, and nothing but trouble, Tinker to Evers to Chance! --Anon. __________________ "We're all behind our baseball team..."

09-16-2018, 07:22 PM	#19
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	1906 Gold Gloves Catchers CS +/- and PB +/- and (DRS) NL: Kling 19 and 7 and (16) AL: Sullivan 14 and 3 and (11) 1B Assists +/- and (DRS) NL: Tenney 20 and (15) AL: Jones 31 and (23) 2B Assists +/- and DP +/- and (DRS) NL: Huggins 34 and 17 and (34) AL: Lajoie 27 and 53 and (27) 3B Assists +/- and DP +/- and (DRS) NL: Devlin 38 and 3 and (29) AL: Tannehill 52 and 1 and (39) SS Assists +/- and DP +/- and (DRS) NL: Tinker 50 and 14 and (40) AL: Turner 63 and 31 and (52) LF PO +/- and A +/- and (DRS) NL: Shannon 24 and -5 and (10) AL: Stone 22 and -7 and (9) CF PO +/- and A +/- and (DRS) NL: Seymour 28 and -1 and (14) AL: Jones 31 and 2 and (19) RF PO +/- and A +/- and (DRS) NL: Dolan 25 and 6 and (17) AL: Niles 5 and 19 and (14) Last edited by Garlon; 09-19-2018 at 02:44 AM.

09-17-2018, 02:28 AM	#20
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,748	I finished making the calculations for pitcher defense. I then calculated the Defensive Runs Saved for every player. As per The Fielding Bible values, Catcher CS are worth 0.62 (I used this same value for PB as well), Infielder A are worth 0.75 and DP worth 0.15, Outfielder PO and A are both worth 0.56. In the NL The Cubs sum to 114 Defensive Runs Saved. Based on their FIP they should have saved 123. They were the best in MLB. The best in the American League was Cleveland with 68 Defensive Runs Saved, while their FIP suggests about 86. I have not factored in the value of Errors Saved as their is some overlap with the extra plays made. For example, a player might be + 5 plays made but also +5 Errors saved. So maybe the + 5 plays made are just the result of not making those errors. Though some errors occur when an put could not have been made anyway. Having said that, both the Cubs and Cleveland were about 61 Errors better than average. I think an Error is worth about 0.20-0.25 defensive runs saved using this method. So that would give each team about another 12 Defensive Runs Saved for the season. This puts them pretty much right at their expected value based on their FIP. Their combined FIP is 209 DRS, their calculated DRS combined is 182...if we give them about 24 DRS for the Errors saved that gives us 206 DRS vs the expected value of 209 for the season. The Cubs DRS of 114 is worth 16 wins since in the NL in 1906 it was about 7.3 runs per win that season. In the NL Boston had the worst DRS with -55 while their FIP expects them to have -40. In the AL Washington has -55 DRS while their FIP expects about -67. So these two worst teams have -110 DRS and their FIP suggests -107. Boston had -70 Errors and Washington had -19 Errors for the season.