Range vs. Fld % and Players with Low Fld %

sebastian0622 · 06-21-2005, 07:39 PM

I know this sounds like a dumb question, but which decides how many errors a player will make? I ask this because, while I assume fielding percentage determines this (after all, that's what it measures), it seems to me that range in OOTP correlates to fielding percentage a lot. For instance, Mike Cuddyer in the latest instance has a range of 45 at 2B but a terrible fielding percentage of .954. Last year, in 225 defensive innings there (in BtP ), he had a fld % of .982 (2 errors). I know, I know, sample size...but I believe that I see this often.

I'm asking because I need to know if Cuddyer will be an effective defensive 2B in the future. So, where do you stand on playing low fld % players with adequate ranges? Have they been successful?

Randall · 06-21-2005, 08:08 PM

Basically it boils down to with a large enough sample size, a player will generally have a career fld% around his talent...
So if your guy with a .954 flD had a year of .982, I would expect that the law of averages will apply, and he won't repeat that again...

Range is more to do with getting to balls than errors... Ozzie Smith got to many balls that no other SS could get to. He saved his team countless hits over his career. Is there a simple way to quantify that, probably not. But he ment alot to his team and their pitching staff...

Randall · 06-21-2005, 08:10 PM

The general rule i go by is 2B, SS and CF need to have 70 range and above average fld% for their era...

3B and corner OF need to have 50ish range, and average fld%

1B and C, range I ignore, i just want good fld%

This is of course depends on their bat... If a guy can hit like Mike Piazza, I might be willing to overlook a passed ball now and again.

sebastian0622 · 06-21-2005, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randall

Basically it boils down to with a large enough sample size, a player will generally have a career fld% around his talent...
So if your guy with a .954 flD had a year of .982, I would expect that the law of averages will apply, and he won't repeat that again...

Range is more to do with getting to balls than errors... Ozzie Smith got to many balls that no other SS could get to. He saved his team countless hits over his career. Is there a simple way to quantify that, probably not. But he ment alot to his team and their pitching staff...

Well I understand all of that. I think I should have explained a little better:

I think that, in OOTP, range rating might impact fielding percentage. Has anyone done a study on this? Does anyone else suspect the same thing?

gmo · 06-21-2005, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

I think that, in OOTP, range rating might impact fielding percentage. Has anyone done a study on this? Does anyone else suspect the same thing?

I suppose you might explain it that with more range a guy will get to more balls and make errors more likely because he is (partially) making tougher plays. But I do not think that happens in the game. I think the fielding percentage is just the automatic rating pulled to see whether a guy makes the play.

A study seems easy to setup, but it would probably need a pretty good run to build up a big enough set of data to feel the conclusions are really strong.

sporr · 06-21-2005, 11:14 PM

Yes,

Range = will the player get to the ball
F% = will the player field it cleanly once he gets to it

Dan Theman · 06-21-2005, 11:25 PM

To throw a kink into a formula I once tried to put together, have you ever noticed that players with a 1.000 glove still committed errors? There seems to be another factor (more than likely position) which has an impact on a player's chance of committing an error. I'd never thought about it being range, but I suppose that's always a possibilty.

gmo · 06-22-2005, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Theman

...1.000 glove still committed errors...

Huh, I do not remember ever seeing that in the game, a perfect fielding percentage. I guess you could input it, but I might have thought you would not be able to go above .999 or that typing in 1.000 would result in that lower value.

Maybe similarly the game could read for calculation purposes 1.000 as something less to keep from having errorless players.

jarmenia · 06-22-2005, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Well I understand all of that. I think I should have explained a little better:

I think that, in OOTP, range rating might impact fielding percentage. Has anyone done a study on this? Does anyone else suspect the same thing?

My guess would be range gives you the chance to make an error / putout where as fielding percentage determines if you make an error or putout.

If you look at some of the modern fielders, they guys with better range tend to have more errors. Compare David Eckstein to an Edgar Renteria for example.

John

sporr · 06-22-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmo

Huh, I do not remember ever seeing that in the game, a perfect fielding percentage. I guess you could input it, but I might have thought you would not be able to go above .999 or that typing in 1.000 would result in that lower value.

Maybe similarly the game could read for calculation purposes 1.000 as something less to keep from having errorless players.

I think it may happen with imported pitchers with career stats or players with limited playing time at certain positions imported. Can't remember if the game will create any of these guys rarely.

fhomess · 06-22-2005, 12:53 PM

I've seen guys with a .982 fielding percentage go an entire season without making an error. Shocking!

Seriously, the game results are within the realm of chance.

As far as whether or not the game specifically correlates range to fielding percentage, I don't think so. I've seen low range guys drastically underperform their fld% as well as over perform it. It just seems to be random.

Davey Eckstein · 06-22-2005, 12:58 PM

Which brings me to my question:

Does the arm rating effect strength and accuracy, or just strength? It would make sense if it only effected strength, and Fld % effected accuracy, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know?

06-21-2005, 07:39 PM	#1
sebastian0622 Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,465	Range vs. Fld % and Players with Low Fld % I know this sounds like a dumb question, but which decides how many errors a player will make? I ask this because, while I assume fielding percentage determines this (after all, that's what it measures), it seems to me that range in OOTP correlates to fielding percentage a lot. For instance, Mike Cuddyer in the latest instance has a range of 45 at 2B but a terrible fielding percentage of .954. Last year, in 225 defensive innings there (in BtP ), he had a fld % of .982 (2 errors). I know, I know, sample size...but I believe that I see this often. I'm asking because I need to know if Cuddyer will be an effective defensive 2B in the future. So, where do you stand on playing low fld % players with adequate ranges? Have they been successful?

06-21-2005, 08:08 PM	#2
Randall Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: VA Posts: 321	Basically it boils down to with a large enough sample size, a player will generally have a career fld% around his talent... So if your guy with a .954 flD had a year of .982, I would expect that the law of averages will apply, and he won't repeat that again... Range is more to do with getting to balls than errors... Ozzie Smith got to many balls that no other SS could get to. He saved his team countless hits over his career. Is there a simple way to quantify that, probably not. But he ment alot to his team and their pitching staff... __________________ Randall FORT - Atlanta Braves CPL - Pittsburg Pirates Formerly NABL - Philadelphia Phillies Formerly GMC - Vasto Rangers Formerly NBA - Atlanta Braves - 1973 Champ Formerly ThePBL - Anaheim Angels - 1975 Champ

06-21-2005, 08:10 PM	#3
Randall Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: VA Posts: 321	The general rule i go by is 2B, SS and CF need to have 70 range and above average fld% for their era... 3B and corner OF need to have 50ish range, and average fld% 1B and C, range I ignore, i just want good fld% This is of course depends on their bat... If a guy can hit like Mike Piazza, I might be willing to overlook a passed ball now and again. __________________ Randall FORT - Atlanta Braves CPL - Pittsburg Pirates Formerly NABL - Philadelphia Phillies Formerly GMC - Vasto Rangers Formerly NBA - Atlanta Braves - 1973 Champ Formerly ThePBL - Anaheim Angels - 1975 Champ

06-21-2005, 11:14 PM	#6
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	Yes, Range = will the player get to the ball F% = will the player field it cleanly once he gets to it

06-22-2005, 12:53 PM	#11
fhomess Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,644	I've seen guys with a .982 fielding percentage go an entire season without making an error. Shocking! Seriously, the game results are within the realm of chance. As far as whether or not the game specifically correlates range to fielding percentage, I don't think so. I've seen low range guys drastically underperform their fld% as well as over perform it. It just seems to be random.

06-22-2005, 12:58 PM	#12
Davey Eckstein Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Laundry Barn Favorite food: Bran flakes. Posts: 1,283	Which brings me to my question: Does the arm rating effect strength and accuracy, or just strength? It would make sense if it only effected strength, and Fld % effected accuracy, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know?