What does SOM use to determine ranges?

[JUSTINPREYER]

Do we have any idea what SOM uses to determine the ranges of all the players and positions? Is it something resembling the range factor used at ESPN? Or UZR? PMR? Any ideas? Anything that seems to generally match trends, maybe not particular players?

I'm trying to predict what some ranges will be based off of the 2005 season. The errors are easy. :) I can't seem to find any correlation to some of the more standard reported stats like putouts per inning or putouts + assists per inning or even total chances per inning.

Just curious.

[MARCPELLETIER]

In the past, what influenced most Strat is the individual account of the defensive abilities by journalists. So by listening carefully mainstream journalists, you could guess a bit the defensive ratings. Of course, with a few exceptions, gold glove were assured of being rated 1. But my guess is that Strat has incorporated some of the defensive stats by now.

[bleacher_creature]

You could Google this topic and find some info I'm sure.

I have read that they DO use some stats (e's of course), but also scouting reports!

Defensive ratings (including outfielder's arms) might be the #1 reason to us SOM over Diamond Mind and other simulators. Defensive evaluations ARE subjective, and any stats only method would be inferior.

I believe SOM has proven to be fair and accurate over a long period of time with their defensive ratings.

[JUSTINPREYER]

One thing I know is that gold gloves almost always merit a range of 1, but not always. Wasn't Jeter a gold glove last year and he was a 2 in SOM. Granted there weren't any 1's at SS in the AL.

[Neil Toomey]

Basically Hal Richman assigns certain Strat employees to keep scouting reports of various journalist's / broadcaster opinions that have followed a player all year. They consider errors, but they actually decide by shuting themselves away in a room at the Strat offices around this time of year. They hash out their findings and brainstorm an appropriate rating. It also involves using certain players as benchmarks. Usually gold glovers do get a "1" by default, but the difference between a "2" and a "3", or a "3" and "4" can be quite subjective.

[bkoron]

It's completely subjective (= idiotic).

The problem with assigning a guy to watch a fielder all year (if that is indeed with Hal does) is the guy doesn't get to watch all the OTHER fielders out there.

Defensive statistics are a mess, no doubt. Range factors have to be adjusted for K propensity of pitching staff, and even LH/RH makeup of the staff. One year when the Senators had all LHS, Ed Yost led the league in range at 3B. The next year, when they had a normal breakdown of RHS and LHS, Yost's range was league average. Did he suddenly get worse? Of course not; he just had fewer balls hit to him.

But Zone Ratings are pretty darn good, and Hal Richman just refuses to use them.

Anybody who pegs his system to the Golden Glove awards is being ridiculous. Remember when Palmeiro won the Gold Glove and he played about 20 games at first base?

8)

[milezd]

[quote:c6effaa518="bkoron"]It's completely subjective (= idiotic).[/quote:c6effaa518]

bingo!

gold glove = popularity contest

SOM ratings = popularity contest (see ARods SS rating this year)

it should use the range factor and stats and such which are compiled by MLB

[JUSTINPREYER]

Well, I guess that's my answer. It's subjective. So, if I'm trying to figure out what some ratings will be next year, I should use just two rules: a) if they got a gold glove and they're not an AL SS, then they will be a 1 and b) the rest is subjective and relies on scouts so I shouldn't worry with it. :)

Fair enough. Stupid but fair enough.

[MARCPELLETIER]

Gold glove doesn't necessary guarantee a 1-rating. It depends on the error rate, and on the arm (for of/catcher). I don't expect, for example, Abreu becoming a 1. He will probably keep his excellent arm rating, and he had only 4 errors. So, I think we can expect rf-2e4 (-3).

Of course, the 2-range might not reflect accurately his zone rating or range factor stats, but given all the problems we know about zone rating and range factors, problems too well known in the sabermetrics community, I am sure no one is insane enough to rely on them uniquely. After all, if we had followed zone rating stats, Jose Valentin would have won the gold glove last year (yeah, yeah, that ss-3e28 defender so "defensively good" that he couldn't find a starting job in any team this season despite being an adequate hitter), and both Cliff Floyd and Mark Grudzielanek would have won gold gloves this year.

[bkoron]

The problems with Range Factor are well known. What are the problems with Zone Ratings?

8)