Who are next years 1s

[RICHARDMILTER]

What players will be 1s in the field this year? Which players have fallen off defensively? Which players have improved defensively? Which players are under-rated by Strat? And lastly which players have been over-rated by Strat?

I was just reading ,"Strat-O-Matic Fanatics", and it says that the real Hal(Richman) does take Gold Gloves into account, but only as a small part of the equation. He relies on many,many scouts.


Seeing a lot of Cleveland Indians games I was shocked Franklin Guiterez was a 1 in RF this last season. He had all the hype of a 1,...but not the experience or range of one. Now Asdrubal Cabrerra may be a 1 at 2B, and a 1, or a 2 at SS. Although he had limited action at SS. There might not be any 1s at SS this year in the A.L.

Any opinions out there are greatly appreciated.

[AeroDave10]

I'll post some predictions on 1s in the next day or two, but one thing that really seems to confuse me is how fielding is treated compared to hitting and pitching. Let's forget about pitching for a moment because pitchers' fielding is not very relevant to most people. It appears that cards are made to attempt to accurately reflect a player's actual respective hitting or pitching stats FOR THAT YEAR. However, when it comes to defense, this seems to be awarded based on reputation and performance over a number of years :shock: This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!!!

If a guy is going to get a new card every year based on changes in offensive production, wouldn't it only make sense that his defensive performance could be just as variable? For example, I think everyone knows that it is total BS that Troy Tulowitzki was given a "2" rating when he clearly displayed better range than any SS in the majors last year, while Omar Vizquel, who I absolutely adore because of his days in Cleveland, was awarded a "1" rating though he does not have the elite range he once possessed. I don't mind if SOM is going to create ratings based on scouting rather than pure statistics, but I urge them to please consider defense on a year to year basis, not over the span of one's career.


On a slightly related matter, I think steal ratings should be rated more subjective. Guys who are good base stealers but simply choose not to steal bases because it's not part of their team's philosophy or because of limited playing time or some other reason should still have high steal ratings. Playing defense is not optional (though some play like it is, Manny :lol: ), stealing bases is definitely optional.

[RICHARDMILTER]

AeroDave,
You know I almost always agree with you, and always appreciate your advice, but in this one instance I kind of disagree. Strat does not go on reputation(despite Franklin Gut being a 1 in RF). They really, really do try to get it right. When Jeter was getting all those gold gloves, they(SOM) did not give him a 1. Same with Abreu! You are correct, that it is MUCH, MUCH more subjective, and in a game where stats are king. But they really do go by what they(and their scouts) see, not by the hype. That is my three cents. They are usually ahead of the curve either downgrading a guy, or upgrading a guy defensively.

[Jake Squid]

Pretty much all of the advanced defensive metrics rate Gutierrez extremely high. If you go by those metrics, Gutierrez, even with his limited playing time, saved more runs over the last 3 seasons than any other corner outfielder.

If I remember correctly, anyway.

[keyzick]

Actually, I kind of doubt SOM has "scouts"...and if they do, it seems like a waste of money. With all the stats and daata available at the touch of the button, as well as TV packages, etc...why in the world would they waste money on scouts?

[Stoney18]

Key, stats only get you so far. Braun had no errors. Burrell only had 2.

Are they good fielders? Here's a post on Range Factor in stranfan forum

[quote:7b9c74a2b0]Why Range Factor is BS, Part 1: RF=(PO+A/innings). If your pitcher strikes out 14, all your fielders only have less than half the range compared to if your pitchers struck out 0. Except your pitcher and catcher, who have Great Range. This is true, because the formula tells us so.

Why Range Factor is BS, Part 2: If your pitcher generates 20 groundouts, your outfielders ranges all suck. If your pitcher generates 20 flyouts, your infielders ranges all suck. This is also true, because the formula tells us it is.

Why Range Factor is BS, Part 3: What's the difference between climbing the wall and stealing a homerun, or just standing there in your tracks and having a routine pop fly fall into your glove? "Exactly," says the formula that tells us all about range, "what's the difference?"[/quote:7b9c74a2b0]

[Stoney18]

Here's some thoughts on Zone Rating

[quote:1031224287]Why Zone Rating is BS for infielders: ZR=OUTS/(GROUND BALLS IN ZONE + GROUND BALLS OUT OF ZONE IF THE PLAY IS MADE). Snag a screaming liner two steps to your left? Sorry, doesn't count towards your ZR. It's not a groundball. Duck out of the way of a liner at your chest? Good news! Doesn't count against your ZR, it's not a groundball! Remember Derek Jeter diving into the 2nd row after that popup? Well forget it. The formula says it had nothing to do with his range, because it wasn't a ground ball.


Why Zone Rating is BS for outfielders Part 1: Climbing the fence and stealing a homerun counts exactly as much as standing in your tracks while a lazy fly drops into your glove. Well, maybe less (see "Why ZR is BS for outfielders Pt 2," below)

Why Zone Rating is BS for outfielders Part 2, a Thought Problem: 5 lazy flyballs are hit straight at the Banana Slugs CF (in zone), and 1 is hit into the left-center field gap (out of zone). He catches all 5 lazy flyballs, and gives up a triple on the gapper.

5 more flyballs are hit straight at the Spitfires CF (in zone), and 1 is hit into the left-center field gap (out of zone). He catches 4 of the lazy flyballs, makes a great diving stab on the gapper for an out, but gives up a single on the 5th lazy fly.



Who has the better range factor?


Banana Slugs: 5 plays made/ 5 balls in zone = 1.00 ZR (remember, the ball out of zone doesn't count against the denominator if the play is not made)

Spitfires: 5 plays made / (5 balls in zone + 1 ball out of zone) = .833 ZR



So there you have it. The same number of chances, the same number of plays made, but different Zone Ratings.

But wait, there's more! The player who made the play that required more range gets the lower range rating.

Why? Because the Zone Rating formula tells us that it's so. [/quote:1031224287]


I think there has to be some judgement in the process not just stats.

FYI, I don't know who the original poster of this info was to give them appropriate credit.

[AeroDave10]

I think we will have to agree to disagree, Richard, because the guys that they are giving 1s to do not clearly make sense based on some of the defensive statistics available. There aren't many, but one that routinely shows up and should logically be linked to being a 1 is "Range Factor". While it wasn't well-received by at least SOM person in an above post, I think it does have some merit. There shouldn't be cutoffs, but I don't think that the range number SOM hands out should be too far from where that guy among his peers at that position. Below I will list the classified 1s and their range factors at that position (according to ESPN.com), and anyone else who played a reasonable number of games and had greater than or equal to the same ranger factor:

[b:a6e1ebba82][u:a6e1ebba82]SS[/u:a6e1ebba82][/b:a6e1ebba82]
Omar Vizquel (1e10) 4.74
Orlando Cabrera (1e12) 4.42
Jimmy Rollins (1e12) 4.41
John McDonald (1e14) 4.98

Troy Tulowitzki (2e12) 5.39
Rafael Furcal (2e23) 4.96
Jack Wilson (2e14) 4.96
Adam Everett (2e22) 4.93
Juan Uribe (2e19) 4.74
Jhonny Peralta (3e21) 4.68
Jason Bartlett (3e31) 4.67
Yuniesky Betancourt (2e25) 4.66
Michael Young (3e21) 4.58
Bobby Crosby (3e25) 4.57
Tony Pena Jr (2e26) 4.56
David Eckstein (3e30) 4.52


I'll post this for other positions later tonight.

[STEVEPONEDAL]

Alexi Ramirez CHW at 2B

sponedal

[AeroDave10]

[quote:e174ed3847="sponedal"]Alexi Ramirez CHW at 2B

sponedal[/quote:e174ed3847]

That's why they have an E rating, too. Look at the ATG set. There are an unbelievable number of 1s in that set compared to the number in the 2007 set, even after factoring in the quantity of players. At least they are balanced by having a good number of 1e25 or 1e30 players in the middle infield and 1e10 to 1e15 outfielders.