2009 STRATOMATIC DEFENSIVE RATINGS ARE HERE...

[visick]

http://strat-o-maticmedia.com/community/announcements/2009-baseball-range-ratings-preview

[i:b8060740cd]Edit by bernieh: Socalchiro, I hope you don't mind I'm replacing your link with a link to SOM's site, which has more info and an additional link to the ratings in Excel format. Thanks for your original post![/i:b8060740cd]

[maligned]

These ratings are the most logical I've seen them. With the proliferation of fielding data over the past few years, some of Hal's ratings have seemed a bit out of touch. These ratings are not. They clearly reflect up-to-date data. A couple examples would be the documented improvements of Kinsler and Hanley Ramirez resulting in 2s for both of them.
I still disagree with a couple ratings (Chase Utley still not a 1 is sad; Kouzmanoff a 2 at 3rd base...i know he had no errors, but he is not a 2 range), but all in all I think the general opinion of those that like to research fielding will be much more satisfied than in the past.

[AeroDave10]

I completely agree, maligned. The fielding ratings seem to match up a little bit better with the available defensive metrics (UZR, etc.), with a few exceptions. However, a few guys here and there is not a big deal.

Kouzmanoff(3) should probably get a 3.
Utley(2) should be a 1.
Markakis(1) should be a 2 or 3 and Nelson Cruz(2) should be a 1.
Cameron(2) and Upton(2) should be 1s and Taveras(3) and Hunter(1) should be 2s.
Juan Rivera(3) should be a 2.

Hopefully some of these things will get corrected before the final versions since they are supposedly "subject to change", but I doubt that will happen.

[geekor]

For ease of people, the 1's

C: Mauer, R Martin, Y Molina, Varitek
1B: Teixeira, Youkilis, Kotchman, Pujols, Ad Gonzalez
2B: Pedroia, O Hudson, A Hill
3B: Beltre, Figgins, Longoria, Rolen, Zimmerman
SS: Andrus, Bartlett, J Wilson, Rollins, Tulowitzki
LF: N Morgan, C Crawford, D Span
CF: A Jones, F Gutierrez, C Gomez, M Kemp, N Morgan, T Hunter, M Bourn
RF: I Suzuki, Markakis, R Sweeney

[TomSiebert]

Didn't Torii Hunter win yet ANOTHER gold glove this year? I think sticking with a 1 for him is A-OK.

tws

[Ninersphan]

[quote:99b989c033="AeroDave10"]I completely agree, maligned. The fielding ratings seem to match up a little bit better with the available defensive metrics (UZR, etc.), with a few exceptions. However, a few guys here and there is not a big deal.

Kouzmanoff(3) should probably get a 3.
Utley(2) should be a 1.
Markakis(1) should be a 2 or 3 and Nelson Cruz(2) should be a 1.
Cameron(2) and Upton(2) should be 1s and Taveras(3) and Hunter(1) should be 2s.
Juan Rivera(3) should be a 2.

Hopefully some of these things will get corrected before the final versions since they are supposedly "subject to change", but I doubt that will happen.[/quote:99b989c033]

I'd add Ellsbury as a 1 to the list but he didn't get it last year either.

[bernieh]

Maligned, looks like your observation is dead on. From [url=http://strat-o-maticmedia.com/community/announcements/a-fresh-look-1-rated-middle-infielders]this short article on SOM's site[/url]:

[i:b381b49fd9]"As always throughout our history, we respect and give heavy weight to the Gold Glove voting when determining the range ratings," Strat-O-Matic President Hal Richman explained. "But we have reached the point where the wider array of additional defensive information makes the Gold Gloves one of several valuable tools, not the end-all.

"Once, the Gold-Glove voting was the trump card. Today it’s an important piece of the puzzle."[/i:b381b49fd9]

[Palmtana]

[quote:b375a0c04f="maligned"]With the proliferation of fielding data over the past few years, some of Hal's ratings have seemed a bit out of touch. These ratings are not. They clearly reflect up-to-date data......[/quote:b375a0c04f]


Hal has been using fielding data for a loooong time. This is from an interview with Steve Barkan (who has worked at the mothership for years) in 2003:

[quote:b375a0c04f]We have 12 criteria for determining a player’s range ability. 9 of these methods involve formulas.[/quote:b375a0c04f]



Unrelated, but historically of interest, I came across an interview with Hal Richman at [url=http://www.somworld.com/]Somworld[/url] from 1999.


[quote:b375a0c04f]GA - The question I seem to be the most interested in is will there be Internet Play in the near future?

HR - Last year, at the Convention in Cleveland (Editor's Note: the convention was held in Canton-Akron, not Cleveland), I said that there would be Internet play soon. I was in negotiation for a year. The deal fell through. I'm looking for a strong website and partner. I'm hoping to be able to announce something in the next couple of weeks.

GA - When you say website and partner, what are you talking about?

HR - Its going to be a separate product. This will be on the Internet only. You can play on the web without having to purchase the game from us. Right now, I'm in negotiations with two well-known companies, but due to the sensitivity of the talks, I am unable to tell you more about them.
[/quote:b375a0c04f]

I wonder who the other contender was.

[maligned]

I know he's been using data, but his ratings have not reflected fielding bible/UZR, etc. nearly as closely in the past.

[msheaf1]

[quote:927cfb44d4="AeroDave10"]I completely agree, maligned. The fielding ratings seem to match up a little bit better with the available defensive metrics (UZR, etc.), with a few exceptions. However, a few guys here and there is not a big deal.

Kouzmanoff(3) should probably get a 3.
Utley(2) should be a 1.
Markakis(1) should be a 2 or 3 and Nelson Cruz(2) should be a 1.
Cameron(2) and Upton(2) should be 1s and Taveras(3) and Hunter(1) should be 2s.
Juan Rivera(3) should be a 2.

Hopefully some of these things will get corrected before the final versions since they are supposedly "subject to change", but I doubt that will happen.[/quote:927cfb44d4]

I have to disagree on Nelson Cruz (assuming we are talking the Texas outfielder). Living 10 minutes from park I see lots of games and he takes some of the worst routes to balls I have ever seen. It's not all the time but often enough that there is no way he is a 1, a two maybe even a little generous. He is such a weird fielder he almost needs another die roll before the X chance. 1-5 he's a 1, 6-10 he's a 2 etc. :lol: