Who's better at CF

So you are left with the expectation that the 2 will basically give up 9 more singles than the 1

And losing 9 outs, which translates into 13-14 more at-bats that you allow your opponent to have. In ATG, that could be costly!!!

At the risk of getting into too much nuance, what Petrosian/Last Druid nicely summarizes are the rules under advanced "regular" (face-to-face) SOM leagues. Under this set of rules, outfield errors are indeed, with a few exceptions, 2-based errors that happen instead of outs.

But under the SOM super-advanced computerized game, especially with option "more running decisions", an outfield error doesn't always translate into a 2-based errors. Errors are basically partitioned in three categories:

1) Errors in what would otherwise be outs, but they are not always 2-based
2) Throwing errors, which are typically 1-base error
3) Errors on def-X hits, so instead of allowing a single, the outfielder allows a single+error. The lower the range, the more errors occur to hits.

I call it a partition because at the end of the season, as a general rule, players don't end up with more errors than expected. Expected errors, typically, for an outfielder who does not get injured, is one more than his e-rating. (7 errors for a e6).

To illustrate, in a recent league that just finished, Speaker (e4) made 4 errors:
Throwing error, allows the hitter to take an extra base
Traditional 2-based error
Traditional 2-based error
A one-base error on cf-X

In this case, Speaker had two 2-based errors, one 1-based error, and one throwing error. He cost his team 3 outs, instead of 4. By far, the error that cost less, in this set, was the throwing error, which allowed the other team to have a man on third base instead of second base with two outs (a marginal value, when there is two outs, the weight there is only 0.1 run or so).

Anyway, I took a big turn only to express the idea that outfielder errors are not as costly as they appear in the traditional way of playing Strat. So this gives a further advantage to the cf-1e11 fielder. My rule of thumb is to give them the weight of 0.6 runs to outfielder errors, which is slightly more than half the value in the traditional way (which is 1.04 runs...0.78 for allowing the equivalent of a double plus 0.26 for losing an out). But in fact, it should really depend on the range of the outfielder. A cf-3 will allow many more errors that allow hitters to take extra bases than a cf-1 (so it's a case of the worse, the better).

As for arm value, my own ratings then has the following formulas to assess the defensive value of arms for cf:
((MAX(-4;arm)+4)^1,9*0,4-4)) to which I add a -0.3 runs for the players who have a -5 arms. This translates the follow way:

+4: +15 runs
+3: +10 runs
+2: +6 runs
+1: +3 runs
0: 0 run
-1:-2.5 runs
-2: -4 runs
-3: -5 runs
-4: -5.5 runs
-5: -5.8 runs

As you see, there is a non-linear relationship, it's much worse to have a +4 arm than to have a -4 arm. This is based on simming strat seasons on the computer which showed this effect pretty clearly.


So if I compare using the 1e11 (0) player, instead of the cf-2e6 (-4) fielder,taking Petrosian's assumption:

Events X relative weights
Saving 5 doubles: 4.5 X (0.78 + 0.26)= 4.7 runs
Saving 9 singles: 9 X (0.47+0.26)=6.6 runs
Allowing 5 errors: 5 X -0.6= -3 runs
Costing runs with the arm: -5.5 runs

Net result: you save 2.8 runs

For what is worth, this site:http://strattpc.com/star/2017_star/charts/defensive_values.htm also favors the better range.

To be honest, I,m not sure to what numbers these charts refer too. I do notice though that the cf-chart has a mistake, but which has almost no consequence. The chart starts at 1e2, and not at 1e0 (the value of 0.81 should applied to a 1e2 fielder, not a 1e0 fielder).

CF handles more OF plays than any other OF. A -4 arm is going to shut down many more opportunities to go 1st to 3rd, among other things (sacrifice flies, for instance). Hard to objectively measure outside specific leagues and player cards involved, but, in my own thousands of solo computer games, OF arm comes up a lot using super advanced rules. In the provided example, I'd rather have the 2e4 (-4) (which sounds like Amos Otis?) versus the 1e11 (Ellis Burks), especially of the strategy is to have strong arms all around the OF

I will weigh in.
I agree with Petrosian and Honestiago.
I did a small study on the importance of outfield arms by going over the 'play by play' feature start has a few years ago.
It told me that CF and RF arms are very important.
Petrosian has already listed a lot of reasons why a good arm is important.
Honestiago also brought up a good point on sac flies.
One of my last completed teams had 458 chances to take an extra base. So almost 3 times a game an outfielders arm was brought into play. I assume some of those times the batter, like the base runner took an extra base.

First of all, thanks, Marc for sharing all of your highly interesting research.

Next I guess I'll weigh in with my tentative views, which represent something of a big "It all depends."

If Marc's numbers are right, then there isn't a huge difference between the defensive value of the two sample CFs. 2.8 runs is not a lot, especially in the high-scoring atmospheres of almost any SOM league except maybe a few speciality leagues. The more high-scoring the league, the less those 2.8 runs might matter. Other factors, including relative hitting ability, relative cost, base running speed, park-fit, etc, might out-weigh the defensive differential.

At the same time, there can be pretty significant run differentials when one looks at extremes of OF arms in CF. A +3 arm (say Combs 1927) versus a similarly priced -4 Dom Dimaggio (1941) would be 15.5 runs. OTOH, there aint much difference between -2, -3, and -4, so other factors might well predominate. Otis is a 1-16 baserunner, Burks is a 1-17. Is that more or less important than the defensive differential? I have no idea!

One thing I've found as I've looked at base running opportunities in recent leagues is that they can vary a great deal by team. For example, in one recent 100M league, my own team had 256 base running opportunities, which was the lowest in the league. Mine was a power team, and even with the lowest Opps, it led the league in HR and runs scored. Another team, a small ball team, led the league in wins (109!) and had 444 base running Opps. It was 3rd in runs scored and easily #1 in pitching (a great combo).

Obviously, big HR teams are going to have fewer base running Opps. The team with 444 Opps had 60 HR and a higher OBP. My team had 322 HR and a higher SLG. A power team is going to clear the bases pretty often with a ball into the stands, whereas the small ball team is going to live and die on taking the extra base.

One takeaway might be that in a division or league with a lot of speed and not much power, OF arms would be at a premium. But they are less important the more the rival clubs depend on power. Similarly (and this has long been a baseball truism), your team speed matters less if you have a lot of power. It matters more, the less power you have.

This seems to go with Petro's point that in the higher caps, where there is dominant power, OF arms may matter less, though they are never negligible.

I said it in earlier post, but just to reiterate:

Code: Select all

+4: +15 runs
+3: +10 runs
+2: +6 runs
+1: +3 runs
0: 0 run
-1:-2.5 runs
-2: -4 runs
-3: -5 runs
-4: -5.5 runs
-5: -5.8 runs

This table holds only in a league where the average runner ability is 1-12/1-13, equally balanced with 1-17 and 1-8/1-9 runners. In a pre-1920 league where the average runner is 1-15, 1-16, this scale doesn't hold. In fact the opposite occurs: the gap between +4 and +2 become negligeable, and the gap between -3 and -5 widens.

The reason is simple. You can't be go 1-21 or 1-23!! Maximum a runner can go actually, after all adjustments, is 1-19. SOM rules are to the effect that there is always a chance to get an out, be it only the 20 roll. But in fact, from my experience of simming SOM on computer, the outfielder doesn't try to get the runner out if, after all adjustments,, the runner is safe 1-17 or better. So for runners who are 1-15 and better, who are not held at second base (+1), there is virtually no difference between a +1 arm and a +4 arm---runners will end up with a 1-17 safe opportunity in all cases and they will come in and score the run without eliciting a throw.

The reverse is true on the other end. With plenty of 1-12 runners (or worse), the impact of having a -5 arm vs, say, -2 arm gets more and more insignificant. Even when not held (+1), the runner will not be sent on a 1-9 safe opportunity, let alone 1-6. The computer starts sending the runner only when safe chances get over 12/13/14 (depending on the aggressiveness), so, with such runners, arms become vulnerable to be run upon at 0, +1, +2 and worse.

But with plenty of 1-16 runners or better, then the -5 arm does have a greater impact. Computer will not feel safe to send the runner on a -5 amr, except with 2 outs (+2), when not held (+1), and even then (1-14 after all adjustments), there is still a 30% chance of getting an out.

One of my last completed teams had 458 chances to take an extra base. So almost 3 times a game an outfielders arm was brought into play.

I would say that 450+ is above average, in one recent league, whose league ERA was respectable (low 5.00), I saw an average of 380 opportunities.

But even at 450, I would NOT imply that outfielders arm come into play 3 times per game. Again, it depends on the runners ratings. A runner who is 1-9, and who is held at first base (-1), with less than 2 outs, on a single in left field (-2) he's not going anywhere beyond second base, even with a +7 arm. There are also cases where HAL is not sending the runner, even with good numbers (for example, when bases get full with nobody out). It still counts as an opportunity, even though Hal didn't take it. Finally, 2 runners can be sent to run on the same play: the runner on second can be sent home, and with the throw at home plate, and the hitter can reach for second base, with the throw being cut off. Obviously the outfielder makes only one throw, even though the computer will register 2 opportunities.

And of course, the 450 chances are shared among 3 outfielders, with the centerfielder most solicited. With all the exclusions I mention, no outfielder has an impact more than once a game, in my humble opinion.

Fair points Marc.
I never even considered there could be 2 opportunities to run for the computer to register on the same play. (you learn something everyday)
However most times that situation happens it supports having a better arm so it doesn't happen. I assume with 2 opportunities on the same play most results for the defensive team are bad. If the lead runner is thrown out, which is easy to track in the Sim Misc, it's great for the defensive team. But since we know a far greater number of times the lead runner beats the throw, the runners behind in your scenario get a free base. If the throw was cut off I don't believe the runner would get credit for an opportunity.
I also have seen lots of times where baserunners are at 1st and 2nd with a single being hit and the end result being a run scored with runners ending up at 2nd and 3rd. I guess the computer would register 3 opportunities.

Good topic.

I never even considered there could be 2 opportunities to run for the computer to register on the same play. (you learn something everyday)...
I also have seen lots of times where baserunners are at 1st and 2nd with a single being hit and the end result being a run scored with runners ending up at 2nd and 3rd. I guess the computer would register 3 opportunities.

No, by rule, it's only considered as 2 opportunities. Only the lead runner and the trail runner (or the hitter, in case there is only one runner on base) are considered when applying the rule. See bold below:

13.623 If the offensive manager has decided to send the runner
home and let the trail runner(s) try to advance, then the defensive
manager must choose one of two options:
A. Let the throw go through to home. Roll the 20-sided die
to determine whether the runner is safe or out. The trail runner(s)
advance an extra base.
B. Cut off the throw and attempt to throw out the lead trail
runner. Roll the 20-sided die to determine whether the lead trail runner
is safe. The last trail runner, if any, automatically advances. The
run automatically scores, even if the trail runner is out for the third
out of the inning

Au automatic advance is not considered as an opportunity, just like a runner advancing from first to third on an unalterned single** is not added up in the opportunity column.

Here is another point of view...which suggests having a zero arm might cost more relative to a negative arm than I anticipated:

With regard to the throwing arm strength here’s what I came up with many, many years ago. Snider’s -2 arm has a defensive value of -1.5 expected runs per 700 PA. Averill’s 0 arm results in +7.7 runs per 700 PA or 9.2 runs more than the Duke’s per season. Center fielders arms come into play twice that of a left or right fielder thus have greater impact.
When including errors Averill’s total defensive difference is 13.2 expected runs a season.
When evaluating arm strength value I like to look at the Leagues speed and their likelihood of testing arms.
So take this for what it is worth and since it is free………

Maxie

Marc, thanks for all of this great info. I've never simmed SOM on a computer, so your experience there is very helpful, and I do see how in a running league those -4 or -5 arms could make a real difference.

What you're saying squares with my experience in the online game. Players who are 1-15 or better get sent pretty often and make it a high percentage of the time. I guess HAL sends them when the pluses are in their favor and hold when they are not. In a two out situation with everything else neutral a 1-15 would become a 1-17, and the same with a single to RF, runner on first, and a 0 arm in RF.

It seems like 1-14 is a sort of cutoff point. These players get sent pretty often--not as much as 1-15s-- and make it most of the time, but a little less.

But with runners at 1-13 and below, there appears to be a real drop off in how often runners get sent, and also in how often they make it. Does that square with your experience? Of course, the 1-9s hardly go at all, and when they do, they rarely make it.

Is it your experience that the aggressiveness setting matters much at all? I've played around with it a bit and I'm not sure I see much difference between one setting and another, but I may be wrong. [I hope you don't mind all of these questions! And thanks for your answers.]

A 2 (-4) e6 or a 1 (0) e11?

In CF 2e0 is equivalent to 1e8.....it is a linear translation.......so a 2e6 = 1e14. IMO each (-1) in cf is worth about 2 errors......so in my mind a 2(-4)e6 = 1(0)e8.......so I like the 2(-4)e6 slightly better......but at this point they are so close I would go for the better bat to make the final decision for me.