- Posts: 1906
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:13 pm
Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:36 pm
Uh, no. I've struggled for a few years with Tom Seaver's '69 and '71 cards and also Gooden's '85 card especially compared to Hershiser of that year (the ballpark effects actually favored Hershiser significantly). But more on that later.
Today I was looking at Ed Kranepool's 1971 card. He is listed as a 3e17 at first base where he played 108 games (88 complete games) and logged 906 innings. That year he was the Mets' starting first baseman vs righties. Interestingly, Kranepool had the best fielding pct. of any qualifying NL first baseman that year. He made two errors at first base and had a .998 fielding pct. Compare this to Gold Glove winning Wes Parker who logged 1148 innings at first that year and made five errors with a .996 fielding pct. My point, in including Parker, is to show that Kranepool would have still made less than three errors (by extrapolation) had he played a full season, as did Parker, at first base.
So, perhaps SOM would be so good as to explain how Kranepool, who should be no more than an e3, is made an e17 (in a superadvanced season no less).
Now I know that the assignment of defensive ratings is done by committee at SOM, at least for the recent seasons. But unlike defensive ratings, e-ratings are not subjective assessments.
Looks like Strat, not Kranepool, dropped the ball here.
Today I was looking at Ed Kranepool's 1971 card. He is listed as a 3e17 at first base where he played 108 games (88 complete games) and logged 906 innings. That year he was the Mets' starting first baseman vs righties. Interestingly, Kranepool had the best fielding pct. of any qualifying NL first baseman that year. He made two errors at first base and had a .998 fielding pct. Compare this to Gold Glove winning Wes Parker who logged 1148 innings at first that year and made five errors with a .996 fielding pct. My point, in including Parker, is to show that Kranepool would have still made less than three errors (by extrapolation) had he played a full season, as did Parker, at first base.
So, perhaps SOM would be so good as to explain how Kranepool, who should be no more than an e3, is made an e17 (in a superadvanced season no less).
Now I know that the assignment of defensive ratings is done by committee at SOM, at least for the recent seasons. But unlike defensive ratings, e-ratings are not subjective assessments.
Looks like Strat, not Kranepool, dropped the ball here.
Last edited by The Last Druid on Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Personally I think Kranepool was probably a 4 in range. But they still totally blew the e-rating for that card.