SOM Sneak Peak ratings for new cards!!!

Range ratings are always problematic---you can't watch every game, and the guys that rate these players have to make guesses--I remember Joe Morgan was a 3 Range at 2b for almost all his years in Houston--maybe a 2 in 71--even though he was always talked up as being a top notch defender by the radio broadcast teams (not much TV back then).

Houston was not a well watched team, and a perianal 2nd division team-- he came to Cincinnati and all the sudden he was a gold glover and a 1 fielder several years in a row--even though he was in his 30's and on the way down speed wise.

He certainly hit better in Cincinnati as he came to a club that could win, but I don't think his defense was better than it was in Houston after he had a couple of years in the league.

I'm a season ticket holder for the Padres and I can tell you that giving Jedd Gyorko a 4 at 2B is laughably wrong. I saw that guy range into shallow RF on several occasions. He made a few sloppy errors, but his range is not the problem.

He was a rookie in a small market. Strat bases fielding rating as much on reputation as actual performance. It usually takes a few years of excellence to get good ratings. Gentry for example on the Rangers got a 2 even though there are few who cover as much ground as he does. And Martin only a 3 even though his range is also excellent. Gentry will never get the rating he deserves unless Oakland plays him every day. And Martin may get the rating he deserves next year after he starts every day for the Rangers. Rookies and part time players rarely get good ratings.

Strat is a great game but it needs to do some catching up when it comes to fielding. There was a time when reputation was the biggest thing they had to go on. But there are so many defensive metrics these days that they really need to do something to revamp their defensive model.

If I read it correctly The Orioles have four 1s. Hardy, Jones, Weiters and Machado.

What is the record for most on one team? Anyone recall the most the Big Red Machine had in a season? (Concepcion,Geronimo,Bench,Morgan and Rose)

I think you got it with Cincinnati for the 70's anyway--all those you listed were 1's in 73 and maybe 74--but I think Rose moved to 3rd (from LF) in 75--I didn't play from about 78 till this year--so I have no clue for all those intervening years.

There are a couple other factors that you have to keep in mind when you consider what Strat gives as a range rating. The first for infielders is their ability to turn a double play. This helps them to get a better range rating or worse rating as well. Even more importantly, how their team did. Remember that this is a replay game. The better the record of the team, the better the defensive ratings of the team.

Just two examples of players whose range fluctuated depending upon who they played for. Both players were in their primes during these fluctuations:

Carlos Guillen was a 2 shortstop for winning Seattle teams until he was traded to a bad Detroit team and became a 3. Detroit started winning and Guillen went back to a 2. Brett Gardner has been considered one of the best CF's around (I was just reading an article exclaiming how Gardner is actually a better CFer than Ellsbury) but Gardner gets a 2 for a non playoff Yankee team and Ellsbury the 1 for the WS Champs.

I remember a year in the late 70's when the Red Sox had 4 1's in the OF (Lynn, Yaz, Evans, Miller), Fisk and Burleson may have been a 1's that year as well.

Range ratings for all players have been released:

http://www.strat-o-matic.com/community/ ... gs-preview

So safe to say any player(s) listed as "REG" will be in the online game?

I'm a season ticket holder for the Padres and I can tell you that giving Jedd Gyorko a 4 at 2B is laughably wrong. I saw that guy range into shallow RF on several occasions. He made a few sloppy errors, but his range is not the problem.

He was a rookie in a small market. Strat bases fielding rating as much on reputation as actual performance. It usually takes a few years of excellence to get good ratings. Gentry for example on the Rangers got a 2 even though there are few who cover as much ground as he does. And Martin only a 3 even though his range is also excellent. Gentry will never get the rating he deserves unless Oakland plays him every day. And Martin may get the rating he deserves next year after he starts every day for the Rangers. Rookies and part time players rarely get good ratings.

Strat is a great game but it needs to do some catching up when it comes to fielding. There was a time when reputation was the biggest thing they had to go on. But there are so many defensive metrics these days that they really need to do something to revamp their defensive model.

This is right on. These are some of the issues that lead to questionable ratings:

1. You're a superstar, so you must be a great fielder too.
2. You're a rookie so you have to prove yourself for a few years before we "reward" you.
3. You play for a small market, losing team--sucks to be you!
4. You're a light-hitting utility player. It couldn't be that you made the team because you have a really good glove.
5. You had a major injury? Well, it must have adversely affected your glove when you were playing.

Overall, I like SOM's fielding system. However, with some players they miss the mark.

I'm a season ticket holder for the Padres and I can tell you that giving Jedd Gyorko a 4 at 2B is laughably wrong. I saw that guy range into shallow RF on several occasions. He made a few sloppy errors, but his range is not the problem.

He was a rookie in a small market. Strat bases fielding rating as much on reputation as actual performance. It usually takes a few years of excellence to get good ratings. Gentry for example on the Rangers got a 2 even though there are few who cover as much ground as he does. And Martin only a 3 even though his range is also excellent. Gentry will never get the rating he deserves unless Oakland plays him every day. And Martin may get the rating he deserves next year after he starts every day for the Rangers. Rookies and part time players rarely get good ratings.

Strat is a great game but it needs to do some catching up when it comes to fielding. There was a time when reputation was the biggest thing they had to go on. But there are so many defensive metrics these days that they really need to do something to revamp their defensive model.

This is right on. These are some of the issues that lead to questionable ratings:

1. You're a superstar, so you must be a great fielder too.
2. You're a rookie so you have to prove yourself for a few years before we "reward" you.
3. You play for a small market, losing team--sucks to be you!
4. You're a light-hitting utility player. It couldn't be that you made the team because you have a really good glove.
5. You had a major injury? Well, it must have adversely affected your glove when you were playing.

Overall, I like SOM's fielding system. However, with some players they miss the mark.

You forgot,

6. You're a Yankee so we will over rate you cause we're a NY based company.

There are a couple other factors that you have to keep in mind when you consider what Strat gives as a range rating. The first for infielders is their ability to turn a double play. This helps them to get a better range rating or worse rating as well. Even more importantly, how their team did. Remember that this is a replay game. The better the record of the team, the better the defensive ratings of the team.

You are probably right though it seems to me that this would skew replay results in favor of winning teams.

You are probably right on double plays having an influence. But I think they should not. Range should be a measure of a players ability to get to the ball. Double plays should be separate. But that would require a revamping of the defensive rating system. With the huge increase in defensive metrics available these days I think Strat should consider an update to how fielding is handled. Though that would be a major undertaking due to need to redo for past seasons for compatibility. So unlikely to happen.