Objective fielding ratings

One thing I'd like to see Strat-O-Matic use is objective fielding ratings for fielders. Such as the Rtot, Rdrs, and RF used in various baseball publications.

I think I see a little of the "if he's a good offensive palyer he has to be a good defensive one" thought. To give you an example, it is commonly thought that Derek Jeter was at best an average defensive shortstop, even in his prime. The statistics put him way down in fielding compared to other shortstops.

I think he would be justified as a 3, a real stretch to be a 2, but no way he should be a 1 defensively. This is just one example of course, but I would think a more objective way of viewing defensive ratings would make sense.

To elaborate a bit, I looked at some sabermetric fielding stats for some big name ATG's.

I looks as though defensive runs saved are a fairly recent stat, but range factor compared to league average seems to make some sense for the old timers.

Just some for instances - Joe Dimaggio was well above the league average in range factor, until his last 2 or so year where he dropped down to about average. Babe Ruth on the other hand - average or just a shade below most of his career as a Yankee.

This would seem to put Joe D. in the "1" fielding range, but it would make more sense for the Babe to be a 3 or so when it comes to fielding.

A-Rod often gets a "1" at SS and 3B- But if youc ompare him and Andrelton Simmons, A-Rod is usually around the league average or a bit below in defensive runs saved - While Andrelton has averaged 30+ over the league average. This again to me would warrant A-Rod being a 3 or so, while Andrelton gets that "1" defensive rating. For a comparison, Ozzie Smith Averaged about 20 over the league average until his last 3-4 years, where he dropped to a little over the league average.

Another interesting one is Lou Brock, who was a slight + Defender from about 64-68, but after that was a slight minus defender the rest of his career. This makes the 2-3 that SOM applies to him depending upon the year of his career pretty accurate IMO. Clemente on the other and - a big + defender in RF for his entire career, but of course he died before he entered his declining years.

Look at Mays and Mantle - Mays was a big + defender til about 68 or so, he then dropped to an average or slightly below defender. Mantle hovered around average until about 64, when he began a decline to pretty below average, probably a 4, until he was moved to first for his last year or two. Jim Edmonds was a frequent +10-20 in the outfield until about 08 when he had a severe decline to well below average. Interesting, as this is when the Cardinals let him to to the Padres, and he was a minus defender the rest of his career. Maybe the GM's look at Sabermetrics more than I do!

I'm not a 100% Sabermetrics guy myself, but based on the limited research I have done they seem to be accurate.

With some of the defensive ratings for the ATG;s, there seem to be a bit of what I call the "Gold Glove" syndrome. If their bat is a superstar, well obviously their fielding should be that too

I know there are a fair amount with the 4 defensive ratings who were known butchers, but there also seems to be too many of the 1's given out to average fielders with good bats.

Good stuff.

The only consolation I can offer is it used to be much worse years ago. For example, did Reggie Jackson really ever deserve to be a 1?

Also, I was thrilled that Nolan Arenado got his well-deserved 1 as a rookie--something that never used to happen.

That being said, the ratings are still subjective. What you suggest has merit.

That being said, the ratings are still subjective. What you suggest has merit.

Unfortunateley, I don't think sabermetric fielding ratings can do it alone, there is indeed I think a need for some human element. For example, I don't think I'd go two a four rating for Jeter - but a three would be warranted IMO.

For example, did Reggie Jackson really ever deserve to be a 1?

Wow, that would be bad.

And some of the sabermetrics are not applicable to older players, so it would not be a clean use of the stats, there would have to be some eye-balling used as well.

agreed. there should be a more distinguishable way to differentiate someone like Simmons from Didi Gregorius who are both 1s (Gregorius according to the sneak previews). they should readjust rankings with their subjective views combined with what we now use as defensive metrics, which are ok- not great but better than nothing