NLD 50 Golden Glove Anniversary

Luck Factors

Interesting to note that there aren't a lot of high or low guys. Only Milleram (low) is really outside of what you might expect. I guess Jeep is -2 which isn't good. Big A is a little high, but not really that much as compared to guys in previous seasons.

Code: Select all

Mgr .. .   W   SI   HR   1-R   Pyt   Rolls   UE/E   Inj   Luck Fctr
BigA...   64   +5%   +6%   +3   -2   +0.1%   46%   -43   1.5
Semper.   66   -1%   0%    +2   +6   +0.7%   66%   -38   1
KLX....   68   -5%   +2%   +2   0    -0.8%   46%   -4   0.5
Doug...   59   +1%   +10%   -5   -3   +0.3%   65%   -74   0
Smokey.   68   -3%   +13%   -6   -1   -1.8%   50%   +4   0
Stoney.   63   -2%   -11%   +3   -5   +1.3%   43%   -8   -0.5
dale...   61   +0%   -15%   +4   +2   +1.3%   54%   -51   -1
JTJ....   62   -2%   -7%   -1   0    +0.7%   48%   -43   -1
Spider.   62   +0%   -5%   +8   +1   -1.4%   69%   +16   -1
Falcon.   55   +5%   -6%   -6   +2   +0.2%   56%   +19   -1.5
Jeep...   70   -0%   +1%   -8   -3   +0.0%   63%   -27   -2
Millerm   58   -12%   -12%   +4   +1   -0.5%   65%   -40   -2.5



Items to note;

A lot of guys "balanced out" with lucky/unlucky coming close to zero.
Biggest case in point is Doug who is Up big in HRs, low in one run and win diff, up in injuries and down in ratio of errors to unearned runs. Weird.
spider is similar down it rolling on card, up big in one run, down in injuries and Unearned runs
Stones - Down big in HRs, up in card, down in Pythag, up in unearned run ratio.

Here are the fielding comparisons.

Smokey and Falcon are a little low, Milleram is very high.

Code: Select all

Fieldng   FRt   Rtg   F%   Dif
BigAlrc   33   2   2   0
Smokey.   311   4   6   -2
Stoney.   353   4   4   0
Spider.   359   4   4   0
SemperG   381   5   4   1
Dale...   390   5   4   1
Doug...   436   6   5   1
Jeep...   451   6   6   0
KLX....   465   6   5   1
Falcon.   472   6   9   -3
JoeTJet   560   7   7   0
Millerm   875   10   6   4


As far as Joe's ratings--- for myself, I'm not sensitive about them, I just didn't understand them. It was mostly the fielding numbers that caught my attention--he has me roughly twice as bad as the average team in the league--and I knew up front I was the worst fielding team--but I didn't think it was by that much.

He did a good job of explaining them--without throwing all the math out there. In fact it is the only SOM baseball calculator I know of that takes in to account how often base runners are on base.

Years ago, back in the dark ages when I was playing over the board, I calculated the fielding allowed on the old advanced chart before 5 fielders became prevalent (they existed but only out of position).

Then for 30-35 years I did not play Strat.

Finally I ran into the on-line game and started playing in early 2013---one of my first few leagues I was in with Steve Frediani--he gave me the link to Think Factory fielding page which is based on the super advanced chart--I was actually amazed that the numbers on that chart were almost identical to what I had caculated in the mid 70's, minus the 5 fielders, and the extra errors (SS4e48 was a max then, unless you played a guy out of position) --so the odds are about the same overall with either chart.

One thing my calculations, or the think factory chart don't take into accout is possible DP turned by infielders--which definitly make a difference and also the fact that guys can drop a range when holding runners, so maybe my fielding is that bad.

As for other ratings I read all the NERP stuff--but for me I just use OPS for and against (because it is simple to do).

I try to fudge in the extra outs better fielders will get you, so if two guys rate about the same overall, the better fielder is the better player usually.

Since starting online play I have always thought (probably wrongly) that 1 rated infielders are generally over priced (especially the ones that can hit also)--mostly because of the fact the range drops when holding runners--not only the range drops, but DP chances drop too.

As far as Joe's ratings--- for myself, I'm not sensitive about them, I just didn't understand them. It was mostly the fielding numbers that caught my attention--he has me roughly twice as bad as the average team in the league--and I knew up front I was the worst fielding team--but I didn't think it was by that much.

He did a good job of explaining them--without throwing all the math out there. In fact it is the only SOM baseball calculator I know of that takes in to account how often base runners are on base.

Years ago, back in the dark ages when I was playing over the board, I calculated the fielding allowed on the old advanced chart before 5 fielders became prevalent (they existed but only out of position).

Then for 30-35 years I did not play Strat.

Finally I ran into the on-line game and started playing in early 2013---one of my first few leagues I was in with Steve Frediani--he gave me the link to Think Factory fielding page which is based on the super advanced chart--I was actually amazed that the numbers on that chart were almost identical to what I had caculated in the mid 70's, minus the 5 fielders, and the extra errors (SS4e48 was a max then, unless you played a guy out of position) --so the odds are about the same overall with either chart.

One thing my calculations, or the think factory chart don't take into accout is possible DP turned by infielders--which definitly make a difference and also the fact that guys can drop a range when holding runners, so maybe my fielding is that bad.

As for other ratings I read all the NERP stuff--but for me I just use OPS for and against (because it is simple to do).

I try to fudge in the extra outs better fielders will get you, so if two guys rate about the same overall, the better fielder is the better player usually.

Since starting online play I have always thought (probably wrongly) that 1 rated infielders are generally over priced (especially the ones that can hit also)--mostly because of the fact the range drops when holding runners--not only the range drops, but DP chances drop too.

I think 1's on defense tend to be overpriced..someone like Brett Gardner comes to mind...that 1 doesn't merit 4M plus IMHO.

As far as Joe's ratings--- for myself, I'm not sensitive about them,

Nor should you be. While I'm pretty confident in the player rankings, team ratings have art folded in with the science. I still maintain that teams that are very good or very bad in fielding tend to have more variance due to how the impact of the x-chart comes into play in games. Still, over the years it's rare for a very poorly rated team to do well and the higher rated teams that do poorly tend to be bad in one run games or other luck factors. I recently came across a description for wOBA (https://library.fangraphs.com/offense/woba/) which is similar to what we do. Of course, we do it for all kinds of situations (e.g. WP, Balk, defense) that wOBA doesn't do, but it's kind of similar to what we came up with. We use different weights of course.

I knew up front I was the worst fielding team--but I didn't think it was by that much.

There are a lot of good fielders this year. I was surprised to find that with a 560 fielding rating I was next to last in fielding. That's unusual in past seasons.

As for your team, you're infield is *very* poor, you have 4's on the corners and 3's up the middle. That's 18 of the 30 x-chart factors that are below average. Then you have 3's on the corners (with poor or below average e-rats) in the OF and a +1 arm in CF. Versus LHP, you're playing a 3 all the way up the middle as you move Kike to CF with Urena at 2b.

About the only place you're average is at Catcher. You have the worst fielding in the league at 2b, ss, 3b, and CF. You make up for it by having very good pitching which is why you're middle of the pack in P/F ratings.

I think 1's on defense tend to be overpriced

Perhaps, but what do you base that on? Gardner is going to make a lot of plays in the OF and he's decent, if not great, against both sides. Who is priced lower than him that he should be below (in LF)? Remember, it's not who you'd rather have per se, but a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes balanced guys get priced higher than you think because they just don't suck one way or the other.

I always look forward to seeing the ratings Joe details each season. Also the luck factors are always revealing. I disagree slightly on what I think is a bit of "double-counting" with Pythag and 1-run effects, but generally find them very interesting.

The NLD teams almost always have better fielding teams on average than any of the other leagues I play. This group seems to put a high value on fielding (deserved, I think).

The Accents perked up last night with a nice sweep of the league leading Phanatics. A blip, or a sign of things to come?

I just continue to lose 2 of three almost every night. I hope this trend turns around. I know part of my problem not enough (l) power in my park, my mistake in the draft...Votto just isn't producing, lake of power is a real problm given his price tag....

I always look forward to seeing the ratings Joe details each season. Also the luck factors are always revealing. I disagree slightly on what I think is a bit of "double-counting" with Pythag and 1-run effects, but generally find them very interesting.

The NLD teams almost always have better fielding teams on average than any of the other leagues I play. This group seems to put a high value on fielding (deserved, I think).

Spidey, If both numbers are high (or low) I adjust them accordingly so as to minimize the double counting. I do this because you pointed it out prior.

Votto just isn't producing

Yeah, he needs to go with someone that has power hitting behind him to be worth it.

Ok, here's gotta be the oddest slash of the season.

Avila: .063 .308 .083

He's 3 for 48 with 17 walks! Strange huh? Not sure I expected much more, but probably a few more hits just rolling on the pitcher's card, but not unsurprising either.

Joe, I didn't realize that you had made that change. I didn't look at the data this time and should have seen that you had made that change - must have been many moons ago, also. Thanks.

Joe, I didn't realize that you had made that change. I didn't look at the data this time and should have seen that you had made that change - must have been many moons ago, also. Thanks.

Well, it may not be obvious how I add up the pluses and minuses. I guess I could show that if you guys want.