How Much Emphasis Do You Put On Defense?

Willing to share a link to that league? It would be interesting to keep track of.

I will go to my grave saying defense is underrated. Yes you pay for it in the price of the player, but, a good defensive team allows you to spend less on your pitching. So you can afford better offensive players who happen to be solid defensively.

And when it comes to defense, everything matters: Range is king, errors less important. OF Arms are big too. Never overlook the little things.

I agree that you can get by with cheaper pitcing if you have excellent defense. My brain tends to work in the direction of paying more for pitching in order to get cheaper offensive players who can really hit, even if their defense isn't as dominant.

I'm not sure one approach is better or worse. To a significant extent, it may just be a matter of personal style--or what one feels comfortable with. A tangible example is Larkin's best card vs the best card of Willie Wells. Which one would you rather have? Wells hits better, esp vs RHP, but Larkin's defensive 1-20 at SS is better than Wells' 2-22. But all other things being equal, which one would you rather have? In a recent league, I got both L & W in the draft and a player w/o a SS and I worked out a deal where I would get a topflight pitcher in return for sending my choice of L or W to the other team. I ended up keeping Wells, even though I knew I was sacrificing defense. I was in Navin and wanted to strengthen my hitting vs RHP, so Wells's better offense vs RHP was a factor for me. There's also the cost factor. These players seem almost exactly even to me. Should Larkin really cost 1M more?

There may not be a right or wrong in this case. What would any of you do in a similar situation? BTW, I would also be interested in a link to that match-off league.

I will go to my grave saying defense is underrated. Yes you pay for it in the price of the player, but, a good defensive team allows you to spend less on your pitching. So you can afford better offensive players who happen to be solid defensively.

And when it comes to defense, everything matters: Range is king, errors less important. OF Arms are big too. Never overlook the little things.

I agree that you can get by with cheaper pitcing if you have excellent defense. My brain tends to work in the direction of paying more for pitching in order to get cheaper offensive players who can really hit, even if their defense isn't as dominant.

I'm not sure one approach is better or worse. To a significant extent, it may just be a matter of personal style--or what one feels comfortable with. A tangible example is Larkin's best card vs the best card of Willie Wells. Which one would you rather have? Wells hits better, esp vs RHP, but Larkin's defensive 1-20 at SS is better than Wells' 2-22. But all other things being equal, which one would you rather have? In a recent league, I got both L & W in the draft and a player w/o a SS and I worked out a deal where I would get a topflight pitcher in return for sending my choice of L or W to the other team. I ended up keeping Wells, even though I knew I was sacrificing defense. I was in Navin and wanted to strengthen my hitting vs RHP, so Wells's better offense vs RHP was a factor for me. There's also the cost factor. These players seem almost exactly even to me. Should Larkin really cost 1M more?

There may not be a right or wrong in this case. What would any of you do in a similar situation? BTW, I would also be interested in a link to that match-off league.

According to a chart I printed up years ago, Larkin is worth about 4.7 NERP points over Wells due to his defense. With DD up and running we could actually make the comparision, but alas.

I rarely spend big money on a SS, so this is a unique analysis for me. In Navin 24, assuming a normal distribution of pitchers in the league, I would rather have Larkin over Wells. To me he has the higher overall rating and is also the better value after consideration of cost. There is a fair amount of defensive value going from a 2e22 to a 1e20. Plus Larkin has value in his stealing (19v15) and running (17v16). Wells might be a better value vs RHP, but it is only slight. I would also probably like Rodriguez and Yount over Wells, but that would depend on the %LHP in the league and the importance of injuries for this team. Just an opinion.

I rarely spend big money on a SS, so this is a unique analysis for me. In Navin 24, assuming a normal distribution of pitchers in the league, I would rather have Larkin over Wells. To me he has the higher overall rating and is also the better value after consideration of cost. There is a fair amount of defensive value going from a 2e22 to a 1e20. Plus Larkin has value in his stealing (19v15) and running (17v16). Wells might be a better value vs RHP, but it is only slight. I would also probably like Rodriguez and Yount over Wells, but that would depend on the %LHP in the league and the importance of injuries for this team. Just an opinion.

This. I've never used Wells but frequently use Larkin. He's the best shortstop in the set.

Going back once more just to the topic of defense....with a few (too many) words about gbX roll results on a pitcher card.

X results are of course where your fielders' defensive ratings most manifestly come into play.

On both sides (L & R) of the vast majority of pitcher cards, there is one gb(2b)X on a 7 roll. (I'm going to guesstimate 90% of them.) When 2 6-sided dice are rolled, there is a 16.667% chance the result will be 7. Because a 7 is the highest probability result on any given dice roll, one concludes correctly that over the course of the season a good fielding second baseman will prevent more runners reaching base than a poor one.

Let's look at shortstop now. You have probably noticed that each side (L/R) of most pitcher cards have two gb(SS)x results, on a 5 or 9 roll AND a 4 or 10 roll. The probability of a gb(SS)X result on a 5 or 9 roll is 11.111%, and that of a 4 or 10 roll is 8.333%.

11.111 + 8.333 = 19.444%. So, on the typical pitcher card, there is more probability of a gb(SS)X than a gb(2B)X, about 14% more. This would suggest that as important as a slick-fielding second baseman is, it is even MORE important to have an ace gloveman at SS.

But...I think that's wrong. Why?

Let's roll the dice and assume the single, red, 6-sided die has already fallen on the pitcher card. Now, take the 2 white dice and rattle them around in your fist. As they tumble from your hand, there is a much greater chance of a 7 roll than any other number. The probability of a 7 result on any single roll of 2 dice is between 1/3 to 1/2 more likely than a 4, a 5, a 9, or a 10 result. Thus each and any roll of two 6-sided dice in SOM -- a game with a finite number of rolls -- would seem always more likely to result in a gb(2b)X than a gb(SS)X on a typical pitcher card.

Only a little bit more torturous arithmetic, I promise. On some pitcher cards, the gb(2b)X result is on an 8 or 6 roll. The probability of either an 8 or 6 roll goes down to 13.89%. To compensate when that is the case, there is also a gb(2b)X result on a 2 or 12 roll. The probability of either a 2 or 12 roll is 2.78%. 13.89 + 2.78 = 16.67, same as when there is one lone gb(2b)X result on a 7 roll.

But again, the probability of a 7 on any single roll is greater than that of a 8 or a 6 or a 2 or a 12. So I can see an advantage in favoring pitcher cards with gb(2b)X on an 8 roll instead of a 7 roll, if a Jose Vidro or Matt Carpenter and not a Lajoie or Morgan is playing 2B.

Sometimes on each side of a pitcher card there is a gb(SS)X on a 7 roll, with another at a 2 or 12. To me, a pitcher card with a gb(SS)X at 7 is to be avoided, especially if I have a non-elite defender at SS. The probability of a particular roll hitting 7 and having Cecil Travis fire the ball through Al Oliver and into the stands is intolerably high. That's why I might reject a pitcher card with a 7-gb(SS)X and put up with the rock hands of a Travis or Jimmie Dykes at SS, but put up with the weak stick of a Dick Egan or Bobby Richardson on the other side of the keystone.

Some pitcher cards have a gb(2b)X AND a gb(SS)X on a 7 roll on each side. Egad, I run from those cards! Unless I have 1's at both SS and 2B, a very rare occurrence because 1's are very costly.

Otherwise, why put that much vagary in Hal's lap? 7 rolls on pitcher cards should result in strikeouts, popouts, 1 gb(2b)X, and, if you've drafted well, a golden gbA. That 7 roll must never result in a gb(SS)X (unless Ozzie's standing there), a split-chance TR or HR, or the much-overlooked nuisance of a gbC.

What does this mean? Well, for me, it means I put a greater priority on defense at 2B than at SS. Because dice roll after dice roll, your defense at 2B is likely to be put to the test more frequently.

Going back once more just to the topic of defense....with a few (too many) words about gbX roll results on a pitcher card.

X results are of course where your fielders' defensive ratings most manifestly come into play.

On both sides (L & R) of the vast majority of pitcher cards, there is one gb(2b)X on a 7 roll. (I'm going to guesstimate 90% of them.) When 2 6-sided dice are rolled, there is a 16.667% chance the result will be 7. Because a 7 is the highest probability result on any given dice roll, one concludes correctly that over the course of the season a good fielding second baseman will prevent more runners reaching base than a poor one.

Let's look at shortstop now. You have probably noticed that each side (L/R) of most pitcher cards have two gb(SS)x results, on a 5 or 9 roll AND a 4 or 10 roll. The probability of a gb(SS)X result on a 5 or 9 roll is 11.111%, and that of a 4 or 10 roll is 8.333%.

11.111 + 8.333 = 19.444%. So, on the typical pitcher card, there is more probability of a gb(SS)X than a gb(2B)X, about 14% more. This would suggest that as important as a slick-fielding second baseman is, it is even MORE important to have an ace gloveman at SS.

But...I think that's wrong. Why?

Let's roll the dice and assume the single, red, 6-sided die has already fallen on the pitcher card. Now, take the 2 white dice and rattle them around in your fist. As they tumble from your hand, there is a much greater chance of a 7 roll than any other number. The probability of a 7 result on any single roll of 2 dice is between 1/3 to 1/2 more likely than a 4, a 5, a 9, or a 10 result. Thus each and any roll of two 6-sided dice in SOM -- a game with a finite number of rolls -- would seem always more likely to result in a gb(2b)X than a gb(SS)X on a typical pitcher card.

Only a little bit more torturous arithmetic, I promise. On some pitcher cards, the gb(2b)X result is on an 8 or 6 roll. The probability of either an 8 or 6 roll goes down to 13.89%. To compensate when that is the case, there is also a gb(2b)X result on a 2 or 12 roll. The probability of either a 2 or 12 roll is 2.78%. 13.89 + 2.78 = 16.67, same as when there is one lone gb(2b)X result on a 7 roll.

But again, the probability of a 7 on any single roll is greater than that of a 8 or a 6 or a 2 or a 12. So I can see an advantage in favoring pitcher cards with gb(2b)X on an 8 roll instead of a 7 roll, if a Jose Vidro or Matt Carpenter and not a Lajoie or Morgan is playing 2B.

Sometimes on each side of a pitcher card there is a gb(SS)X on a 7 roll, with another at a 2 or 12. To me, a pitcher card with a gb(SS)X at 7 is to be avoided, especially if I have a non-elite defender at SS. The probability of a particular roll hitting 7 and having Cecil Travis fire the ball through Al Oliver and into the stands is intolerably high. That's why I might reject a pitcher card with a 7-gb(SS)X and put up with the rock hands of a Travis or Jimmie Dykes at SS, but put up with the weak stick of a Dick Egan or Bobby Richardson on the other side of the keystone.

Some pitcher cards have a gb(2b)X AND a gb(SS)X on a 7 roll on each side. Egad, I run from those cards! Unless I have 1's at both SS and 2B, a very rare occurrence because 1's are very costly.

Otherwise, why put that much vagary in Hal's lap? 7 rolls on pitcher cards should result in strikeouts, popouts, 1 gb(2b)X, and, if you've drafted well, a golden gbA. That 7 roll must never result in a gb(SS)X (unless Ozzie's standing there), a split-chance TR or HR, or the much-overlooked nuisance of a gbC.

What does this mean? Well, for me, it means I put a greater priority on defense at 2B than at SS. Because dice roll after dice roll, your defense at 2B is likely to be put to the test more frequently.

See this is why the internet is great. A big long treatise on why if you think about it, 17% is actually greater than 19%.

You should be able to prove or disprove your theory by looking at your Team Roster page. Then choose Sim Fielding as it lists how many chances each of your position players had (x chance rolls) and how many they converted into outs. Spoiler alert: The SS position gets more rolls than 2B every time.

You should be able to prove or disprove your theory by looking at your Team Roster page. Then choose Sim Fielding as it lists how many chances each of your position players had (x chance rolls) and how many they converted into outs. Spoiler alert: The SS position gets more rolls than 2B every time.

Just checked a few recent teams of mine and without an exact comparison of games played, 2B and Ss x chances look very, very close.

Southpaw’s post seemed to imply that the pitcher’s card x chances don’t show up as an x chance for the fielder but that cant be true can it? Or did I misinterpret southpaw’s post?

Going back once more just to the topic of defense....with a few (too many) words about gbX roll results on a pitcher card.

X results are of course where your fielders' defensive ratings most manifestly come into play.

On both sides (L & R) of the vast majority of pitcher cards, there is one gb(2b)X on a 7 roll. (I'm going to guesstimate 90% of them.) When 2 6-sided dice are rolled, there is a 16.667% chance the result will be 7. Because a 7 is the highest probability result on any given dice roll, one concludes correctly that over the course of the season a good fielding second baseman will prevent more runners reaching base than a poor one.

Let's look at shortstop now. You have probably noticed that each side (L/R) of most pitcher cards have two gb(SS)x results, on a 5 or 9 roll AND a 4 or 10 roll. The probability of a gb(SS)X result on a 5 or 9 roll is 11.111%, and that of a 4 or 10 roll is 8.333%.

11.111 + 8.333 = 19.444%. So, on the typical pitcher card, there is more probability of a gb(SS)X than a gb(2B)X, about 14% more. This would suggest that as important as a slick-fielding second baseman is, it is even MORE important to have an ace gloveman at SS.

But...I think that's wrong. Why?

Let's roll the dice and assume the single, red, 6-sided die has already fallen on the pitcher card. Now, take the 2 white dice and rattle them around in your fist. As they tumble from your hand, there is a much greater chance of a 7 roll than any other number. The probability of a 7 result on any single roll of 2 dice is between 1/3 to 1/2 more likely than a 4, a 5, a 9, or a 10 result. Thus each and any roll of two 6-sided dice in SOM -- a game with a finite number of rolls -- would seem always more likely to result in a gb(2b)X than a gb(SS)X on a typical pitcher card.

Only a little bit more torturous arithmetic, I promise. On some pitcher cards, the gb(2b)X result is on an 8 or 6 roll. The probability of either an 8 or 6 roll goes down to 13.89%. To compensate when that is the case, there is also a gb(2b)X result on a 2 or 12 roll. The probability of either a 2 or 12 roll is 2.78%. 13.89 + 2.78 = 16.67, same as when there is one lone gb(2b)X result on a 7 roll.

But again, the probability of a 7 on any single roll is greater than that of a 8 or a 6 or a 2 or a 12. So I can see an advantage in favoring pitcher cards with gb(2b)X on an 8 roll instead of a 7 roll, if a Jose Vidro or Matt Carpenter and not a Lajoie or Morgan is playing 2B.

Sometimes on each side of a pitcher card there is a gb(SS)X on a 7 roll, with another at a 2 or 12. To me, a pitcher card with a gb(SS)X at 7 is to be avoided, especially if I have a non-elite defender at SS. The probability of a particular roll hitting 7 and having Cecil Travis fire the ball through Al Oliver and into the stands is intolerably high. That's why I might reject a pitcher card with a 7-gb(SS)X and put up with the rock hands of a Travis or Jimmie Dykes at SS, but put up with the weak stick of a Dick Egan or Bobby Richardson on the other side of the keystone.

Some pitcher cards have a gb(2b)X AND a gb(SS)X on a 7 roll on each side. Egad, I run from those cards! Unless I have 1's at both SS and 2B, a very rare occurrence because 1's are very costly.

Otherwise, why put that much vagary in Hal's lap? 7 rolls on pitcher cards should result in strikeouts, popouts, 1 gb(2b)X, and, if you've drafted well, a golden gbA. That 7 roll must never result in a gb(SS)X (unless Ozzie's standing there), a split-chance TR or HR, or the much-overlooked nuisance of a gbC.

What does this mean? Well, for me, it means I put a greater priority on defense at 2B than at SS. Because dice roll after dice roll, your defense at 2B is likely to be put to the test more frequently.

This ranks as one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.