OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Relationship between range and fielding pct.

Vajracchedika · 11-27-2003, 05:18 AM

Take a look at history. Look at some top flight outfielders like Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays, Cesar Cedeno, and Gary Maddox. Historically, the correlation between RF and fielding percentage is undeniable, at least for those who would truly deserve an 'A' range or had a very high fielding percentage. All of these players, and many others throughout history, had high fielding percentages while also posting significant putout and assist numbers. This would seem to indicate that the better their range, the more likely they are to be good fielders, and vice versa.

Look at shortstops like Concepcion, Banks, and and Ozzie Smith. They all had RFs that were significantly higher than the league average for most of their seasons, and they also had high fielding percentages. Granted, these are some of the greats of all time, and the overall averages might not show such a strong correlation. But that is basically my point.

If we're talking about players with truly great range, of the 'A' variety, then chances are that those will be top flight defensive players, and they should be more likely to have high fielding percentages.

I think it's probably more likely to see lesser correlation when we're talking about players who are average or maybe a bit above or below average. That's where I think it would be more likely for a player to have, say, a 'B' range with a fielding percentage of .945 at shortstop. Or maybe we'd see a 'D' range with a higher than expected fielding percentage like .975 at shortstop.

Those cases probably balance out the numbers so that we don't see as much of a correlation on the average. But when we're talking about players with an 'A' range, I think that the majority of them would be the most likely to have high fielding percentages, like .960 to .980 for shortstops and .980 to .995 for outfielders. Those with an 'E' range would probably be the most likely to have the worst fielding percentages as well.

But there is always room for debate.

11-27-2003, 05:18 AM	#9 (permalink)
Vajracchedika Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 36	Take a look at history. Look at some top flight outfielders like Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays, Cesar Cedeno, and Gary Maddox. Historically, the correlation between RF and fielding percentage is undeniable, at least for those who would truly deserve an 'A' range or had a very high fielding percentage. All of these players, and many others throughout history, had high fielding percentages while also posting significant putout and assist numbers. This would seem to indicate that the better their range, the more likely they are to be good fielders, and vice versa. Look at shortstops like Concepcion, Banks, and and Ozzie Smith. They all had RFs that were significantly higher than the league average for most of their seasons, and they also had high fielding percentages. Granted, these are some of the greats of all time, and the overall averages might not show such a strong correlation. But that is basically my point. If we're talking about players with truly great range, of the 'A' variety, then chances are that those will be top flight defensive players, and they should be more likely to have high fielding percentages. I think it's probably more likely to see lesser correlation when we're talking about players who are average or maybe a bit above or below average. That's where I think it would be more likely for a player to have, say, a 'B' range with a fielding percentage of .945 at shortstop. Or maybe we'd see a 'D' range with a higher than expected fielding percentage like .975 at shortstop. Those cases probably balance out the numbers so that we don't see as much of a correlation on the average. But when we're talking about players with an 'A' range, I think that the majority of them would be the most likely to have high fielding percentages, like .960 to .980 for shortstops and .980 to .995 for outfielders. Those with an 'E' range would probably be the most likely to have the worst fielding percentages as well. But there is always room for debate.