The Mark Belanger Effect in OOTPX

[Malleus Dei]

And that decision would cost you a game or two a season.

[Jah]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

And that decision would cost you a game or two a season.

No matter how much we micro-analyze Belanger's value (or lack thereof), all I know is that in his 11 years as a starter (68 thru 78), the Orioles averaged nearly 95 wins per season, finished 1st or 2nd nine times, won 5 divisions, 3 pennants, and a World Series. Now some may argue he didn't have much to do with that - or may have actually cost them games during a season, etc. - but reality was that he was the starting shortstop for more than a decade and the O's had great success during that time.

In closing, this Monday (6/8) would have been Mark's 65th birthday - so let's salute him!

[Eugene Church]

Home runs rule OOTPB.

I have always wanted defense to really make a difference in OOTPB.

Has anyone ever used the Defensive Influence in the OOTPB Config file to make defensive stars more important in the game?

I remember Matter2003 did a study on using it and found that it did make defense more important in the game.

I have never been able to locate that thread. He gave settings that I would like to use.

I use Defensive Influence in my league. Don't know for sure, if it makes a difference.

One of these days, I will set up a test league and see if I can gain some knowledge related to this subject.

RonCo could do this and get far more reliable information than I will. The man is a genius in OOTPB research.

[clamel]

Originally Posted by Carlton_Willey

This is why the next big improvement to OOTP should be manager profiles. The problem isn't that the AI management is bad, it is relying on one model for all managers can't work.

Having a Bill McKechnie model to emphasize defense and pitching would give the Belangers of the player universe a team to play on. Having Earl Weaver managing for 3 run homers would be a different style. Casey Stengel heavily favoring platooning and cheating up the middle to favor double plays all the time would be another big style.

Until the manager styles can vary, one-size fits all AI management will be less than optimal.

Not to mention the GM AI function would have to provide the proper types of players.

I second this and do think that todays AI with ALL strategy settings for all teams and what I believe all managers the same will create all players judged on the same. I think we all that different managers do prefer different things. Defense, little ball, longball, "allmost never hit and run" and onwards.

I for one hope that OOTP will have more complexed ratings for managers and surely have the game AI to alter the team strategy based on who is the manager and players the team have on the roster for the moment.
I have a scary fealing that ALL team strategies are always in the same position and stays that way, if not tampered with by a human

[pstrickert]

As it relates to OOTPX: Should the AI use modern criteria to "manage" teams of yesteryear? Should the AI opt for hitting over defense from the SS position? How should the AI manage its pitching staff? Like Tony LaRussa in 2009? Does one-size (i.e., modern strategy) fit all? For lineup choices, relief pitcher usage, starting pitcher usage, baserunning, etc.? Wouldn't it be better to have era-appropriate AI management and strategy?

[Malleus Dei]

If you had that, we - with our modern knowledge gained from the game's evolution, the greater use of analysis, and managerial improvements made over the years - would routinely beat the pants off of era-appropriate AI managers.

For instance, no MLB manager today would start a Belanger. They know they can't afford to.

[POKeefe]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

If you had that, we - with our modern knowledge gained from the game's evolution, the greater use of analysis, and managerial improvements made over the years - would routinely beat the pants off of era-appropriate AI managers.

For instance, no MLB manager today would start a Belanger. They know they can't afford to.

I don't agree with this. The Red Sox probably would right now in a heartbeat over Lugo and Green. It depends on how your lineup is set up and how poor your other options at SS are.

[knockahoma]

knockahoma: I'd take a gold glove shortstop over an average or poor shortstop hitting .260, 10 homers any day.

And that decision would cost you a game or two a season.

I'd be willing to listen to the evidence for that. . I'm willing to change my mind, but that seems like a knee-jerk response. You don't have the stats of either player, yet.

If you had that, we - with our modern knowledge gained from the game's evolution, the greater use of analysis, and managerial improvements made over the years - would routinely beat the pants off of era-appropriate AI managers.

For instance, no MLB manager today would start a Belanger. They know they can't afford to.

Honestly, I don't know if they would, or not. But the managers of today aren't dealing with the same hand as those in the 70s, Mal. Would you agree?


Today's hitters, with their early training, tons of amatuer games and weight training have made many of today's shortstops yesterdays best hitters, especially in the 70s. But, these types of players didn't exist in the 70s. Hell, is a .225 gold glove shortstop really that bad when half the AL teams couldn't find a decent fielding 3b who could hit .250 and 10 homers? Is he really bad in the context of a time when you had outfield starters all over the league hitting .230-.250 with 10 homers?

Take a look at the 2nd place Yankees in 74 compared with the 08 3rd place Yankees. Look at the difference in fire-power.

C Munson .301, 13HR versus Molina .216, 3HR

1b Chambliss .243, 6HR versus Giambi .247, 32HR

2b Alomar .269, 1HR vs Cano .271, 14HR

ss Mason .250, 5HR vs Jeter .300, 11HR

3b Nettles .246, 22HR vs Rodriguez .302, 35HR

lf Piniella, .305, 9HR vs Damon .303, 17HR

cf Maddox .303, 3hr vs Cabrera .249, 8 HR

rf murcer .274, 10HR vs abreu, .296, 20 HR

Now, to really accentuate how hard it was to fill 8 spots with hitters in the early 70s, let's look at the last place teams in 74 and last year in the AL east, the Tigers versus the 08 Orioles

C Moses .237, 4HR versus Hernandez .257, 15HR

1b Freehan .297, 18HR vs Millar .234, 20 HR

2b Sutherland .254, 5HR vs Roberts .296, 9HR

ss brinkman .221 14HR vs Castro .205, 2 HR (60 games)

3b Rodriguez .225, 5HR vs Mora .285, 23 HR

lf Horton .288, 15HR vs Scott .257, 23 HR

cf Stanley .228, 8HR vs Jones .270, 9hr

rf Northrup .237, 11HR vs Markakis .303, 20 HR

dh Kaline .262, 13 HR vs Huff .304, 33 HR

What I'm trying to convey is my impression of the time. There was no need to throw a good hitting 3b in 1974 (a .260, 10-15 HR guy) to shortstop for better hitting-- because there wasn't another good hitting 3B waiting to fill that newly-created gap left at the hot-corner.

At least in the early 70's, I don't think it was so much about moving good hitters from shortstop, as much as it had to do with finding 8 good hitters on the same team in that era.

Shortstop is a tougher position defensively than 3B. So, if you have two positions and only one good hitter (as was the case with almost every team in the AL in the early 70s), you put the fielder at SS and the hitter at 3B.

I think any modern manager given that scenario would probably choose the same way they did in the 70s.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

I'd be willing to listen to the evidence for that.

No evidence is needed. Which manager would start a run-neutral SS when a run-positive one was available - especially bearing in mind that his GM has a full set of stats on all of the players on his computer?

Answer: only one looking to be fired.

[knockahoma]

Wouldn't you need to consider runs saved to reach a conclusion on which SS was the actual positive run guy? I'm still catching up on some of this baseball math.

But, something occured earlier to me and applies, here. In the context of our discussion:

In moving guys like Mike Schmidt, or Bobby Grich, to shortstop, it's incumbent upon us to first re-evaluate their run saved numbers on D when moved from one position to another. Then, we need to find out the numbers for Mike Schmidt's replacement at 3B, and Bowa's at 2B, and so on, if we're shuffling the infield around. How many more runs would Bowa have saved at 2b versus Cash? Schmidt at 3b versus SS? Money at 3b, versus Schmidt?

Then, we add them all up and see which combination lead to the greater run advantage for their teams. For example, most likely, Schmidt's offensive runs and defensive saved runs numbers would be higher at 3B. His average defense at shortstop would lower his value-- his run positive number. That number is then added to the numbers of the rest of the infield, or even team, as a whole.

That's the more accurate way to judge whether the Phillies were better off with Schmidt at 3b, or SS, and I believe that's what guys like Weaver were thinking--- broadly, in team context.

Without the numbers from the other players, it's impossible to say which line up is more valuable to its team, even if one shortstop's number look better than another's head-to-head.

I'd think when we look at it that way, given what they had or could have had, the Orioles and Phillies may have been better off in the "run-positive" department by using the combinations they did.

[Malleus Dei]

No modern manager is going to start a Belanger. They know too much now. Dance around it all you want. I'm done.

[Erad67]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

Wouldn't you need to consider runs saved to reach a conclusion on which SS was the actual positive run guy? .

I tried to present that basic idea earlier to which the reply was:

I don't think anyone is questioning Belanger's true defensive impact. He was a seriously great SS. But the impact of being a seriously great SS was being given greater weight in those days than it should have been.

A run saved is just as good as a run created. If the runs saved by the glove could have equaled or bettered the additional runs generated by a better bat, then they weren't giving it more weight than they should have. Especially when you consider how much wear and tear on your pitching staff a good glove at short saves you. So if a great glove equals the benefits of a great glove run/base wise AND saves wear and tear on your pitching staff then perhaps they had it right in the 1970's. Seems to me we give greater weight to offense now than we should.

[OldFatGuy]

Maybe the theory is that, at the major league level, shortstops don't have an ability, or are unable to differentiate themselves in the ability to prevent runs.

[knockahoma]

Hey, M.

No modern manager is going to start a Belanger. They know too much now. Dance around it all you want. I'm done.

Well, I don't know the steps, my friend. I wasn't dancing to that tune. That has never been my argument. In fact, one post up I responded to your comment,

Mall: For instance, no MLB manager today would start a Belanger. They know they can't afford to.

Knock: Honestly, I don't know if they would, or not. But the managers of today aren't dealing with the same hand as those in the 70s, Mal. Would you agree?

So, don't go chompin' on your cigar at me, for that argument , (by the way, I dig your avatar immensely, though I doubt that will save me popularity points, right now.)

The discussion I was having with several people was whether Weaver in his day was justified in keeping Belanger at SS, or the Phillies were right to keep Bowa at that position, versus moving a Grich, or a Schmidt into the spot. I've tried to support my thinking by comparing the 1974 2nd place Yanks with the 2008 3rd place Yankees, illustrating that bats-- for whatever reason-- are far more plentiful these days. It's much easier to find 8 hitters on one team than it was in those days. And if the guy can't hit, he'd better field.

If Belanger played today, I can see how he might be a substitute, or maybe never even would have made the majors. Johnny Oates, the long-time defensive catcher thought the same of himself. The game has changed. By their offensive numbers, there are a ton of major league players from 74 who wouldn't start today-- at all positions.

[knockahoma]

knock: Wouldn't you need to consider runs saved to reach a conclusion on which SS was the actual positive run guy? .

Erad: I tried to present that basic idea earlier to which the reply was:

I know. Your post is what got me thinking about it; then I thought about how one would have to apply that to an entire infield's positive run score-- especially when shifting players around. You have to look at all the scenarios, then add-- or try to add- up the points, runs earned, or saved, in each scenario.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

A personal note: I saw both Belanger and Robinson play. Belanger was good, but Robinson...the things he would do on the field! He was amazing! As a young third baseman, I was awed. Many years later, I can still remember some of the plays he made as if it was yesterday, and still wonder how he ever made them!

What World Series was it where he didn't allow 1 ball to get by him tghe entire series, not to mention some of the inhuman plays he made? '70 or '73?

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Maybe the theory is that, at the major league level, shortstops don't have an ability, or are unable to differentiate themselves in the ability to prevent runs.

[StyxNCa]

Kind of an offshoot of this, it was said that the defensive importing was worked on and improved, but when importing my usual season, I saw no difference between the OOTP9 defensive ratings and those in OOTP10 so I don't know what was improved.

[knockahoma]

I was really looking forward to a what-if conversation. I like playing GM as much as the next OOTP-er.

I got to thinking; What if Weaver didn't want Belanger. What would the Orioles have done? Would they have shifted Grich, a minor-league shortstop, back to that position? Who, then, at 2nd? Would they have kept Davey Johnson, instead of sending him to Atlanta (Johnson was sent packin, in part, because it was perceived that in the last few years with the Orioles, he had lost a great deal of range from his golden glove year). Because we have to replace Grich with a hitter. A glove guy at 2B is just a wash. The point is to get hitters at all the infield positions.

In 74, Johnson batted .251, 15 HR at the launching pad in Atlanta. At 2B for the Braves, he save 10 fewer runs than the average player. If we stayed with Grich at 2B, he was .263, 19HR and saved 6.8 more runs than the average player. So, we go down in both offense and defense at this spot.

Grich has moved to SS. Let's give him the same batting numbers .263, 19HR. We get a mixed message on his defense there with the info we've got. In 1972, he played about 50 games at SS. Even as a former minor league SS, he finished with a .950 fielding percentage. Still, he save 12 runs above the average player. In 77, the Angels tried Grich at SS. He finished almost exactly average in runs saved. The Angels never played Grich at SS again (well, about 10 games over a period of years). Compare that to Belanger's 18 runs saved ABOVE what the average player saves (whatever that is, by the way?). 32 runs above the average player the next year.

So, if we had a good hitting and fielding shortstop in baltimore, it would be better to put Grich back at 2b, and trade Johnson the way he was, picking up Earl Williams for a year or two, and Earl's .254, 14HR as a c-1B-- an offensive plus over what the Orioles had at catcher.

Alright. So, we trade for not only a good defensive SS, but one who can hit. Those untouchable shortstops?

Cincy's Concepcion, Oakland's Campy, Philly's Bowa, LA's Russell. To get them would have cost Baltimore a lot. And who would that have been to pry away Concepcion, or Russell? At any rate, they were treasured by their teams.

So, who's left? Speier? He hits 10-20 points higher than Belanger, a .250-ish guy. He hit .250, 9HR in 74-- 4 more HR than Belanger. His D? 4.8 runs saved above the average player, up from -7 in 73. In 75, Belanger beats Speier in that department by 28 runs. Doesn't seem like a good trade to me.

Who else? What about a real hitter? Toby Harrah? 21 homers. But from 1974 to 1977, Toby usually finished between -8 and -10 runs saved at both shortstop AND 3B! So, Belanger usually had a 35-40 point lead on runs saved against Harrah. Even so, Harrah might win the runs positive race against Belanger by 5 or 10. But who goes to Texas for Toby?

Who else? All disagreements aside, who do the Orioles go after? How do they build this dream infield that's better than what they had?

[actionjackson]

One word: context. That is all.