Fielding aging model

[Elendil]

I find that center fielders and middle infielders generally lose range rapidly starting in their mid to late 20s. Does that fit real-life baseball? Just curious if there's been work on this (I'd be surprised if there hasn't been). Links welcome.

[Number4]

And I thought this was about an older model fielding some grounders at SS
Generally, players do lose range as they age. Center fielders move to corners, middle infielders to the IF corners, everyone moves to 1B and if you suck too much even for 1B, you become a DH.

Look for example at McCutchen as a player losing defensive capability rapidly.

However, if your question is not about aging in general, but if the OOTP model is specifically accurate, it's beyond me.

[Elendil]

I definitely do see players losing range in their 30s IRL, just seems to happen rapidly in OOTP at early ages. They said Jeter got better at SS (from subpar to pretty good) in his late 20s and early 30s. That's just one player, granted. Still, I don't see a lot of guys getting a dozen consecutive Gold Gloves in OOTP the way they do IRL.

[ThePretender]

McCutchen has never been a good defensive CF (usually was -5 to -10) and no, Jeter didn't get better with age. But I do find as well that players lose defensive ratings a bit early, often as early as 27. I think this is something that should happen more frequently a bit later in their careers.

[Number4]

Jeter didn't get better with age, Jeter got better because he fixed a flaw in his technique after people were starting to realize that he was a bad shortstop and had to get either better or moved. He got coaching, and went from absymal at SS to merely mediocre at SS for a time.

Still a good SS overall because of his bat, still a good fielder overall because in order to play even the weakest SS, you're a better defender than most guys on the diamond. But moving A-Rod to third was sheer lunacy.

Every OOTP player would know that a guy with middling range and great arm should play third, not short, and A-Rod was a legit SS.

[Elendil]

I certainly agree with all that. Keeping him at SS was lunacy. However, couldn't players in OOTP also fix flaws in their game and improve range (which reflects positioning, not just quickness) as a result? But I don't see that happening after about age 25. Not saying it's a huge problem, just something I'm curious about.

BTW, B-R says Jeter improved substantially on Total Zone Rating between 28 and 30 and stayed more or less at that level until 36: Derek Jeter Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com

[Number4]

I don't think Jeter improved at age 28-30. What I'd say: up to then, his talent level, had through a combination of not understanding sabermetrics and bad coaching, been higher than his actual ability. His "infield range" didn't improve, but his "experience" wasn't at 200 yet. His body didn't allow him to get to more balls, he was trained to allow him get to more balls with his existing body.

And I think this is an outlier. Most of guys are finished with fielding training by the time they leave the minors, some get training at ML level (especially players that have to be converted), but modern fielding training allows them to find their ceiling too.

If one wanted to represent Jeter, there should be an event triggered by a bad fielding coach that caps his experience at 180. Or either an event by a good fielding coach randomly improving his range ("removed a flaw from his game"), but I assume in modern times, it is unlikely that a flaw like that would go unnoticed anymore.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by Number4

Jeter didn't get better with age, Jeter got better because he fixed a flaw in his technique after people were starting to realize that he was a bad shortstop and had to get either better or moved. He got coaching, and went from absymal at SS to merely mediocre at SS for a time.

That sounds wonderful but it's not remotely true. And Jeter always argued that he was better than his numbers said. He got worse with age as every player did/does. He didn't get better or start using different techniques. So I don't know where you heard this but it's not true.

Still a good SS overall because of his bat, still a good fielder overall because in order to play even the weakest SS, you're a better defender than most guys on the diamond. But moving A-Rod to third was sheer lunacy.

He was a good overall SS but he was not by any stretch a good fielder. Not even relative to other fielders because he was

It makes sense they left him there, though. His bat was so good relative to other SS's, that even after factoring in his bad glove, he still remained one of the best SS's during his play. Should have been moved over for A-Rod, I agree, but before that it made sense.

[Elendil]

He did win three GG's right after everyone started saying his fielding had improved. Yes, voters are idiots, but...

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Elendil

He did win three GG's right after everyone started saying his fielding had improved. Yes, voters are idiots, but...

The bolded part is your answer for why that happened. Remember, these are the voters who gave Rafael Palmeiro a GG at 1B for a season he played 29 games as a 1B. Not exactly rocket scientists.

[Number4]

About Jeter's fielding overall:
The Other Half of the Story About Derek Jeter?s Defense | FanGraphs Baseball

They place him overall right in the middle of the pack. I'd value him hoverver higher than average, because he was probably performing worse than he should by being put in a tough position - shortstop - compared to a more natural fit - IMO third.
It's like a corner outfielder playing center - he'll get a better positional adjustment, but will probably lose more than that, because the expectation is that a better defensive player will be there.

About Jeter's aging, I've got that from here: The Tragedy of Derek Jeter's Defense «

"So what is Jeter doing differently, and how can he still rate so poorly in BIS’s eyes if he’s no longer making the same mistakes?
In 2007, his age-33 season, Jeter’s DRS fell to minus-24, and Yankees GM Brian Cashman reportedly noticed that he “hadn’t lost one step, but two.” After the season, Cashman took Jeter to dinner and found a tactful way to tell him that his defense was hurting the team. This came as news to Jeter, who’d never heard that message from anyone else in the organization. To his credit, he took the tip to heart and spent the winter working on his lateral movement with a new fitness trainer.
In 2008, Jeter’s DRS improved to minus-10. And in 2009, after working with Yankees infield coach Mick Kelleher on “aggressive defensive positioning,” Jeter posted a plus-3 DRS, the first time he’d ever cracked positive territory. Given how well Jeter hit that season — .334/.406/.465 — the thought of him wielding a good glove to boot is almost as scary as a mask of his face. (No wonder the Yankees went all the way.) But that was as good as it got: The next year he fell back to minus-9, and then minus-15, and then minus-18."

[Elendil]

That aging curve is just nothing like what I ever see in OOTP for middle infielders. They're all washed up by 33. :-/

Here's Ozzie Smith: Ozzie Smith Fielding Stats | Baseball-Reference.com His best year is arguably 1989, when he was 34.

Ryne Sandberg: Ryne Sandberg Fielding Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com His best year was at age 36.

Now, I do notice that if you just look at range factor, both Smith and Sandberg peak very young. But RF is a crude fielding measure and could well reflect a lot of low-strikeout, high-groundball pitching in those years.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

He was a good overall SS but he was not by any stretch a good fielder. Not even relative to other fielders because he was

Apparently you messed up in editing what you were writing or something, but you ended up leaving your reasoning out.

I agree with Number4 that a weak defensive SS, which Jeter was, still is a better defender than most players on the field.

Anyone who's good enough to stay at SS and not be so obviously bad (even to the very unreliable eyeball test) he's replaced before the season is out is a talented fielder. Do you think if a team moved the LFer to SS he could do better? The 1Bman? Most 3Bmen (A-Rod being an obvious exception)?

Of course, when the Yankees got A-Rod, A-Rod should have been the SS and Jeter should have been moved to 3B.

I'm not saying Jeter was anything but a bad defensive SS, but a bad defensive SS is still a talented defensive player.

[NoOne]

it's crazy that kinsler won a gold glove at 33/4 whatever it is... players in their 30s are nowhere near the atheltic ability they had in their 20's.

can somethings offset this a bit? sure. maybe even make them overall better at their position at the same time they are starting to lose a step? sure. after that the only argument is frequency of occurence, which no one can attest to without actually consulting the raw data and mining relevant information.

if they make a lot of mistakes at SS, but could play other positions well... that doesn't really matter because they aren't playing those positions...If they are bad relative to their positional peers, then they are bad defensively.

being better than an average right fielder doesn't argue for or against anything. if it's used as a reason to change that player's positon -- That is good use for that knowledge. that doesn't help assess a SS ability playing SS.

most good defenders played SS up until college/minors anyway. and likely pitched, too, since high school talent is really really low quality... average people play high school sports.

[Number4]

Originally Posted by NoOne

if they make a lot of mistakes at SS, but could play other positions well... that doesn't really matter because they aren't playing those positions...If they are bad relative to their positional peers, then they are bad defensively.

being better than an average right fielder doesn't argue for or against anything. if it's used as a reason to change that player's positon -- That is good use for that knowledge. that doesn't help assess a SS ability playing SS.

Sorry, but simply no. Baseball positions aren't created equal and you cannot just simply assume they are in a vacuum, because they aren't.

Of course you can compare Jeter to other shortstops. Then you can of course say he's a bad shortstop defensively, because that is simply true.
However if you compare him not to shortstops, but to baseball players, saying he's bad (which means at least below average) defensively is wrong just because he struggled at the toughest non-battery position. You can try to measure that objectively, and I'd argue he isn't below average by that.

Imagine the defensive positions being loads you have people carry. You have the toughest loads - C and SS, then decling loads in 2B, CF, 3B, RF, LF, an easy load in 1B and literally carrying nothing while playing DH.
Now, if you assign this loads to people, you will assign the best carriers the toughest loads. However if someone is "merely" average (which means, average for the absolute cream of the crop in ballplayers - Bartolo F. Colon plays shortstop for his softball team!), he will struggle with the toughest loads.
That doesn't mean he is bad, that means you put him in a situation based on the fact that he is not bad. If he was bad, you wouldn't give him this load at all, but even though he struggled, he was carrying that load after all, while other guys would not be able to lift that load a single inch. Those guys are objectively worse than him, and by that I mean the average corner outfielder or bat first 2B/3B.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by NoOne

it's crazy that kinsler won a gold glove at 33/4 whatever it is... players in their 30s are nowhere near the atheltic ability they had in their 20's.

can somethings offset this a bit? sure. maybe even make them overall better at their position at the same time they are starting to lose a step? sure. after that the only argument is frequency of occurence, which no one can attest to without actually consulting the raw data and mining relevant information.

if they make a lot of mistakes at SS, but could play other positions well... that doesn't really matter because they aren't playing those positions...If they are bad relative to their positional peers, then they are bad defensively.

being better than an average right fielder doesn't argue for or against anything. if it's used as a reason to change that player's positon -- That is good use for that knowledge. that doesn't help assess a SS ability playing SS.

most good defenders played SS up until college/minors anyway. and likely pitched, too, since high school talent is really really low quality... average people play high school sports.

By any defensive metric out there, Ian Kinsler is still an elite defender at 2B. I would argue that only Pedroia was better in the AL, so it's not as bad of a miss as some that we've seen over the years. It's not like they just looked at offensive numbers and determined it that way as they sort of used to in the old days. Had they looked at offensive numbers only, Altuve would've won it hands down. I suppose it's fair to say that defensive metrics are in their infancy, but I choose to look at it as they're the best we have now, and as we go forward they will improve.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by NoOne

if they make a lot of mistakes at SS, but could play other positions well... that doesn't really matter because they aren't playing those positions...If they are bad relative to their positional peers, then they are bad defensively.

Jeter's talents were used poorly (at least once his team had A-Rod; his bat might, before that point, have justified playing him at SS; replacement-level SS's can't usually hit).

Playing Jeter at SS rather than A-Rod might have cost the Yankees defensively (this is admittedly a number pulled out of the air) 25 runs on defense.

But what if the Yankees had played Jason Giambi at SS? He might have cost them 100 runs defensively at that position. Meanwhile, Jeter would almost definitely have been a good defensive 1Bman if asked to play there.

So Jeter was a better defensive player than Giambi, for example. He was just given a much harder task and did a bad job compared to others good enough to be given that task at the MLB level, but he did a much better job than most of the others on the field could have done.