Best stat for defensive range?

[Clay Dreslough]

BMO's current Defense page shows the following stats:

P - Positions: The positions that the player is capable of playing, in order of competence.

Pct. - Fielding Percentage: The player's Fielding Percentage at the position he's current playing (or his normal position if he's currently on the bench).

PO - Putouts recorded at the position he's current playing (or his normal position if he's currently on the bench).

A - Assists recorded at the position he's current playing (or his normal position if he's currently on the bench).

GS - Games Started at the position he's current playing (or his normal position if he's currently on the bench).

RF Range Factor The player's Range Factor at the position shown. Range Factor is calculated by adding the total number of chances the player has and dividing by Games Played at that position.

Range - Range Comparison: The player's Range Factor, compared to the rest of the league at the position shown. A positive number indicates the player has performed better than average, while a negative number shows the percent that the Range Factor is below the league average.

In determining a player's defensive range, what stat do you find most useful?

[the3rdwiseman]

It's almost 1 AM in the Midwest Clay, don't you sleep?

I guess I go with RF and Grades. Oh, and percentage. It's probably a flawed philosophy on my part, but it seems to work.

I'll do anything to help out my pitchers :D

[Adam22]

The Fielding percentage for me. I dont understand a lot of the other stuff, and stuff like put-outs are of no consequence to me.

[Adam22]

I forgot to mention that if I have good scouting I consider the letter grades to be relavent. However, even when some people have A+, they still do worse then people who have B+, so I tend t look at their fielding percentage as well.

[cardfanstl]

Range Factor for me. I like seeing all that other stuff on that page too though.

One thing though, it looks like RF is currently calculated as you've said (Total Chances)/(Games Played).

But it would be more accurate if you'd calculate it by innings instead of Games Played like this. ((Total Chances)*9)/(Innings Played).

This may seem a bit picky, but here's what it effects. Bench Players usually have horrible ranges, and this in turn seems to screw up the Range % so that 0% really is below average and not average (since you have all the bench players dragging things down). This is just what it seems like to me based on my experiences, if Range % is calculated another way, then my issues with Range Factor are less too.

Still, RF is the best (at least for the ML, play-every-day, players). With Minor leaguers all you can do is look at the letters.

Dave

[stealthdog666]

I go by RF. Range percentages may not truly be a correct representation of how a player at a position is performing. Other teams may have players out of position or there may just be a shortage of good fielding players at a certain position. I look at RF (which also means I look at the individual stats that make it up) and also factoring in the range letter rating.

[williethebasset]

I would like to see a stat that tells everything together. (range, fielding pct, RF, etc.) and it is 100% accurate. It would be very easy for telling why the pitchers ERA's are so high in the 2003 rosters.

[georgefc3]

Thanks for Asking
Of all the aspects of BBMO, I think that RANGE and RANGE FACTOR are the least understood.

When I started with BBMO, I looked first at fielding ability mostly and then range. I did a little math and became convinced that RANGE/RANGE FACTOR is actually much more important than fielding percent.

This is so important to me, in fact, that when I joined SML I build a very large park with long fences and huge foul grounds. I plan to scarf up all the long ranged fielders. This should help keep down my ERA. Any team that comes to my park with slow guys in the outfield will have balls dropping in everywhere!!!

To Answer Your question
I think that the current system is basically pretty effective. Dave makes a good point that you should adjust this statistic for guys on the bench. While this would be an improvement, it is not essential. I use letter grades to judge ranges for minor leaguers and part timers.

Critical Decisions
When I am facing a tough decision between two guys that look very similar, I look at their RF numbers rather than just the letter grade. While the letter grade is good 90% of the time, sometimes you need a little extra (he he). This is especially true if both players are A+ players. Then you can look at the RF and say "Joe X has been a starter for 5 years now and he has an A+ range. His RF is 6.00, which is good for that position. Pete Z also has been starting a long time, has an A+ range factor but his RF is 6.60". In this case we can clearly tell that Pete Z is the better player, as he consistently reach more balls than the other guy.

Value of Range
In this case the RF difference is .60. How much is that worth? Well, it means that in the average 9 inning game this guy will reach 6/10ths of a ball that the other guy will miss. Assuming that reaching a ball means an extra out, then the value would be... [Math kicking in, beware!]

.6 hits per game
average player has 4 at bats per game
.15 hits per at bat
or .150 points in batting average!!

Suggestion
Besides Dave's suggestion, my only suggestion would be to recalibrate the letter rating of the range. As you can see above there can be a lot of variability in players who have A+ ratings. This mostly comes into play in older leagues. I've gone looking into the free agent pool and seen literally 5-10 players with A+ Range ratings. This is epecially true at third base for some reason.

:D

[Cipster]

I like range factor BUT it needs to be per 9 innings played not games played. This way bench players (that are often good defensive players in my case) don't get penalized for playing 2 innings at a time.

[Cipster]

I forgot to add also that I think you should consider adding Zone Rating (% of balls fielded that were hit in the player's area)

It's already widely used including by ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=8&season=2003&seasonType=2&split=84&sortColumn=zoneRating)
in their defensive stats.