I have a team full of A and A+ range guys, with fielding ratings between D and A-. I now have 21 errors in 13 games, but only 12 "+" plays.

What is the point of having good range if it only ramps up the probability that you'll have errors? Wouldn't it be better for a player to simply lack the range to get an out, rather than commit many errors? The difference between "errors committed" and "+" plays (in my instance) doesn't seem to to justify paying extra for range. Anyone have thoughts? Thanks

I would guess most of those 21 errors are normal errors and only 1 or 2 of them are due to increased range. while it's true that more chances means more chances for errors, I don't believe it leads to increased error rate.

Two things to consider:

1) There's zero difference between a single through the hole and a guy reaching first on an error. Either way there's a guy on first, so it doesn't matter if your guy muffs it, or if he lacks range and the ball goes through.

2) If a guy needs huge range to get to a ball that would normally be a hit, and he can't make the play, it will usually be a hit anyway, since it's not "normal effort" required.

As rbow said, those errors likely would occur anyway. With the extra range, he'll likely turn some hits into errors (which doesn't matter, since the result is the same) and some hits into outs.

There is a guy currently experimenting with High Defense and Low Range and he is doing VERY well with it.

1. Looks like your home park is the Astrodome? I would think that it would be a waste to draft so much range in a pitcher park, especially with the high cost these days in the sim for range.

2. Looking at your fielding ratings of your starters other than the catcher, you have two B's (3B and RF), three C's (1B, 2B, CF) and two C- (SS, LF). That's below average to start.

3. Next, consider fielding normalization. Forgetting about the catcher once again, 6 of your 7 fielders are pre-1925. To help coax better fielding out of them, part of the equation is having a modern day arm on the mound. Of your 4 starting pitchers, 3 of them are pre-1913. So you will likely make a lot of errors anyway with range not even being a consideration. If you typically face a lot of early 20th century hitters or older, that will make it even worse.

4. 13 games is an incredibly small sample size. But if we went ahead and extrapolated this out with the small sample, 150 plus plays is really good IMO.

Thanks, all.

Houseofbayne--how do you see my teams?

I think range is overrated when the best range guy in the world, Taylor Douthit, only gets 23 + plays in the OF. He creates 83 runs with his offense. Gary Sheffield costs almost exactly the same price and creates 141 runs. That's a run creation differential of 58. Sheffield has D- range with no + plays and six - plays. That's a +/- play differential of 29.

I realize that's an overly simplistic, unscientific and not completely accurate way of comparing, but as long as the run creation differential is much higher than the +/- play differential (obviously leaving out other categories) for similarly priced players, it seems that the SIM favors good hitters over fielders with great range.

I also think that comparing range to fielding average is comparing apples and oranges. As others in this thread have said, most of your fielders' errors were probably committed on routine plays, not balls they tracked down with their great range and then botched. If you wanted to put a premium on good range, I would think that you would want to put a premium on good defense in general and would draft high fielding percentages as well.

I guess my point is this--a player "failing" to make a play due to lack of range is the same as a player making an error due to high range/low fielding. Why should someone therefore pay for that range?

I also appreciate what thunder said above

Quote: Originally Posted By tandl71 on 5/22/2010Thanks, all.

Houseofbayne--how do you see my teams

I bumped up a thread called "How to View Other Leagues". Real easy, it tells you how there.

Shouldn't you be able to tell if an error occured on a range-related play? I think I've seen it in my boxscores, where there was an error on a play that had the "+-" good-range notation.

Also, on the question of a hit due to poor range is the same as an error due to good range, I think I'd rather have the error; rarely does the batter get an extra base because of the error, but the hit may turn into extra bases (for the batter and/or the runners). At least that's what I've gleaned from my not-too-scientific look at my teams...

A - play is not the same as an error, so I wouldn't expect that =- would be an error due to range. It could be a good play by the first fielder and a poor play by the second (1B comes off the bag, 2B misses the tag, etc.)

Quote: Originally Posted By tandl71 on 5/22/2010I have a team full of A and A+ range guys, with fielding ratings between D and A-. I now have 21 errors in 13 games, but only 12 "+" plays.

What is the point of having good range if it only ramps up the probability that you'll have errors? Wouldn't it be better for a player to simply lack the range to get an out, rather than commit many errors? The difference between "errors committed" and "+" plays (in my instance) doesn't seem to to justify paying extra for range. Anyone have thoughts? Thanks

Your pitching doesn't match your defense.