OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Neutralized play

Garlon · 10-11-2010, 01:35 PM

Regarding Jim Jackson 1901. The Innings Played in the "Real Stats" tab are simply calculated as Games Played times 8...or 8 innings per game. That's what OOTP generates as a default since there is no data for so many seasons.

For the neutralized stats we used Bill James method which analyzes a team's IPouts and A + PO + E at each position. With that neutralization process a team's total innings played at each position will match their total innings pitched by their pichers.

For Jim Jackson his 59 games played in CF remains the same, however, his innings played is estimated to be 558.2. I don't see why his games played in LF have been boosted and his RF games have disappeared. Spritze, why is this?

Although, Jim Jackson's defensive innings seems high it is still possible. With the limted roster sizes in the early 1900's it is possible that he played every inning of every game and even extra inning games. Still 28+ outs per game seems high considering his team averaged 26.outs per game. However, that's what the data yields. There is a margin of error for outs per game when using the estimated defensive innings method. This may be a situation in which there is greater error in the estimate. The estimates get a bid muddy when a position is split between many players.

Remember that in Lahman we only have a lump value for "OF" PO/A/E, and then we are given their distribution of game splayed at each of the 3 OF positions. In such situations we had to use a standard distribution of plays made across each of the 3 OF positions. What we have found from the real life discrete data that goes back about 50 years, is that about 30% of the outfield plays go to LF, 40% go to CF, and 30% go to RF. So when we reverse engineer this the same assumption is used for calcualting th defensive innings of teams. For the 1901 Orioles, if their real life ditribution of OF plays was significantly different than 30/40/30 it could cause some additional error in the process. I can tell you that we were extremely meticulous in doing the defensive neutralization process, and that I believe we have by far the best neutralized PO/A/DP and defensive inning data that can be generated from the limited real life data available.

So if you look hard you can find some anomalies, but if you consider everything as a whole you wll see that the neutralization process is actually quite accurate and realistic.

And yes, for players with very few AB or IP or Defensive Innings, we did pro-rate them based on their career rates so that OOTP would generate proper ratings from these stats. This was done to avoid sample size issues when generating ratings.

10-11-2010, 01:35 PM	#5
Garlon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 4,256	Regarding Jim Jackson 1901. The Innings Played in the "Real Stats" tab are simply calculated as Games Played times 8...or 8 innings per game. That's what OOTP generates as a default since there is no data for so many seasons. For the neutralized stats we used Bill James method which analyzes a team's IPouts and A + PO + E at each position. With that neutralization process a team's total innings played at each position will match their total innings pitched by their pichers. For Jim Jackson his 59 games played in CF remains the same, however, his innings played is estimated to be 558.2. I don't see why his games played in LF have been boosted and his RF games have disappeared. Spritze, why is this? Although, Jim Jackson's defensive innings seems high it is still possible. With the limted roster sizes in the early 1900's it is possible that he played every inning of every game and even extra inning games. Still 28+ outs per game seems high considering his team averaged 26.outs per game. However, that's what the data yields. There is a margin of error for outs per game when using the estimated defensive innings method. This may be a situation in which there is greater error in the estimate. The estimates get a bid muddy when a position is split between many players. Remember that in Lahman we only have a lump value for "OF" PO/A/E, and then we are given their distribution of game splayed at each of the 3 OF positions. In such situations we had to use a standard distribution of plays made across each of the 3 OF positions. What we have found from the real life discrete data that goes back about 50 years, is that about 30% of the outfield plays go to LF, 40% go to CF, and 30% go to RF. So when we reverse engineer this the same assumption is used for calcualting th defensive innings of teams. For the 1901 Orioles, if their real life ditribution of OF plays was significantly different than 30/40/30 it could cause some additional error in the process. I can tell you that we were extremely meticulous in doing the defensive neutralization process, and that I believe we have by far the best neutralized PO/A/DP and defensive inning data that can be generated from the limited real life data available. So if you look hard you can find some anomalies, but if you consider everything as a whole you wll see that the neutralization process is actually quite accurate and realistic. And yes, for players with very few AB or IP or Defensive Innings, we did pro-rate them based on their career rates so that OOTP would generate proper ratings from these stats. This was done to avoid sample size issues when generating ratings.