Quote:
Originally Posted by David Watts
Syd, I bumped a thread in the OOTP21 historical forum in which Garlon showed how guys were having extreme ZR's in historical play--Ripken with a 74 for example. I know Garlon has revamped the historical fielding over the past couple versions
My question for you(a fictional player) is, what are the ZR's like in fictional play. Can you look at Shortstops in particular. Just curious, as fielding ratings in fictional seem to be a lot higher than those doled out in historical.
|
My experience is that in order for a player to be a worthy shortstop in a fictional league they should probably have a 60 or higher overall at the position. You can get away with a 50 there if they’ve got good offense or if you’re just plugging a hole but even a 45, which is supposedly average, is not going to cut it. Does that mean they’re too high? Perhaps that’s the issue; I only know what I have in front of me. Also I think shortstop and center field are outlier positions in that regard because there’s such a big premium defensively - even 8th the fictionalized 70s you can get away with 40 rated 2nd and 3rd basemen if their tools are in the right places (a third baseman has to have a good arm and at least not terrible hands; a second baseman can conceivably lack range if they also have good hands and can turn double plays). Also I think the 20-80 scale encompasses all players who are rated to play somewhere and one deal with fictional leagues is that often you have third basemen for instance who are 20/80 to play shortstop but, if they were a historical player, would never get an inning there IRL.
But I do think that compared to historical leagues, you do get 80/80 guys at short and center, which very rarely happens in historical leagues, and that’s not even a knock on all the work Garlon et al have done; as noted, I think it’s a simple issue with historical fielding stats, period.