dannyt Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Interesting. Thanks. I wonder how the fielding calculator came up with those specific numbers? I suppose the best way to find a totally accurate rating on something like throwing accuracy would be to have the numbers of throws vs the number of on target throws. Knowing baseball stats, they have to be out there somewhere! ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DylanBradbury Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Interesting. Thanks. I wonder how the fielding calculator came up with those specific numbers? I suppose the best way to find a totally accurate rating on something like throwing accuracy would be to have the numbers of throws vs the number of on target throws. Knowing baseball stats, they have to be out there somewhere! ha. Some very long, complex, well-calculated, and–in my opinion–accurate algorithms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannyt Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 I'm sure they are some very long equations that I undoubtedly would have failed in high school! ha. Your calcs, by the way are very useful. Just wasn't sold on McCutchen's range numbers. He's too blasted fast for a 65. It'd be awesome to incorporate some 40yd dash numbers in there! I must of missed this somewhere, but what does it mean when plate discipline and endurance and stuff like that comes back with a 10. Is that right or is there a conversion chart like the fielding calc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SESbb30 Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 1=10 2=20 3=30 4=40 5=50 6=55 7=60 8=65 9=70 10=75 11=80 12=85 13=90 14=95 15=99 or 100 whichever it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannyt Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 I see. I knew I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DylanBradbury Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 I'm sure they are some very long equations that I undoubtedly would have failed in high school! ha. Your calcs, by the way are very useful. Just wasn't sold on McCutchen's range numbers. He's too blasted fast for a 65. It'd be awesome to incorporate some 40yd dash numbers in there! I must of missed this somewhere, but what does it mean when plate discipline and endurance and stuff like that comes back with a 10. Is that right or is there a conversion chart like the fielding calc? According to FanGraphs he has below average range (-0.9): http://www.fangraphs...ion=OF#fielding 1=10 2=20 3=30 4=40 5=50 6=55 7=60 8=65 9=70 10=75 11=80 12=85 13=90 14=95 15=99 or 100 whichever it is Thanks SESbb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emath2432 Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 According to FanGraphs he has below average range (-0.9): http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=9847&position=OF#fielding Yeah, good speed doesn't always equate to good range. Sure, he could get their fast, but if he takes bad routes to the ball, he wont cover as much ground as someone who is a tad slower, but takes a better route to the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannyt Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Super interesting. Great research. That just confirms your calcs some more Dylan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.