Dee-Nee Forums

Personally I like to have some sort of BOP rating to have it possible.  My preference would be to base on team's defense, however this may take more time and arguments then it is worth.

If you just want to make an executive decision and run with it, then please do.  Just realize that I'd like to get the ROM and label over to the guy as soon as possible.

A quick check of Line-ups gives me this best guess for D rankings (I could make more variance)

Hou 5
Oak 6
Atl   5
Stl   4
Chi  5
LA   4
SF   4
Cin  3
Bos 4
NYY 5

Let's give everyone till tomorrow lunch to see what people getting the ROM want, if the 0s win, then the ROM is already done.

i vote yes for errors.  just curious--how'd you arrive at those error ratings?

im not sure exatly which one i wish to vote for just yet, but im in favor of errors thats for sure.....theres 3 choices i like currently.

all teams the same is fine...evens the playing field pun not intended..............

assign different values is also cool cause it makes some teams superior defensively...........

please explain the random choice...i have 2 different ideas in my head over what this can mean........

i'll kick it around and decide later on

Quote from: JoeDirt on 07/25/05, 04:36:46 PM
i vote yes for errors. just curious--how'd you arrive at those error ratings?

ult?

I'm definitely for errors, and like the defense based on team.  Of course I don't know how to measure each, but some variance is definitely cool...

Quote from: JoeDirt on 07/25/05, 05:21:42 PM

Quote from: JoeDirt on 07/25/05, 04:36:46 PM
i vote yes for errors. just curious--how'd you arrive at those error ratings?

ult?

Just general guesses based on the starters.  The Reds have some D studs, Griffey, Bench, Morgan, Concepcion.

The A's have some crap Canseco, Mac, Reggie

Others were in between.  Like I said I could make more variance (Reds =3 Oak=9?, then spread more through the middle

Oh, I didn't know it was mere personal opinion.  I wonder if we could get the career fielding percentages of the top fielding positions (ss, 2b, 3b, cf, c) perhaps and go off of that?

Reputation is probably as good an indicator, if not better, than fielding %

Quote from: ultimate7 on 07/25/05, 09:04:55 PM
Reputation is probably as good an indicator, if not better, than fielding %

Possibly, but some of these players are from so long ago--do you know the fielding reputation for Ken Boyer, for example?

Old fogies in St. Louis compare Scott Rolen to Kenny Boyer(with rolen being better), so he must have been all right.  5 gold gloves are always nice.

Okay, here's the final ruling: if we are to include BOPs, then we need to have definitive error ratings.  If you guys are saying we leave it to best guess/reputation, then let's have it.  I am not waiting around indefinitely for an answer...

So, if errors are to be included, then post your ratings with explanation asap and we'll all decide what's right/wrong about 'em.

Otherwise, I'm going to carry on with the project as closely to the arcade version as possible.

Quote from: ultimate7 on 07/25/05, 04:06:29 PM
A quick check of Line-ups gives me this best guess for D rankings (I could make more variance)

Hou 5
Oak 6
Atl 5
Stl 4
Chi 5
LA 4
SF 4
Cin 3
Bos 4
NYY 5

Let's give everyone till tomorrow lunch to see what people getting the ROM want, if the 0s win, then the ROM is already done.

So for example, ult--this is great...but can you add your logic behind the ratings?  As in, specific players that make a rating high or low?

OK, I'll do a team at a time while I have a chance...

Oakland is the worst team defense by far.

Canseco, Jackson, Henderson in the OF is awful.

I really don't know much about their infield Campeneris was likely good and Bando and Tenace probably held their own, Green I know nothing about.

MY Rating:  10 (Detroit is 12 on Arcade, we'll leave 10 as highest here)

10 yields 3.9% chance of BOP

Hou is probably the team I know the least about, they are mostly build from the 80's so they probably aren't all time defensive greats

Watson, Cruz, Cedeno  should be an above average OF since they had to cover the dome (esp Cedeno and Cruz)

Walling, Thon, Doran, GDavis:  Probably a good middle IF with average corners, if someone knows of better info, please include

Ashby, your guess is as good as mine

Rating:  7


Atlanta:  Probably the 2nd worst defensive team in the game:

Aaron, Murphy, Garr probably somewhat above average (I really don't know anything about Garr)  do they have a true CF, pretty important

Mathews, Ramirez, Johnson, Horner:  Bad Corner IFs, with probably average to below average middle

Torre:  Strong Catcher

Rating: 9

STL:

OF,  Brock, Flood, Musial:  Flood I fairly sure was very strong defensively, Brock, not so much, but obviously fast, Musial probably solid

Boyer, Smith, Hornsby, Clark:  Probably best left side IF in the game, Hornsby, who knows, Clark not so good, but really going to be carried by Smith and Boyer.

Catcher Simmons:  ?

Rating:  5

Cubs:

OF:  Williams, Wilson, Dawson  Strong corner OFs but weaker CF (The most important OF)

IF:  Santo, Banks, Sandberg, Cavaretta

Solid IF nothing spectacular (maybe Santo)

C: Davis average at best

Rating: 7

LA:

OF  Guerrero. Davis, Snider,   I think OF is slightly below average

IF:  Cey, Reese, Robinson, Garvey:   Strong IF, very strong middle IF, Garvey couldn't throw, and I hate him.

C: Campanella  strong

Rating:  6

after seeing how crappy of a team houston had, i might have to buy an arcade ROM cart as well, so i can be an even worse team than the cartridge houston!

Quote from: Strassy on 07/26/05, 09:22:38 AM
after seeing how crappy of a team houston had, i might have to buy an arcade ROM cart as well, so i can be an even worse team than the cartridge houston!

Arcade Hou > NES Hou, but relative to the other teams Arcade Hou is probably worse since the rest of the Arcade teams are so much better

SF:

Bonds, Mays, Ott   What can you say Say Hey, plus Bonds, gotta be a strong OF no matter how bad Ott was.

Brown, Dark, Fuentes, McCovey.. Really no clue

Rader also no clue

Mays carries them to a 6 unless someone has more info

These are great...thanks ult.  Keep 'em comin'!

Cinci:

Foster, Griffey, Pinson:  Griffey is strong in Center, I'm guessing Foster is probably the one real weakness of this defense

Rose, Concepcion, Morgan, Perez:  Very strong up the middle, Perez and Rose are probably above average.

Bench:  All time great

Rating: 4

These last 2 teams are probably the toughest because so many old timers:

Boston:

Yaz, Lynn, Williams (any real CF?)  I really don't know, Yaz and Williams could hit, and I doubt either were Manny level defense, but were they strong?

Boggs, Burly, Doerr, Fox   ( Boggs was decent, Burly too, no clue on the right side, I'd guess Doerr was good but I don't know)

Fisk: strong

Rating: 7

NYY

Dimmagio, Mantle, Ruth:  Gotta be strong I guess, was Mantle Sober?  Was it before he tore up his knee, obvioubly Mantle and JoeD are strong

Nettles, Lazzeri, Rizzuto, Gehrig  (Nettles was great I guess the middle was strong too, but really not certain) Gehrig?  Probably solid

Berra:  Strong

Rating: 6

I'd love for Dryden to do a quick review of all these values.

Nice work Ultimate!  I emailed Dryden to see if he can give them a view.  Hopefully he'll have some time in the next day or so...

The easiest quick way to do this, I'd say, would be to pick up a copy (or just swing by a bookstore) of Bill James' Win Shares and take a look at the fielding ratings for each of the players in the rom, then either assign a value by position or just average across all of them.

I'd probably do the following:

SS: 10
C: 9
2B: 8
CF: 7
3B: 5
RF: 3
LF: 2
1B:1

Multiply these by the player ratings (a 10 for A+, 9 for A, etc.) to get a composite score, pick a range of values you want the ratings to run from/to, and see how they distribute.

I'll throw up another post to try to summarize what I know of specific player D in a sec...

I'm pretty sure that Joe wants to get this thing ordered today, so that's probably out of the question.  Ultimate's guess work is probably more than sufficient for such a small detail.  I know most of you pay much closer attention to the game than I do, but I've never really noticed a difference in bops between the different teams.

Quote from: BeeJay on 07/26/05, 12:28:10 PM
I know most of you pay much closer attention to the game than I do, but I've never really noticed a difference in bops between the different teams.

You should have watched me and usc's first game at the tourney.  6 fucking BOPS for the Tigers.  Needless to say, a winner was not me.

From what I know (or at least think I know...)

Dodgers: Robinson ++, Campanella ++, Reese ++, Snider ++, Garvey +, Guerrero --, Davis +, Cey 0
Cards: Smith ++, Flood ++, Boyer ++. Musial +, Brock 0, Hornsby --, Simmons --, Clark --
Oakland: Canseco --, McGwire --, Jackson -, Henderson 0, Campaneris ++, others?
Houston: Cruz ++, Cedeno ++, Doran 0, Thon +, Ashby +
Atlanta: Murphy ++, Aaron 0, Horner --, Torre -, Ramirez +, Mathews 0
Chicago: Dawson ++, Wilson 0, Williams 0, Santo ++, Banks -, Sandberg +, Cavaretta +, Davis +
San Fran: Mays ++, Bonds ++, Ott ++, McCovey +
Reds: Rose -, Concepcion +, Morgan ++, Bench ++, Perez 0, Griffey 0, Foster -
Boston: Williams --, Lynn +, Yaz +, Doerr +, Boggs +, Fisk ++, Foxx +
New York: Mantle ++, DiMaggio ++, Ruth -, Gehrig 0, Nettles +, Berra +, Rizzuto ++, Lazzeri 0


(on a ++, +, 0, -, --) rating scale.

I'd rate them, as teams:

Dodgers
Yankees
Astros
Reds
Red Sox
Giants
Cubs
Cardinals
Braves
Athletics

Nice work Dryden!  I'll mail you a coupon for a free Old Style on your next trip to Chicago...

Quote from: ultimate7 on 07/26/05, 10:14:41 AM
obvioubly Mantle and JoeD are strong

Thanks Ult.  That's really sweet of you to say about me

wasnt mcg a gold glove winner?  too lazy to look up, but i think i recall being pissed that mattingly didnt win it that yr...

Guys win gold gloves with their bats all the time.  If Derek Jeter deserves a gold glove, then no one does.

so, what--i suppose next you're gonna say palmeiro didn't deserve his gold glove for playing a stellar 1b for 17 games out of a 162 game season?  Some people...

I just PMed this to Ult7, but I thought I'd post it and see what you guys think regarding bops and defensive rating accuracy.

Take this for what it's worth, and to check it out yourself, go to www.smallworld.com, my login info is (PM if you want) and password is (PM if you want it) click on one of my "all time great teams" either the Fighting Sioux, Toledo Maumees, or NDSU Bison, you can go through and check out defensive ratings and compare them to a bunch of teams from the original RBI.

For instance, take the 1987 Cards according to sporting news strat-o-matic.

Coleman  3e10
Ozzie         1e10
Herr           2e8
Clark          4e19
McGee          1e8
Pendleton      1e28
Ford             2e9
Pena         2e8

The first number represents the range, 1 being the best, 5 being the worst, the number following the "e" represents how many errors could be expected (this is based on a single season, but of the RBI Teams are Houston, NYM, Stl and I believe Detroit)

I'd say about 75% of Arcade players are in this version of strat, you don't have to do it this way, but I may go down and make some comparisons with the original RBI teams and their ratings based on this once I get the time.

Anyway, check it out if you want, it's the best I've seen as far as accurate defensive ratings and what-not.

I'd take strat's ratings as being meaningfully credible.

Quote from: Dryden on 07/26/05, 12:47:01 PM
I'd rate them, as teams:

Dodgers    4
Yankees    5
Astros    5
Reds    5
Red Sox    6
Giants    6
Cubs    7
Cardinals    7
Braves    9
Athletics    10

We could go with these, but I don't really have any more time to spend on this.  Thanks for the link Azz, I was about to go there, but then realized it would entail me spending more time then this is worth at this point.

Those values work for me...

For the sake of future ROMs, I would point out that for any actual teams (as opposed to all-time teams, which never actually existed) the best way to figure out what their BOP rating should be would probably be to take a look at their defensive efficiency rating, or DER - it's a reflection of how many balls in play get turned into outs, and is a great measure of total team defensive ability.

Anybody want to use the ave btwn Ult's and Dryden's ratings?  I'd hate to see all of Ult's work be for not...

yes

I'm good with that.

Seriously, can we make the rom already?

are you serious?

Quote from: JoeDirt on 07/27/05, 04:50:42 PM
are you serious?

Fuck, I haven't read much of this thread, what'd I miss?

But yeah, I'm serious, I'd like to get this rom ASAP.

I was joking, because you began your sentence with, "Seriously."  Like otherwise, nobody would know that you aren't joking.

Fkn comedians....

But no one ever starts a sentence with "Jokingly...."

Why is that?

In retrospect, it's probably because then it wouldn't be funny....

Jokingly, i don't know.

Wait, after typing that i just realized that it's because it's  not all that funny...

ult are you going to do this rom or do i have to do that, too?

Quote from: JoeDirt on 07/27/05, 09:36:31 PM
ult are you going to do this rom or do i have to do that, too?

If all that needs to be done is entering the errors, than I just finished doing it.

Did you make it same team 2pp, too?

OK I'll make it now with these values (which is mostly Dryden's order with me changing minorly) and post shortly


Dodgers 4
Yankees 6
Astros 5
Reds 5
Red Sox 6
Giants 6
Cubs 7
Cardinals 6
Braves 9
Athletics 10

OK here it is with Errors, 2pp, select same team.  Someone (JoeDirt) maybe test all these features.

Also made normal, instead of overstuffed per Nightwulf's suggestion

Thanks.  Will test and send off to be made!  I'm just going to get 'em and then deal with selling back to you folks...I won't charge extra, of course--but it's just easier this way.  Too hard to coordinate 10 people.

Just played a quick game.........






























And I kicked the computers ass!  Four inning slaughter Oak vs Atl but each team BOP'ed, so they are definitely working...