Well, almost full. We're not including pitchers' ranges here since they weren't included in the Range Preview of December 13th, 2024.

Normally the focus of the Beacon and "Stats E-Mails" are on the 1's and various predictions of the Range Ratings. Every 20 years or so, the Beacon takes a look at all the ratings. The original idea in the January

2002 Beacon was to see if the average range really was a 3. We have changed our mindset on that idea

in recent days. More on that in the analysis section.

THE METHOD TO THIS MADNESS

I rated 16 players from each MLB team, 2 at each position. I found that every MLB team had either 13 or 14

players designated as REG.These designations are:

REG are, well, the regulars on the team.

MIX are those that played on multiple teams.

ADD are those that have fewer ABs, usually in the 30-70 range depending on the team.

COMP are those with really few ABs, They are in the computer game but no printed cards.

There are some quirks involved with this and some noticeable inconsistencies. Not dealing with that here.

For this project I used the 13-14 REG. To fill in the other 2-3 players, I used the MIX or multiple positions for the obvious utility players.

I worked out charts for the POSITION STARTERS and POSITION RESERVES. I may have got some of these wrong but considering the 480 players involved, the percentages will be close enough.

For averages: example-@ C 1X6, 2X12, 3X9, 4X3 and 5X0 = 69. Divided by the 30 players averages 2.3.

POSITION STARTERS                            POSITION RESERVES                               ALL

POS     1      2       3      4       5   AVG       POS       1     2       3       4      5    AVG         

C            6      12        9        3        0     2.3              C           0      1        18      10       0      3.3         2.7

1B          4        7        9      10        0     2.8             1B           0      0         7       23      0      3.8         3.5

2B          6        8       11       8        0     2.5              2B          0      4        18        8       0     3.1         2.8

3B          8      10        8        4        0     2.3             3B           0      2       15       13      0      3.4         2.8

SS        11      10        5        4        0     2.1             SS           0      2       19         9       0     3.2         2.6

LF          3      12       10       5        0     2.6             LF            0      2       15      12      1      3.2         2.9

CF        18       7         5       0        0     1.6              CF           2      8       13        7      0      2.8         2.2

RF         7        9       12       2        0     2.4              RF           1      5       14        9      1      3.1         2.7

Total  63    75     68     33       0  2.3           Total      3    24    120    91     2    3.3       2.8

In terms of percentages:

1's = 13.8%       2's = 20.6%       3's = 39.4%       4's 25.8%       5's = 0.4%     

The number of 1 ranges in 2001 and 2004 compared to 2024.

         2001      2004      2024

C          3              3              6

1B        4              5              4 

2B        4              3              6 

3B        2              2              8

SS        3             2             11   

LF        4              0              3

CF        5             5             18

RF        5             2               7

Total   30           22            66

ANALYSIS

Glancing at the comparison chart above, does anything stick out to you? How about those 11 1 ranges

at SS and 18 in CF? The 29 at those two positions alone is 132% of  the 2004 total. The 8 at 3B is quite a bit

more as well, though not as drastic. The rest are fairly close to what we used to see.

Overall though we see the average is about 2.8 which isn't too out of line. Plus as I noted above, perhaps 3.0 isn't the real average. Yes, there are 5 rating grades, but does the 5 rating really count? I mean, there's only two with 5 ratings among the REG. The 5 rating is given only to those that are playing out of position, whether rated at the position or not. That, plus Jordan Walker and Gavin Sheets. And I don't have pitchers included here which might raise the overall average a bit. 

So with those factors accounted for, I think the average average is just about what it should be. Again.

Still.....

A 1 range will get a lot more outs and double plays. They will get a hundred more plays than the 3 range.

With the huge number of the 1's here, we're talking about a 1000 more outs than we saw in 2004.

Have the batting results on the card changed at all? I don't think so. 

This is the reason I have a problem with the ever-growing number of 1's given. 

It's true that there's more emphasis on Defensive metrics now than in the 2000's. And maybe the players are showing outstanding numbers that deserve to be given 1's. I think that maybe Strat just needs to raise their "grading on the curve" levels. If they feel that a defense metric grade of AA gets a 1, maybe they need to change that to a grade of  AAA?

I would just like to see some sort of consistent method used when assigning the range grades.

Jim W

______________________________________________________________

x