View Single Post
Old 01-16-2014, 04:24 PM   #34
RchW
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
This will seem like an echo of other posts. When I say good or poor it means a wide range crossing at league average.

Poor hitting infielders not at least league average defensively should not exist past the low minors. They are the 4th of 4 groups that make up all batters. If some rare development is needed for a late bloomer it should be primarily defense. There is no logical basis for a poor hitting poor fielding infielder getting out of the A level of minors.

Group 3 good hit poor field should be rare in HS and rarer in College and never be poor fielding at multiple position. That defies logic. In early development a good hit poor field player will be a DH, at 1B maybe LF. No coach or College or pro team is going to play him any innings at CF or 2B SS. Other than an Uggla rule exception. good hit poor field players should never be SS or 2B. They should become corner OF>>1B>>3B in declining order. Other than the Uggla exception these players should have holes in the "good batter" skills that make them useful but not consistently better than league average. League statistical output and the resulting AI evaluation must apply a bigger penalty to poor defense such that a lesser (not bad) hitter but average or better fielder is the correct choice more often.

Group 2 poor hit good field. Should be the biggest group of players in any pool and the majority of player development both good and bad should occur in this group. Many players will cross back and forth from the smaller group 1 good hit good field. Most major league backup hitters, platoon hitters or injury replacements should be from this group. Infielders who decline in hitting may see a slight boost in defensive skills, something common IRL. Multi-position players should only come from this group (rare superstar exceptions) and this capability should come later in development not earlier, usually correlated with hitting decline or plateau. Learning multi positions early (human or AI interference playing multiple positions at once) should carry a risk of inhibiting hitting development but if done organically, say one position at a time to fill a need then that would reward realistic player use.

All players should have a primary position unless designated as "utility". When playing your primary position 100% of the defensive skill ratings available apply. When playing the next best position (even if the skills are apparently tied for first) there is a % reduction say 3%-10% that lasts for 45 games. So 15 games at -10%, 15 games at -7% and 15 games at -5%. After 45 games the player continues at the baseline -3%. If development continued and made the new position the primary one the the player would get 100% of available ratings. To make this work players would have two positions designated, a primary and a play position. Players could be played out of position but the penalty would be known.

Players set to utility would have a permanent drop say 10% or more in defensive skills across all positions but no big drop for learning. This would limit utility players to very good fielders and discourage overuse of the specialty but still allow the development engine to work normally.
__________________
Cheers

RichW

#stopthestupid

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit
RchW is offline   Reply With Quote