Fielding Percentage for "New" Positions

eneubaue · 09-23-2002, 02:28 PM

Has anyone experienced having the computer AI use a fielder with no rating at a position, only to find out that the player eventually learns the position and is "assigned" a fielding percentage of .000?

I've had this happened numerous times, and it's frutrating to find out at the end of the season that a left-fielder playing centerfield has lead the league in errors in only 20 games because the computer AI "assigned" his fielding percentage at centerfield to .000.

Is there any way this can be changed for the last patch/version 5? I'd think that a worst case scenario should be to set the "default" fielding percentage to, say, .800 (Ideally it should be set to a default fielding percentage for each position, like .850 for 3B, .950 for 1B, and so on).

Comments?

Steve Kuffrey · 09-23-2002, 02:55 PM

Can you give me more details of the league? I have not seen nor heard of this happening.

eneubaue · 09-23-2002, 04:13 PM

Steve,

I'm playing a solo fictional league with 32 teams total, 45 players each team (25 in majors, 20 in AAA/AA). Each team has the same number of players at each position, although at the major league level this varies from team to team.

For example, every team has 3 LF's, but on team A there is 1 LF on the major league roster (2 in AAA/AA), while on team B there are 2 LF's on the major league roster (1 LF in AAA/AA).

The fielding percentage problem occurs when a player on the major league roster (say, a centerfielder) is injured and the computer AI "plays" another player in the centerfielder position (say, a leftfielder). After a few games (it varies by position, of course), the computer AI assigns a fielding rating and also a fielding percentage of .000.

I think one problem might be that there are no ready replacement players on the major league roster that can fill the injured players position (That is, there are no other players rated to play CF - either primary or secondary - on the major league roster, using the example from above). The computer uses the next "available" player (LF) not rated at centerfield and plays that player there.

Another problem, similar to one one above, may be that the computer selects a player from the minors with no rating at that position. It could be that the player (say, the left fielder) is being trained to play centerfield in the minors, the major league centerfielder goes out with an injury, and the leftfielder is called up to the majors to play centerfield. After a short period, the minor league leftfielder earns a fielding rating but a fielding percentage of .000. To note, I have seen this happening in the minors when a player is being trained to play a new position. After a while, a player gets a fielding rating and sometimes is given a resonable fielding percentage (say .980 for an outfielder) and sometimes not (.000).

Is there a lag time for when a player is assigned a percentage for a new position learned? The problem has mostly occurred with outfielders, although I did have one team lose both of its catchers (it had no replacements in the minors) use a back-up first baseman that earned a fielding rating of "E" with a fielding percentage of .000 after about 20-30 games.

Don't know if the above has helped. If your testing, try playing a player out of position with no other player on the team (either major league roster or minors) having a rating at that position (either primary or secondary). It might help to "train" a player at the minor league level for the position, create an injury to the regular and see if the AI calls up the player being trained in the minors to play that position.

Scott Vibert · 09-23-2002, 04:41 PM

I have seen this. But I think this is a good thing (in some cases... not if a LF is learning CF, but for the 1B learning C yes I think its a good thing). Some players just will not learn a position and should not be used there. (I.E. Todd Hundley in left field)

As mentioned earlier... teaching a player a new position doesn't always work.

However I have never seen this happen with OFs, playing another OF position that should probably be looked at as this shouldn't IMO result in a .000 defensive rating. I've typically seen this from players trying to learn SS, or a C trying to learn 3B or vice versa.

I don't have a problem with the game assigning a .000 fielding percentage to a 1B playing Catcher. These positions generally require different skills and new catchers have problems learning it. (See Mark Lamb earlier this season). The worst rating earned I've seen in the minors was a .700 by a below average fielding player trying to learn SS.

It generally takes a couple of weeks at least for the player to develop the rating at either level.

Steve Kuffrey · 09-23-2002, 04:48 PM

I'll see what I can do with this, thanks for the detailed info.

eneubaue · 09-23-2002, 07:14 PM

ScottVib,

I agree in principle, but with caveats. It works well from the perspective of a "real" person trying to train a player at a different position (1B to C) in that it prevents the human from cheating (gaining an advantage of playing a player out of position). However, it doesn't necessarily work all that well internally. I don't want the AI to play a player out of position if it has someone on the roster (or a player in the minors) who has a rating (either primary or secondary) who can step in and play the position when a player goes down with an injury (This is when I primarily see the phenomenon occur).

I don't mind the AI training players at different positions; I also don't mind when the computer AI assigns a fielding percentage of .000 for players being trained at new positions (like 1B to C). I understand the logic. I just don't want it training players at new positions at the major league level. Real teams and managers wouldn't continue to play a player at a position in which he commits 30 errors in 10-20 games (which I've seen happen when the AI assigns a fielding percentage of .000 to a player playing out of position at the major leagues). They would trade for a replacement player or bring one up from the minors, which is what I want the AI to do (that is, of course, if there is a player available who can play the postion as either a primary or secondary position).

I'm pretty sure an issue (at least for me) is whether or not there are enough players on the rosters (majors and minors) who can replace injured players. I'm going to try out expanded rosters (more players in the minors) to see if it alleviates the problem. I think if the computer AI has more players to work with, then the training problem (and fielding pct of .000) won't be a major issue. That is, if training players occur, then it occurs at the minor league level where the fielding results aren't an issue.

09-23-2002, 02:28 PM	#1
eneubaue Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 156	Fielding Percentage for "New" Positions Has anyone experienced having the computer AI use a fielder with no rating at a position, only to find out that the player eventually learns the position and is "assigned" a fielding percentage of .000? I've had this happened numerous times, and it's frutrating to find out at the end of the season that a left-fielder playing centerfield has lead the league in errors in only 20 games because the computer AI "assigned" his fielding percentage at centerfield to .000. Is there any way this can be changed for the last patch/version 5? I'd think that a worst case scenario should be to set the "default" fielding percentage to, say, .800 (Ideally it should be set to a default fielding percentage for each position, like .850 for 3B, .950 for 1B, and so on). Comments?

09-23-2002, 02:55 PM	#2
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,035	Can you give me more details of the league? I have not seen nor heard of this happening. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

09-23-2002, 04:48 PM	#5
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,035	I'll see what I can do with this, thanks for the detailed info. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

09-23-2002, 04:13 PM	#3
eneubaue Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 156	Steve, I'm playing a solo fictional league with 32 teams total, 45 players each team (25 in majors, 20 in AAA/AA). Each team has the same number of players at each position, although at the major league level this varies from team to team. For example, every team has 3 LF's, but on team A there is 1 LF on the major league roster (2 in AAA/AA), while on team B there are 2 LF's on the major league roster (1 LF in AAA/AA). The fielding percentage problem occurs when a player on the major league roster (say, a centerfielder) is injured and the computer AI "plays" another player in the centerfielder position (say, a leftfielder). After a few games (it varies by position, of course), the computer AI assigns a fielding rating and also a fielding percentage of .000. I think one problem might be that there are no ready replacement players on the major league roster that can fill the injured players position (That is, there are no other players rated to play CF - either primary or secondary - on the major league roster, using the example from above). The computer uses the next "available" player (LF) not rated at centerfield and plays that player there. Another problem, similar to one one above, may be that the computer selects a player from the minors with no rating at that position. It could be that the player (say, the left fielder) is being trained to play centerfield in the minors, the major league centerfielder goes out with an injury, and the leftfielder is called up to the majors to play centerfield. After a short period, the minor league leftfielder earns a fielding rating but a fielding percentage of .000. To note, I have seen this happening in the minors when a player is being trained to play a new position. After a while, a player gets a fielding rating and sometimes is given a resonable fielding percentage (say .980 for an outfielder) and sometimes not (.000). Is there a lag time for when a player is assigned a percentage for a new position learned? The problem has mostly occurred with outfielders, although I did have one team lose both of its catchers (it had no replacements in the minors) use a back-up first baseman that earned a fielding rating of "E" with a fielding percentage of .000 after about 20-30 games. Don't know if the above has helped. If your testing, try playing a player out of position with no other player on the team (either major league roster or minors) having a rating at that position (either primary or secondary). It might help to "train" a player at the minor league level for the position, create an injury to the regular and see if the AI calls up the player being trained in the minors to play that position.

09-23-2002, 04:41 PM	#4
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,249	I have seen this. But I think this is a good thing (in some cases... not if a LF is learning CF, but for the 1B learning C yes I think its a good thing). Some players just will not learn a position and should not be used there. (I.E. Todd Hundley in left field) As mentioned earlier... teaching a player a new position doesn't always work. However I have never seen this happen with OFs, playing another OF position that should probably be looked at as this shouldn't IMO result in a .000 defensive rating. I've typically seen this from players trying to learn SS, or a C trying to learn 3B or vice versa. I don't have a problem with the game assigning a .000 fielding percentage to a 1B playing Catcher. These positions generally require different skills and new catchers have problems learning it. (See Mark Lamb earlier this season). The worst rating earned I've seen in the minors was a .700 by a below average fielding player trying to learn SS. It generally takes a couple of weeks at least for the player to develop the rating at either level.

09-23-2002, 07:14 PM	#6
eneubaue Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 156	ScottVib, I agree in principle, but with caveats. It works well from the perspective of a "real" person trying to train a player at a different position (1B to C) in that it prevents the human from cheating (gaining an advantage of playing a player out of position). However, it doesn't necessarily work all that well internally. I don't want the AI to play a player out of position if it has someone on the roster (or a player in the minors) who has a rating (either primary or secondary) who can step in and play the position when a player goes down with an injury (This is when I primarily see the phenomenon occur). I don't mind the AI training players at different positions; I also don't mind when the computer AI assigns a fielding percentage of .000 for players being trained at new positions (like 1B to C). I understand the logic. I just don't want it training players at new positions at the major league level. Real teams and managers wouldn't continue to play a player at a position in which he commits 30 errors in 10-20 games (which I've seen happen when the AI assigns a fielding percentage of .000 to a player playing out of position at the major leagues). They would trade for a replacement player or bring one up from the minors, which is what I want the AI to do (that is, of course, if there is a player available who can play the postion as either a primary or secondary position). I'm pretty sure an issue (at least for me) is whether or not there are enough players on the rosters (majors and minors) who can replace injured players. I'm going to try out expanded rosters (more players in the minors) to see if it alleviates the problem. I think if the computer AI has more players to work with, then the training problem (and fielding pct of .000) won't be a major issue. That is, if training players occur, then it occurs at the minor league level where the fielding results aren't an issue.