First base rating

[sprague]

Personally I think it is too easy for various infielders to switch over and become gold glove winning firstbasemen, and if you play in a league with no dh- about half of your good hitting average fielding FB's never get into the league until 25-26 and are done by 30-31

A seperate rating of "playing FB" would take some of that away where a good fielding SS might have a 10 FBskill to get an overall fielding value of 111, the same as the low range/error real FB who has a 122 FB skill and also winds up with an overall 111 rating

[gosensgo101]

A slick fielding infielder adjusting to first base well is realistic. Perhaps the issue is how the AI values fielding ability in its first basemen?

[blasek0]

Most infielders could make the move to 1B with little problem, though. How many good 3Bs have you seen turn into bad 1Bs? 2Bs? SSs? Almost every single one of them who starts out playing another position and later moves to 1B is a plus defensive 1B.

The game already has an "experience" metric in place that works along with the fielding ratings to determine how good a player is at any position. The problem is that 1Bs share their defensive stats with non-1Bs. You have to either make 1Bs run on their own defensive stats, which isn't all that realistic, or accept that most infielders can handle the move to 1B from a defensive standpoint, provided they get enough playing time at the position to become comfortable there.

[sprague]

Originally Posted by blasek0

Most infielders could make the move to 1B with little problem, though. How many good 3Bs have you seen turn into bad 1Bs? 2Bs? SSs? Almost every single one of them who starts out playing another position and later moves to 1B is a plus defensive 1B.

The game already has an "experience" metric in place that works along with the fielding ratings to determine how good a player is at any position. The problem is that 1Bs share their defensive stats with non-1Bs. You have to either make 1Bs run on their own defensive stats, which isn't all that realistic, or accept that most infielders can handle the move to 1B from a defensive standpoint, provided they get enough playing time at the position to become comfortable there.

i don't dispute a middle infielder could play fb, and play the position well
the problem is how the game handles it

say a top natural 1b in the game as a fielder might rate as 160 or something like that with his 122 fielding values
but a good f shortstop becomes 322 and wins every gold glove for 10 years. that i feel is unrealistic- the other postion players become 50% better than a 1b playing there since he was 15 years old. that is the problem, and thus makes many good 34 yr old first baseman forced to retire

[SurfRat61]

Sprague--you and others bring up some valid points. I, too, have a problem with how 1b is rated. Case in point, in my 64 franchise, 2 glaring examples: Ernie Banks was a terrible defensive shortstop yet a fairly decent first baseman. The AI downgraded his ability and it is more reflective of his shortstop play yet Harmon Killebrew, who was one of the worst to ever play third base but was comparable to Banks at first, gets upgraded. His field rating is several points higher than Banks at first and the system has his 3b rating at his 1b rating! Shouldn't even be close. Just no consistency.