Question about "Overall Ratings Based On All Players" option.

[ZepTepi]

I am primarily curious about how you've found the game to be when checking the "Overall Ratings Based on All Players" box rather than leaving it unchecked which is how I've had it set. I've read what the OOTP 24 manual says about it but I'm still curious about actual players experience with this because I can't think of any reasons why it would be better to play with it checked.

[kq76]

I prefer all.

Say the best 2B is really only as good as a 3-star 1B, should you really go after the 2B and not a better 1B? You could argue, yeah, if he's the best 2B then I'm making the best use of my 2B position with him. But what if the drop off between your current 2B and the best is not that great whereas the difference between your 1B and the best one you can acquire is great? Then who would you want?

Besides, I usually put a premium on players who can play 3+ positions as I want the ability to shift players around when someone is injured. And in doing that I want to know who the very best players are to get them in the lineup. I don't really care to get a better idea of how my guy rates in comparison the opposition's at that position, I just want the best players I can to put in my lineup.

[Sweed]

I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference either way. In my game I prefer by position to get a quick picture, through my scout's eyes, of where my players sit compared to others at the same. This, like any rating, is only a guide . IOW I may disagree with how the player is rated and that is fine.

If I want to compare a player at position A to position B I look at their skill set, offensive and defensive, and make a determination. It's not a hard thing to do. I've been looking at OOTP players for over 20 years with a good idea of what I like and don't like.

[Brad K]

Using all positions requires that we agree with however OOTP calculates the comparative value of positions. I figure there's enough difficulty determining the value of players with different traits at the same position, and throwing in the need to adjust for positional differences is another complication that has to increase inaccuracy.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by kq76

I prefer all.

Say the best 2B is really only as good as a 3-star 1B,

Looking at WAR numbers we'd have to conclude that is true. What does that mean? That baseball is playing the wrong players at positions? Or that the WAR calculations are wrong?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Looking at WAR numbers we'd have to conclude that is true. What does that mean? That baseball is playing the wrong players at positions? Or that the WAR calculations are wrong?

Both? Where you're going isn't where I intended to go, but maybe we do put too much into defense at 2B. And as much as I do like WAR, I was actually just skimming an article saying how it might be the wrong way to go about it.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Looking at WAR numbers we'd have to conclude that is true. What does that mean? That baseball is playing the wrong players at positions? Or that the WAR calculations are wrong?

Those options are not mutually exclusive. Players are played at the incorrect position plenty.

Most players can effectively play multiple positions but tend to get pidgeonholed into positions based on factors out of their control.

For example, Jeff Bagwell was a SS who moved to 3B in college. In the minors, he was exclusively a 3B but was blocked from advancing in Boston by Wade Boggs and Scott Cooper. Then he was traded to Houston and blocked by Ken Caminiti.

So everyone thinks Jeff Bagwell is just a 1B -- a position that he had literally played only for a few innings in his entire college and minor league career.