Hernandez at short?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Now, that does bring up an interesting point, of how much we should allow players to play "out of position" and learn a new position. Should a guy be allowed to learn a position he never played in real life? But what about a guy like Jim Wynn (1969 card). His card only has a CF rating, but I can easily train him to play LF or RF. In some ways maybe we shouldn't be allowed to, but on the other hand, he did play 300 games each at those spots in his career. I think in general I like the fact that guys can shift over - the whole thing is a what-if game, so I like dreaming of a DiMaggio-Trout-Mantle OF. But it does somewhat diminish the value of the actual utility players in the game if you can train anyone to be a super-sub. Like I'm training a Tulo card to play all the infield positions, even if he's never played another position in MLB other than SS.

I don't see a problem with your examples of Wynn or Tulo because in both cases they are learning easier positions. Training center fielders to play left or right is very realistic. So is training a shortstop to play 2B/3B.

The problem starts when a catcher like Joe Torre moves to shortstop or second base. He played first and third, but he wasn't that good at third. However, his infield ratings aren't horrible so he could probably get a 35-50 rating at shortstop eventually. The only thing that would hold him back is a poor DP rating.

There is no way any major league team would ever play Joe Torre at shortstop if they were trying to win. No PT GM would do it either to win, but they certainly would do it to generate PP at an unrealistic rate.

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Personally, I think it is ridiculous that Keith Hernandez could be rated 60+ at shortstop. This again points out that position learning should be disabled in PT, or at least it should be very hard to learn a position that is harder on the defensive spectrum than the player's current position. There is no value to utility players if every player can learn every position.

Total agreement!

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I don't see a problem with your examples of Wynn or Tulo because in both cases they are learning easier positions. Training center fielders to play left or right is very realistic. So is training a shortstop to play 2B/3B.

The problem starts when a catcher like Joe Torre moves to shortstop or second base. He played first and third, but he wasn't that good at third. However, his infield ratings aren't horrible so he could probably get a 35-50 rating at shortstop eventually. The only thing that would hold him back is a poor DP rating.

There is no way any major league team would ever play Joe Torre at shortstop if they were trying to win. No PT GM would do it either to win, but they certainly would do it to generate PP at an unrealistic rate.

Too many want to game the system.

[gemini615]

What happens to that Keith Hernandez shortstop card if it's put up for auction? Does the AH clear all his newly learned positions or does he get posted as a first baseman with some shortstop ratings? Or is he posted as a shortstop? He could be quite valuable on the open market.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by gemini615

What happens to that Keith Hernandez shortstop card if it's put up for auction? Does the AH clear all his newly learned positions or does he get posted as a first baseman with some shortstop ratings? Or is he posted as a shortstop? He could be quite valuable on the open market.

From what I've seen and read, I believe he'd be listed as playing 1B while retaining the positional training he got at SS.

I think the value of this is a bit overblown though... Anyone can take the time to train up a player at a new position. I'm sure some would love a shortcut past this, but I doubt anyone would place a significant premium on it.

[discodude5]

With no injuries and no player growth/regression in pt, it seems out of place to train players for other positions.

Playing Hernandez at short wouldn't your first thought be you are doing something that seems unrealistic?
And your second thought should be with Hernandez at short will his defense be so bad that it costs you games. Apparently it doesn't seem to be that bad and he gets way too good too quick so instead of having a gold glove ss who hits .240 with 1 hr you can just play anyone there and the small difference in defense is nothing compared to having a strong hitter playing ss.

[Dogberry99]

With a range rating of 90, playing Hernandez at short is neither unrealistic nor particularly radical.

The coveted Ozzie Smith card only has a range of 79. Smith has better Error, Arm, and DP ratings, but let that sink in a minute. Keith Hernandez beats Ozzie Smith in Range by 11 points

[Kushiel]

No manager alive would put Hernandez at SS over the Wizard. Somehow I think they meant he had good range at !B and it came out all wrong.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

With a range rating of 90, playing Hernandez at short is neither unrealistic nor particularly radical.

No it is not unrealistic for this game, It is just wrong. It is like using Jim Edwards as a catcher because he has a good arm. Just does not feel right..

[joehart]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

I think in general I like the fact that guys can shift over - the whole thing is a what-if game, so I like dreaming of a DiMaggio-Trout-Mantle OF. But it does somewhat diminish the value of the actual utility players in the game if you can train anyone to be a super-sub. Like I'm training a Tulo card to play all the infield positions, even if he's never played another position in MLB other than SS.

If I have to decide between [A] high value of utility players or [B] being able to train players in new positions, I would still prefer [B] and being able to create new utility players. It would be nice to find those in the auction house and see different prices for the same player (Tulo vs Tulo trained in several other positions).

In real life, if asked to play a new position, many would be able to actually learn those positions over time (ex. Dee Gordon playing CF instead of 2B last season). Maybe not as efficient?

I guess it all comes down to being able to evaluate the long term impact on the game a few month from now. Will it hurt to see Trout all over the outfield?

Can Tulo reach 100 in other positions or is there a max to how much he can learn another position?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Zorro

No it is not unrealistic for this game, It is just wrong. It is like using Jim Edwards as a catcher because he has a good arm. Just does not feel right..

No it's not right. It's a bug.

Lefty throwers aren't supposed to be able to get infield ratings at positions other than 1B, as Matt mentioned earlier.

He was such an incredible defender that if Hernandez was a righty thrower in reality, he probably could've been an excellent shortstop, but it's not supposed to be able to happen in-game with him or any other left handed throwing guys, no matter how good their defense.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

No it's not right. It's a bug.

Lefty throwers aren't supposed to be able to get infield ratings at positions other than 1B, as Matt mentioned earlier.

He was such an incredible defender that if Hernandez was a righty thrower in reality, he probably could've been an excellent shortstop, but it's not supposed to be able to happen in-game with him or any other left handed throwing guys, no matter how good their defense.

Thanks Lucas for the clear up.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

I agree. I believe my current impression is that Hernandez having a rating at SS is a bug, not a feature

Sorry Matt , I missed this post. Thank you for the clear up on this.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

With a range rating of 90, playing Hernandez at short is neither unrealistic nor particularly radical.

The coveted Ozzie Smith card only has a range of 79. Smith has better Error, Arm, and DP ratings, but let that sink in a minute. Keith Hernandez beats Ozzie Smith in Range by 11 points

Apparently, I was only familiar with the 1991 Ozzie Smith card (74 OVR). There is also a 1987 All Star Ozzie Smith card (78 OVR), which has better defensive stats. However, Ozzie's range is only improved to a 90 - the same range value Keith Hernandez has in game.

Additionally, I have yet to find anyone playing 3B with a 90 range. The best I have seen thus far are Scott Rolen (OVR 96) and Time Wallach (OVR 72) with a range value of 88, followed closely by Brooks Robinson (78 OVR) whose range is 86 (His 89 OVR card has 77 range).

2B is even more barren, as the highest range ratings I have found belong to Nellie Fox (78 OVR, 85 Range), Bill Mazeroski (70 OVR, 83 Range), Marcus Giles (92 OVR, 82 Range), Jim Gilliam (78 OVR, 82 Range), and Eddie Collins (85 OVR, 80 Range). Nobody else break 80 at this position.

Looking through the various defensive ratings at the different infield positions, Hernandez looks wrong even at 1B.

[Dogberry99]

Actually, that got me thinking. How wrong does Hernandez look compared to others playing 1B?

A quick totally non-scientific perusal of the Auction House found no other players coming close to Hernandez. Even players listed at 1B but renown for their versatility have significantly lower range ratings.

The best I could find was Marwin Gonzalez (63 OVR, 61 Range). Additionally, I found an additional 7 players with range ratings in the 50's, which included names like Cecil Cooper, Scott Hatteberg, George C. Scott, and Eric Hosmer (also David Ortiz, which... well, okay then ). Everyone else had a range below 50, including some who had very nice positional ratings (like a Smoak, for example).

I know Hernandez was a generational talent as a defensive first baseman, but was he really this dominant?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

Actually, that got me thinking. How wrong does Hernandez look compared to others playing 1B?

A quick totally non-scientific perusal of the Auction House found no other players coming close to Hernandez. Even players listed at 1B but renown for their versatility have significantly lower range ratings.

The best I could find was Marwin Gonzalez (63 OVR, 61 Range). Additionally, I found an additional 7 players with range ratings in the 50's, which included names like Cecil Cooper, Scott Hatteberg, George C. Scott, and Eric Hosmer (also David Ortiz, which... well, okay then ). Everyone else had a range below 50, including some who had very nice positional ratings (like a Smoak, for example).

I know Hernandez was a generational talent as a defensive first baseman, but was he really this dominant?

Hernandez having that high a range rating at 1b is a mistake. I was doing some experimenting with 1b ratings and set Hernandez too high and forgot to change him back

He was incredibly good, and imo by far the greatest defensive 1b ever, but 179 is definitely too high in comparison to where other good defensive 1b fall on our matrix.

I lowered his range now. It'll still be very good, but not so absurdly high.

[Motorhead667]

Originally Posted by Kushiel

Too many want to game the system.

Isn't baseball at it's core gaming the system?
It is a chess match right?
I am sure the first time someone brought a left handed pitcher into face a right handed batter someone cried foul,
I am sure when someone decided to shorten the right field fence people cried foul,
I am sure when someone learned to switch hit, someone cried foul,
I am sure when Oakland started to play Billy ball someone cried foul,
I am sure when clubs started to aggressively use the defensive shift someone cried foul,
I am sure when Houston grew their farm system and did a total rebuild someone cried foul,
I am sure when teams started using analytical data to prepare for games someone cried foul !
point is someone made all the rules we have in baseball and through the years some smart thinking manager or gm found a way to gain an advantage.
just like folks here that can't or won't sink real dollars into this mode
they are at a perceived unfair advantage (yes I know it is easily attainable to field a more than competitive team without spending real money)
but this is a stats driven game and if a person is smart enough to work within the framework of the rules then what is the harm
they are using the numbers to their advantage, and I say good for them
I hope they win it all
Just because some of us have a preconceived notion of how baseball should be remember all of the changes to this great game.

hope I did not offend anyone

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

With a range rating of 90, playing Hernandez at short is neither unrealistic nor particularly radical.

The coveted Ozzie Smith card only has a range of 79. Smith has better Error, Arm, and DP ratings, but let that sink in a minute. Keith Hernandez beats Ozzie Smith in Range by 11 points

As a lefty, playing Hernandez at SS is just ridiculously stupid. It’s about as dumb as the people who want to play a fat goalie in hockey if you can find someone who is so big they just have to sit in front of the goal.

[Motorhead667]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

As a lefty, playing Hernandez at SS is just ridiculously stupid. It’s about as dumb as the people who want to play a fat goalie in hockey if you can find someone who is so big they just have to sit in front of the goal.

You say that like it’s a real thing!
But in reality having a taller goalie is advantageous, not to mention the league finally started to take measures to cut down pad size.
Because every inch of the goal you can cover in a defensive advantage!
So who cares if someone uses Hernandez at short?
Is it against the rules? I will grant you it is not realistic but it is within the framework of the rules.
My team had 320 stolen bases how realistic is that?

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Motorhead667

You say that like it’s a real thing!
But in reality having a taller goalie is advantageous, not to mention the league finally started to take measures to cut down pad size.
Because every inch of the goal you can cover in a defensive advantage!
So who cares if someone uses Hernandez at short?
Is it against the rules? I will grant you it is not realistic but it is within the framework of the rules.
My team had 320 stolen bases how realistic is that?

The time it takes for a left handed player to turn around to throw would make him so slow to first that he’d be the worst shortstop in the league even if he had the best range and arm.