Critical problem with multi-positional players not being valued properly

OOTP Rocks · 03-06-2002, 05:10 PM

The problem is wrongfully classified players are not getting their due. Suppose a CF is more valued in the game then a LF (particularly during contract talks). In this case, if the player is a primary LF, we would basically be getting a CF at a bargain price by leaving him as a primary LF. This isn't right. It is non-beneficial to go after a legitimate CF (primary position is CF), when you can just get a player who is a primary LF (who can play CF as well) for a cheaper price. Also this gives us an advantage against the computer since the computer doesn't seem to play players out of their primary position.

Bottom line is, players should be valued (in contract talks and trades) according to the most expensive position they play. Meaning if they can play LF, 1B, and CF. And CF happens to be the most valued and expensive (trades and in contract talks) of those positions, then they should be valued as a CF (regardless of what the player's label "primary position" says).

However, it should also be taken into account if a player can play a certain position (like CF) but is simply horrible at it (rated D or E in range and/or bad fielding pct.), then that should be looked as not being a legitimate position of that player. After all, can we really call it a "legitimate" position of his just because he has minimal ability there? The easiest way to do this in terms of code would probably be to disregard the position if he has a certain combination of defensive ability at that position(like rated D or E and has a certain bad fielding pct.). This will be a threshold for what can be considered a legitimate position of that player, if the player's defensive ability at that position doesn't meet this threshold, then simply move on to the next highest valued (in terms of contract and trade value) position that the player can play to determine a player's value.

Any other thoughts or ideas? Comments? Does anybody else think the handling of multi-positional players needs some tweaks?

LilRedMachine · 03-06-2002, 05:21 PM

Just a comment on the CPU playing out of position.
I noticed last night in a fictional league that one of the CPU teams had a STUD utility infielder. He was 23, on the ML roster out of necessity, primarily a SS with A range .987%, rated @ 2B (A, .953%) and 3B (B, .947%). He was good enough to be a starting SS for just about anyone in the league, but the CPU had a veteran ahead of him.

At first I was a bit disappointed, then I looked again. The vet ahead of him was also a great fielding SS, but not as good with the bat. I looked at the lineups and noticed the 23yr old playing 2B ahead of another veteran who couldn't field worth a $h!+.

Based on this one incident, I'd say that the cpu IS looking at rated positions when deciding who to play. I really couldn't say regarding contracts/trades though.

mtw · 03-07-2002, 12:05 PM

I agree that it is an unfair advantage and one that I try not to exploit. I think it would be a useful tweak to have the computer value each of the positions a fielder can play looking at his defensive ability at that position. Personally, I would say D range with a fielding average above the default percentage would be sufficient for a fielder to be valuable at that position, but that's only my opinion.

A solid idea.

DennisS · 03-07-2002, 01:38 PM

A better idea still is to give value for EACH position the player is qualified at.

A multi-role player has significant value, especially given the amount of injuries possible in OOTP4. I will very carefully evaluate rookies for their ability to play more than one position.

I wouldn't add the full value of the second position (you can only play one at a time!) but I would give a bonus for each additonal one, especially if they have decent fielding abilities.

Cheers

OOTP Rocks · 03-07-2002, 01:38 PM

Well its good to hear that the computer will play some players on a position other than their primary, but then how come the computer doesn't recognize this when he trades with me?

What I'm saying is, if the computer can play the player I just gave him at 3B (multi-positional player who is a primary LF but can also play 3B), then how come he doesn't consider this when I'm trading with him? One of the computer's weaknesses is 3B lets say, yet even when I offer him this primary LF (who can play 3B), the computer doesn't want the trade because he doesn't need a LF. Yet, the computer can still use this guy at 3B (since he can play it). I know this because if I change the player's primary position to 3B, the computer will all of a sudden accept it.

troy · 03-07-2002, 01:45 PM

paying for each position a player knows is a bad idea, because most CFs in the game could play RF/LF or 1b if they wanted to.. they shouldnt be getting paid extra because they can. They should be getting paid as a CF though.

A Richard Hildago in 2000 should get paid more than a Berkman in 2001, in other words.

OOTP Rocks · 03-07-2002, 01:54 PM

I just don't want to see people playing players at another position, just so he could develop an ounce of ability (E rated with a .930 fielding pct.) there. Just for the purpose of getting more value for him when you trade him.

In most cases, if you play a player for a few weeks of games, he'll get some ability there (usually very low ratings). But if this gives him some extra value in a trade, it would be a huge exploit. That's why I feel that D or E rated with a certain fielding pct should not be regarded as a "legitimate position" of that player.

mtw · 03-07-2002, 01:55 PM

The computer AI should look at the positions a player can play, evaluate where that player would play on its team when trading for the player, and value the player accordingly. Likewise, the AI should recognize all the positions a player can play when assessing the value it should receive in a trade. And as suggested, players who can multiple positions adequately should have more value than a player with the same ratings who can only play only one of those positions. Or something like that.

troy · 03-07-2002, 01:57 PM

realistically speaking.. I think Brian Daubach could play a .930% 3b. Most plays are fairly routine. I mean Offerman only made 14 errors at 2b last year. He made 30 at SS with the dodgers and his fielding percentage wasnt that low. I could go look it up.

troy · 03-07-2002, 02:00 PM

42 errors at SS in 92, .932.
37 in 93, at .950
35 in 95 at .932

I guess it was low, but the dodgers kept him there anyway.

Basically if Offerman can be a .930 SS I think anyone could be.

03-06-2002, 05:10 PM	#1
OOTP Rocks Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 119	Critical problem with multi-positional players not being valued properly The problem is wrongfully classified players are not getting their due. Suppose a CF is more valued in the game then a LF (particularly during contract talks). In this case, if the player is a primary LF, we would basically be getting a CF at a bargain price by leaving him as a primary LF. This isn't right. It is non-beneficial to go after a legitimate CF (primary position is CF), when you can just get a player who is a primary LF (who can play CF as well) for a cheaper price. Also this gives us an advantage against the computer since the computer doesn't seem to play players out of their primary position. Bottom line is, players should be valued (in contract talks and trades) according to the most expensive position they play. Meaning if they can play LF, 1B, and CF. And CF happens to be the most valued and expensive (trades and in contract talks) of those positions, then they should be valued as a CF (regardless of what the player's label "primary position" says). However, it should also be taken into account if a player can play a certain position (like CF) but is simply horrible at it (rated D or E in range and/or bad fielding pct.), then that should be looked as not being a legitimate position of that player. After all, can we really call it a "legitimate" position of his just because he has minimal ability there? The easiest way to do this in terms of code would probably be to disregard the position if he has a certain combination of defensive ability at that position(like rated D or E and has a certain bad fielding pct.). This will be a threshold for what can be considered a legitimate position of that player, if the player's defensive ability at that position doesn't meet this threshold, then simply move on to the next highest valued (in terms of contract and trade value) position that the player can play to determine a player's value. Any other thoughts or ideas? Comments? Does anybody else think the handling of multi-positional players needs some tweaks?

03-06-2002, 05:21 PM	#2
LilRedMachine Minors (Single A) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Chillicothe, OH Posts: 83	Just a comment on the CPU playing out of position. I noticed last night in a fictional league that one of the CPU teams had a STUD utility infielder. He was 23, on the ML roster out of necessity, primarily a SS with A range .987%, rated @ 2B (A, .953%) and 3B (B, .947%). He was good enough to be a starting SS for just about anyone in the league, but the CPU had a veteran ahead of him. At first I was a bit disappointed, then I looked again. The vet ahead of him was also a great fielding SS, but not as good with the bat. I looked at the lineups and noticed the 23yr old playing 2B ahead of another veteran who couldn't field worth a $h!+. Based on this one incident, I'd say that the cpu IS looking at rated positions when deciding who to play. I really couldn't say regarding contracts/trades though. __________________ FEBL - Chillicothe Copperbacks

03-07-2002, 12:05 PM	#3
mtw All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 653	I agree that it is an unfair advantage and one that I try not to exploit. I think it would be a useful tweak to have the computer value each of the positions a fielder can play looking at his defensive ability at that position. Personally, I would say D range with a fielding average above the default percentage would be sufficient for a fielder to be valuable at that position, but that's only my opinion. A solid idea. __________________ Over-Zealous Apologist

03-07-2002, 01:45 PM	#6
troy Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 22	paying for each position a player knows is a bad idea, because most CFs in the game could play RF/LF or 1b if they wanted to.. they shouldnt be getting paid extra because they can. They should be getting paid as a CF though. A Richard Hildago in 2000 should get paid more than a Berkman in 2001, in other words. __________________ CBL NH CDBL Florida GMC Beijing EBL Redsox

03-07-2002, 01:55 PM	#8
mtw All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 653	The computer AI should look at the positions a player can play, evaluate where that player would play on its team when trading for the player, and value the player accordingly. Likewise, the AI should recognize all the positions a player can play when assessing the value it should receive in a trade. And as suggested, players who can multiple positions adequately should have more value than a player with the same ratings who can only play only one of those positions. Or something like that. __________________ Over-Zealous Apologist

03-07-2002, 01:38 PM	#4
DennisS Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 107	A better idea still is to give value for EACH position the player is qualified at. A multi-role player has significant value, especially given the amount of injuries possible in OOTP4. I will very carefully evaluate rookies for their ability to play more than one position. I wouldn't add the full value of the second position (you can only play one at a time!) but I would give a bonus for each additonal one, especially if they have decent fielding abilities. Cheers

03-07-2002, 01:54 PM	#7
OOTP Rocks Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 119	I just don't want to see people playing players at another position, just so he could develop an ounce of ability (E rated with a .930 fielding pct.) there. Just for the purpose of getting more value for him when you trade him. In most cases, if you play a player for a few weeks of games, he'll get some ability there (usually very low ratings). But if this gives him some extra value in a trade, it would be a huge exploit. That's why I feel that D or E rated with a certain fielding pct should not be regarded as a "legitimate position" of that player.

03-07-2002, 01:57 PM	#9
troy Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 22	realistically speaking.. I think Brian Daubach could play a .930% 3b. Most plays are fairly routine. I mean Offerman only made 14 errors at 2b last year. He made 30 at SS with the dodgers and his fielding percentage wasnt that low. I could go look it up. __________________ CBL NH CDBL Florida GMC Beijing EBL Redsox

03-07-2002, 02:00 PM	#10
troy Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 22	42 errors at SS in 92, .932. 37 in 93, at .950 35 in 95 at .932 I guess it was low, but the dodgers kept him there anyway. Basically if Offerman can be a .930 SS I think anyone could be. __________________ CBL NH CDBL Florida GMC Beijing EBL Redsox