Does defense matter in OOTP6?

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by Specs
He started nine games there all after the Tigers had clinched the pennant, so that Smith could see if that would work, and he played them rather well, with a range factor far above the "defensive specialists" on the team.

Stanley did a decent job in a small amount of work in '68. The next season he played 59 games at shortstop and was so crappy he wouldn't play another inning there for almost a decade.

[enuttage]

Originally posted by jbmagic
maybe the best solution is for markus to make this game where if a player dont have a rating at a defensive position, it wont let him play there at all...it wont allowed you to move a player with no defensive rating at that position...


the player can only play a certain position only if he has rating. if he has no rating at a certain position , he has to learb it in spring training or teach him it in the minors....

With your second paragraph qualifier, I think I agree with this reasoning. You don't want to shut a player down from playing/learning another position entirely, otherwise you limit flexible players like Craig Biggio from doing what they can do. But, you also don't end up being able to exploit the "Thomas factor" touched on here.

Hopping back out...

-E

[Dan Theman]

Originally posted by gmo
Maybe future versions will see some sort of athleticism ratings that influence fielding ability. Maybe somehow variable penalty points (big for poor 1B playing CF, small for good 3B playing 2B, etc) that could result in negative defensive ratings if playing a position where not rated could be incorporated. Or maybe not. Any other ideas?

I'm one for chaging the current range value to "defensive instincts" by position and then factoring in speed as the second component of true defensive range.

This allows for a much larger range of values to seem compatible with our intuition. eg - even if someone had an instinct value of 1 (out of 1-100), but an average speed (for argument's sake, 50), the effective range would be 51/200 (a little more reasonable).

If you wanted to have some extra fun, you could weigh speed and instincts differently based on position when calculating range. eg - range at third base is much more dependent upon instincts (what with being the "hot corner" and all) than speed, therefore range factor multiplies might be 1.5*[instincts] + 0.5*[speed]. This would give the same maximum value (200) but a more realistic view of what would happen if you put a fleet-of-foot center-fielder over at third base (or a catcher with awesome catching instincts in center).

Any comments?

- Dan

PS - I'm also posting this under the "suggestions" section (and don't forget my "Dan's Capaign for a GM" )

[Hank Greenberg]

Originally posted by Dan Theman
I'm one for chaging the current range value to "defensive instincts" by position and then factoring in speed as the second component of true defensive range.

This allows for a much larger range of values to seem compatible with our intuition. eg - even if someone had an instinct value of 1 (out of 1-100), but an average speed (for argument's sake, 50), the effective range would be 51/200 (a little more reasonable).

If you wanted to have some extra fun, you could weigh speed and instincts differently based on position when calculating range. eg - range at third base is much more dependent upon instincts (what with being the "hot corner" and all) than speed, therefore range factor multiplies might be 1.5*[instincts] + 0.5*[speed]. This would give the same maximum value (200) but a more realistic view of what would happen if you put a fleet-of-foot center-fielder over at third base (or a catcher with awesome catching instincts in center).

Any comments?

- Dan

PS - I'm also posting this under the "suggestions" section (and don't forget my "Dan's Capaign for a GM" )

I like this idea...

[obaslg]

Dan: I like it as a basis for fielding ratings, but not for the ratings themselves, unless you had a different "insticts" value for each position, in which case it's not just instincts, but overall ability.

The point is that two players with the same instincts will play SS at different overall ability if one has been playing there forever while the other just moved there from CF.

Something I like about it is that, if used as a basic rating that would help determine all the different position ratings is that it could show the fact that pretty much every MI is a better fielder than almost every 1B, e.g. I've always thought that the SSs should actually have higher ratings at 1B than at SS, since you're comparing them there to a group of players who have far less athletic ability overall.

The overall instinct rating could stay fairly constant over the player's career, and would determine the base range rating for each position. Then the actual range rating for each position would rise and fall depending on the player's experience at that position.

I like it.

[Big Train]

To me it's pretty simple:

-Athletic guys when they are drafted are more likely to become middle infielders. Obviously the A-ball manager will look at the guy diving for balls left and right and make him a middle infielder and the guy who can hit the mile a mile but because he is "bulky" can't move extremely fast he will make a corner outfielder or some other low-priority defensive position.

-Add to that the fact that through their careers these guys will be practicing their positions every day for years. Middle infielders will spend more time practicing their defensive skills than people who are in the lineup mainly for their bat. And the skills are different, shortstops and secondbasemen for example spend a lot of time learning to turn the double play. Other players obviously don't.

Now if you have an athletic centerfielder he will be very good at catching and throwing the ball and the other things a centerfielder has to do. But if you stick him at shortstop and expect him to learn things like turning double plays that's going to take a lot of time. He hasn't had the practice players natural to that position have had. While continuing to have to hit major league pitching consistently he's going to have to learn all these new skills. And that of course applies 100 times more for a clunky bad defensive rightfielder.

I liked the old system, the only problem with it was I thought there should be a "super-A" rating to distinguish an Ozzie Smith from a typical gold glove shortstop. I think this is another case of OOTP6 fixing something that wasn't broken.

[Dan Theman]

Yep - I meant it as instinct by position (9 ratings). I would even go so far to have each player with some rating at each position (similar to how it's now handled for arm rating), and as they play it more, they have a chance at improving their instincts at that position. Then we'd have intuitive "learning new positions."

[knockahoma]

Bumpin up..

Anything more guys? This is a big issue with me. And based on what you've found so far, what's the best way to edit fielding to manipulate for the best real life feel?

Can you sum it up?

[obaslg]

I've started responding to this a few times, but I don't know how to give it to you concisely. I think it would be extremely hard to do this by editing, since you'd have to edit every player's rating at every position.

While we've thrown around ideas for how things should be different, I think it would take much more work to come up with the exact system. The big things to institute, IMO, are:
1) Ability in general should not be distributed in a bell curve (i.e., a lot of players with average ratings, few with bad ratings, and few with good ratings), but should be distributed in a decline towards the top (i.e., lots of players with low ratings, fewer with average ratings, and even fewer with high ratings);
2) No player who starts with a MI rating or C rating should have a low rating at that position - I would probably set a minimum at 50 or something;
3) Each player should be able to play a less challenging position (e.g., a SS moving to 3B) pretty competently, and better than many players already playing that position;
4) #2 above wouldn't necessarily apply to switches from IF to OF and vice-versa, and wouldn't apply to switches to/from catcher.

I think #1 is the most important, and should apply to all ratings in the game (and it may be - I haven't checked). While the distribution of baseball ability may be a bell curve over the entire world population, professional players represent the far right side of the curve, so among them the distribution is in a decline as I described. That just makes sense when you think about it, but Bill James has also "proven" that it's the case in reality, and he called it one of his 10 most important baseball discoveries.

[elextrano8]

With range factor, is a higher or lower value better? I have yet to find a definition that mentions which is better; I've always assumed that lower was better, as my OF's with better range ratings seem to have lower range factors.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by elextrano8

With range factor, is a higher or lower value better? I have yet to find a definition that mentions which is better; I've always assumed that lower was better, as my OF's with better range ratings seem to have lower range factors.

higher is better

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by Big Train

The reason I think it has to be like this is because there is a *huge* difference between a relatively bad shortstop (who is none the less a trained shortstop) and someone playing out of position.

Is there? I'm not a baseball expert but is there really a big difference in how you play SS versus how you play 2B? Seems to me a grounder is a grounder, you still throw the ball with the hand that doesn't have a glove on it, you face toward the batter when the ball is pitched. Does a lifetime outfielder walk out to the shortstop position and get woosey from the dizzying array of complex decisions he'll have to make?

To quote one of our lifetime's baseball greats: "This is a simple game: You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball."

[knockahoma]

Hey Bob,

I played SS in college, but played several positions thruout highschool, including the other infield positions. You're right about technique being fairly similar. It's the ANGLE that screws up many guys playing an unfamiliar infield position. The angle from which you view things is a surprisingly dramatic factor when the ball comes off the bat. Being unfamiliar with an angle at a new position causes a slower break on a ball, and often affects proper footwork on balls hit right at you (bad footwork makes for a slower and "harder" glove)

That's pretty much the difference. Less range; more errors. On OOTP, being unfamiliar with angle would look like this: SS-5 .965 (familiar) 3B-3 .930 (unfamiliar). That mirrors life pretty well.

Now, as far as Outfielders moving to SS, one of the biggest obstacles for an OF moving to the infield is how you throw the ball. OF are taught to throw completely differently than infielders. Outfielders are kind of like a windmill with all their body behind the throw and straight over the top. Infielder are taught to bring the ball straight to the ear and "flip", often sidearmed, a vastly quicker release.

I've seen strong-armed Outfielders try to adjust from using their entire bodies to the infielder's "flip" throw and barely get it across the diamond. If they were to use the OF throw, by the time they wound up to throw to 1B, the runner would be rounding 1st and going to 2B!

My "angle" on things anyway!

[congobeast]

Originally Posted by Bobble

Is there? I'm not a baseball expert but is there really a big difference in how you play SS versus how you play 2B? Seems to me a grounder is a grounder, you still throw the ball with the hand that doesn't have a glove on it...(snip)

I'm with Knock on this one.
Ever wonder why you don't see left-handed shortstops?
It's because making the throw to second or first would be very awkward, and come in from the "wrong" side for the fielder. By the same principle, you prefer to see a lefty 1b and righty 3b- their glove hand is on the same side as the line, thus they can play towards the middle of the field and still cover the line better than someone with opposite handedness.

It really is all about the angle.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

That's pretty much the difference. Less range; more errors. On OOTP, being unfamiliar with angle would look like this: SS-5 .965 (familiar) 3B-3 .930 (unfamiliar). That mirrors life pretty well.

Fair enough but that doesn't sound like the "*huge*" hit in fielding out of position that's being proposed. Even coming from outifield, a lot outfielders I see have a crappy infield arm rating. Seems to me that models what you're talking about here, no?

[knockahoma]

Yep.

Infield "arm-strength" does take into account MPH, but the quickness of the release is probably more important. So, take an OF with an absolute "gun". He's got a fiver. Move him to 3B where he has a slow release and it's an infield hits parade. The only way to show that in OOTP is to give him a 1 arm.

EVENTUALLY, the ball thrown from third may hit the 1B glove at 90MPH, but it's way too late. The other possibility is what I mentioned above. The OF, being an OF all his life, can't get power behind the infielder's flip and he's once again at a 1 rating for IF arm. Interestingly, the opposite is true too. I've seen infielders with guns go to the outfield and have poor arms. An 85 mph flip to first put out into the outfield may go 85 for only a short distance, where a true outfielder gets that "rise" and far more distance from his technique of "over the top" which puts backspin on the ball. It's a bizarre phenomenon to see, how a strong arm goes weak in a different position.

And another factor that can't be forgotten is that first step. There have been many outstanding shortstops with brilliant range who were ANYTHING but fleet of foot. The first step for infielders is far more important than their 40 time. So, the OF has to have that natural first step as well, not to mention a soft glove

Infielders and Outfielders are like a woman and a man dressed as a woman. They may look a lot alike from a distance, but BOY you sure get the difference when you're up close!

[knockahoma]

Maybe Bob, you and the other guys can help me out?

I've been thinking about taking over both teams in a game for fun (I'm one of those guys who loves to think he's God of the OOTP

In the game, when I access a roster, will I see the ratings according to that team's scout? For both teams?

Thanks

Rick

[obaslg]

Originally Posted by Bobble

Is there? I'm not a baseball expert but is there really a big difference in how you play SS versus how you play 2B? Seems to me a grounder is a grounder, you still throw the ball with the hand that doesn't have a glove on it, you face toward the batter when the ball is pitched. Does a lifetime outfielder walk out to the shortstop position and get woosey from the dizzying array of complex decisions he'll have to make?

To quote one of our lifetime's baseball greats: "This is a simple game: You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball."

I think the point was more that the worst "true" SS - e.g., a prospect who plays only that position - can have a rating that is far too close to the minimum rating, so that you could end up with a bad 1B playing SS for the first time ever (therefore with a zero rating) who isn't much worse than a 30 rating SS who has been playing there his whole career.

In reality, a good 2B may or may not be able to switch to SS and play it competently, but a bad 1B playing SS for the first time would be a complete disaster - nowhere near as bad as the worst-fielding starting SS.

[knockahoma]

Just bumpin up with a couple of questions.

I've been thinking about taking over both teams (I sort of view the league in God mode). I've been disappointed in a couple of "stupid" decisions.

At any rate, if you actually go in to play a game with the Braves against the Mets, I know you can control both teams. But when you access each team's rosters, do you see the squad's ratings from each team's "scout"?

2. I haven't played a long time. But it appears that "range" remains the same throughout the career. If I want to go in and edit those 36 year old Shortstops down from 92 to reflect aging, should I go only down to 50 based on these studies?

danke

Rick

[disposableheros]

range does change in-game, but rarely and not much