Positional Power Tendencies

[endgame]

I don't know exactly where to post this, what to call it, or if it's been posted before what it was under.

Having said that, I'm curious about your thoughts on the distribution of the sluggers across the board that seemed to, and still seems to, be prevalent in 6.51 and before wherein it doesn't seem to matter if a guy is a 5'9" 170lb shortstop he volleys 38 homer a year while a 6'4" 200lb RF is only able to crank out 14. It really isn't all about height and weight, I'm probably misdirecting the discussion by bringing it up. And it's not about replication of historical data, it's simply about likelihoods I think. Isnt' it much more likely that power hitters occupy positions like 1B or outfield, sometimes a catcher?

Is it important at all that OOTP2006 include any contigency for reducing the number of 2B or SS that end up in the top ten sluggers for the year?

Frankly, I really don't know how important an issue it is so thought I'd get your feedback on it. Thanks in advance.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by endgame

I don't know exactly where to post this, what to call it, or if it's been posted before what it was under.

Having said that, I'm curious about your thoughts on the distribution of the sluggers across the board that seemed to, and still seems to, be prevalent in 6.51 and before wherein it doesn't seem to matter if a guy is a 5'9" 170lb shortstop he volleys 38 homer a year while a 6'4" 200lb RF is only able to crank out 14. It really isn't all about height and weight, I'm probably misdirecting the discussion by bringing it up. And it's not about replication of historical data, it's simply about likelihoods I think. Isnt' it much more likely that power hitters occupy positions like 1B or outfield, sometimes a catcher?

Is it important at all that OOTP2006 include any contigency for reducing the number of 2B or SS that end up in the top ten sluggers for the year?

Frankly, I really don't know how important an issue it is so thought I'd get your feedback on it. Thanks in advance.

This is one of the reasons I have in the past lobbied for a skills-based defensive system. Then, you just correlate things like range and speed to power (or use size), ensure there are outliers like A-Rod (range) and Bonds (speed), and then you don't have to design offense around as complicated of a position system as OOTP has. You could set an algorithm to have the AI assign players positions based on their skills-ratings, but that's kind of beside the point.

I agree completely. It seems like in each version of OOTP I have played, it's not at all hard to get sluggers in the middle infielde and behind the plate (this seemed to be toned down in the last version, I think). But in real MLB it's very, very hard to get catchers who hit like 1B or even CF or 3B.

[cephasjames]

I agree with everything in this thread.

[andymac]

It seems to me that starting with 6.0, the game has done a pretty good job of making good hitting catcher pretty scarce. However, there are definitely too many decent hitting middle infielders and not enough decent hitting corner outfielders and to a smaller degree first basement. I think some way to tweak this within the game would be a great addition.

[Luis_Rivera]

This is an EXTREMELY important issue... I'd just like to echo everything andy said.

[Deft]

This is the positional players version of the reliever/starter quandry.

[dodgecharger1968]

Originally Posted by andymac

It seems to me that starting with 6.0, the game has done a pretty good job of making good hitting catcher pretty scarce. However, there are definitely too many decent hitting middle infielders and not enough decent hitting corner outfielders and to a smaller degree first basement. I think some way to tweak this within the game would be a great addition.

Yeah, so many leagues wind up with teams scrambling for any stiff they can get playing left or first, while their middle infield makes the heart of the lineup. It's not something that's REALLY REALLY bothered me, (being a Tiger fan and growing up on Trammell and Whitaker) but it does seem absurd to have big bats with awful gloves playing second because that's the only spot they know (and god, are there a lot of stud 4s in this game!), while your 7 is an all round stiff and your backup second baseman is a defensive whiz...

[Psychoholic Slag]

I agree. It seems like every draft class the selection is: SS, P, 2B, 3B, P, 2B, SS... and so on.

Its insane.

[Malleus Dei]

I agree with this.

[f.montoya]

I would think that this would be fairly easy to control on Markus' part. And historical stats in certain eras within each position could be used and broken down into simple ratios allowing the creation algorithyms to aim for ratings more in line with historical production by position.

But, while I hadn't noticed an over-abundance of power hitting middle-infielders, they certainly haven't been scarce either.

[cephasjames]

Would it be too much to have a creation modifier for each position? It would be nice if the game did it already, but that way we could have it however we want it.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Would it be too much to have a creation modifier for each position? It would be nice if the game did it already, but that way we could have it however we want it.

While I can't speak to the complications of integretating that into the game, it's an excellent idea. Perhaps simply an entry selection where 1.000 is standard and you can elect a change to .850 for a position to generate slightly less etc...

[andymac]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Would it be too much to have a creation modifier for each position? It would be nice if the game did it already, but that way we could have it however we want it.

Yea, I would be for this also. It would make it possible to realistically create non-MLB leagues also. For instance, if you wanted to create a High School league, the shortstops would tend to be much better hitters than they would in MLB.