Should defensive ratings decay over time if unused?

Matches · 10-02-2011, 02:39 PM

One thing that doesn't feel right to me is that players abilities to play a certain position don't really decay, even if they've never played that position. This feels particularly "wrong" to me when a player is gold-glove caliber at multiple infield positions.

I'm not sure how the overall fielding ability at positions is calculated (seems to be a combination of their generic abilities of range and arm combined with their hidden "experience" at that position. It seems odd to me though that for a lot of players I can just swap them out of various positions with seeming impunity, especially on the infield. I have a players who is rated an 8/8 at every infied position. Yet he's only played 10 games at third and 1 at second his entire major league career (and I know he never played third regularly in the minors. Certainly SS is the most demanding of those positions, but it feels odd to me that I can just plug him in at third and he'd be a gold glover there as well.

I understand the need for utility men, but I think that somehow the experience ratings for the various positions should degrade over time if the player is not used there. Not to the point where they can't play the spot, but a gentle downward slope to where you can't just tell a career second baseman, "You're playing third against lefties this year" and he's still rated as a gold glove type player.

You might need to counter this in the code with by not penalizing players as much for games in which they don't play. Otherwise utility infielders would degrade too much as they only might play 40-50 games a season. This would attempt to model the fact that a starter who is playing the same position every game is not working out and taking balls in practice at a position he's not playing that day. But if you're not starting, you're more likely to work harder at maintaining your skills at every position, since your versatility is part of what's keeping you on the roster.

Matt Arnold · 10-02-2011, 03:12 PM

I would like to see the ratings degrade very fast, but also recover very fast.

For example, Alexei Ramirez hasn't played 2B in a few years. He pretty much shouldn't be rated at 2B right now, but he probably wouldn't need more than 5-10 games there to get up to being a current gold-glove type player there.

The easiest way I can think of is players should have basically 3 ratings at a position - current value, potential value, and some sort of "learning curve" for it. The learning curve can probably be a hidden attribute, but overall it would be the ease of "learning" that position. Current value would degrade the fastest, so once a player doesn't play a position for a year, he'd pretty much lose all value at that position. However, since potential and leanring curve degrade slower, it wouldn't take a lot to get back to it if you wanted.

If you combine that with some sort of penalty for regularly switching some positions regularly (it's so easy in the game to do the "SS vs R" and "3B vs L" type platoons, which fairly rarely happens in real life), that would be a good way to model this.

ike121212 · 10-02-2011, 03:28 PM

The one that bugs me more is that Pitching Ratings develop for Batters. I'm looking at an All-Star CF, who has developed into the best Closer in the game, despite never throwing an inning in the majors or minors.

Fielding development, position progression, and aging could use a complete overhaul.

StyxNCa · 10-02-2011, 03:44 PM

I would think they should.

snepp · 10-02-2011, 04:32 PM

Some kind of fluctuating positional ratings would be nice, assuming it's done in a way that the AI can properly deal with.

mouse001 · 10-03-2011, 11:36 AM

I like the idea. It should degrade faster for younger players and slower for veterans, especially if they are legendary at their respective positions. Omar Vizquel can move from SS to 2B but he shouldn't lose his ability at SS since he's amazing

But I don't want to see a LF move to CF and lose all his points in LF...

t-bone shuffle · 10-03-2011, 01:13 PM

Yes, experience accumulation should deteriorate over time if a player doesn't play the position.

In addition to this, there should be something that makes experience "points?" whatever it's labeled in the editor, increase and decline at different speeds depending upon the position.

For example, I think we all know that there are way too many highly rated 1B's and I think it's because it's too easy to acquire experience at 1B. It should take something like 5 years of ML level experience for someone to max out their 1B ratings. Really great, difference making defensive 1B's don't come along that often. The two best I've seen with my eyes were Keith Hernandez and Jeff Bagwell and each became "great" after a considerable period of time.

Likewise, a predominantly SS guy shouldn't lose "experience" so quickly if he's playing 2B most of the time, and the same should go for corner OF's.

It's convoluted, but not really complicated if you think about it.

fintach · 10-03-2011, 02:24 PM

I think that if this is included, it might also include a "floor" if you will, the idea that the skill will only degrade so far due to disuse. If a Gold Glove third baseman moves to first base, he probably won't become worse than an average third baseman unless other factors are involved. I don't know. This one is hard to develop. Are there examples to point to? I mean, there is logic to the idea, but without numbers to back it up it would be difficult to quantify. When a real player changes position for five years, how much of whatever he has lost at his previous position is due to disuse and how much due to age? How do we gauge it?

JMDurron · 10-03-2011, 04:43 PM

Instead of having the actual defensive ratings/experience degrade, I would actually prefer for a rust factor, similar to that for players coming off of long DL stints to be included. A player who develops a certain level of ability at a position should not lose it, but there should be an adjustment period when they transition back to that position from another. If it should only take a week or two of games to adapt back to max ratings, then why not just make it a rust factor? Keep it hidden, even in the editor, just like DL or Spring Training rust.

Spritze · 10-03-2011, 05:07 PM

Attached find a list of age factors for all players 1871-2010 per position. The number is the pct of average for the postion. An age factor of .98 means the player has lost 2% of their fielding ability at that position due to age.

I'll do something similar with players who change positions and then change back as well. This is a bit trickier so it'll take longer to cowculate.

Very few positions have the Age of the player as a main factor in fielding ability. The "up the middle" defensive positions seem to have the most age related drops in prowess.

Bluenoser · 10-03-2011, 05:09 PM

I've seen exactly what you're asking for.

I have a guy who was highly rated at 3B, 2B, and SS. I played him at 2B all last year, and his SS rating dropped a few points. This year he's back at SS and he got a boost after a couple of weeks.

Keep in mind, (this is for simmers only of course), just because you put a guy like mine to start at 2B, it doesn't mean the AI isn't sticking him in at SS occasionally. So you should have a close look at his defensive stats first to be sure he has/hasn't gotten playing time at one of his other positions.

I kind of agree with the SS/3b comparison, but if you can play SS, you can play 2B, and there shouldn't be any noticeable drop off in ratings if you don't play 2B for a season or two.

Spritze · 10-03-2011, 08:43 PM

Ran some numbers on players who switched positions. pretty much similar results. Players don't lose any ability switching back and forth from position to position except Catchers who gain ability for the most part as they are in a weird place defensive spectrumwise.

As you will have noted in the previous spreadsheet the pcts stay pretty stable independant of age. What this seems to mean is that if a player is 97% as good as an average player he can play a position regardless of age.

Of course that also means that a lot of aged players at less than 97% no longer play the position at all. They move along the defensive spectrum as expected until they find a position they can play 95% as well as anybody else. If they run out of positions then it is DH or out!

Overall fielding ability doesn't change all that much as a player ages but the position he plays does. Which makes the actual fielding ability age hit masked to the extent it is semi-unknowable.

So players do field worse as they age but they get moved to a different position rather than chopped altogether.

For the most part.

When I look at individual players their fielding abilities do change and then comes the position shift and they get a boost because of the easier position which pretty much gets them back where they were just somewhere else on the field.

I'm not sure how Markus could model that.

StyxNCa · 10-03-2011, 08:59 PM

I have seen players fielding abilities go down as they age. One of my ex-players, Brandon Germany, was a 9-7-8 rated OF for most of his career. Now, at age 38, his ratings are 2-2-2.

However, none of my current players ratings have gone down at any of the positions they haven't played in years and year so I guess they don't go down from not playing a position, they only go down with age.

Spritze · 10-03-2011, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I have seen players fielding abilities go down as they age. One of my ex-players, Brandon Germany, was a 9-7-8 rated OF for most of his career. Now, at age 38, his ratings are 2-2-2.

However, none of my current players ratings have gone down at any of the positions they haven't played in years and year so I guess they don't go down from not playing a position, they only go down with age.

Does he still play the same OF position? OF is 3 positions.

But as I mentioned above Yes player fielding abilities drop as they age and so does their playing time and so does their place in the defensive spectrum.

But they don't forget how to play a position once learned.

StyxNCa · 10-03-2011, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spritze

Does he still play the same OF position? OF is 3 positions.

But as I mentioned above Yes player fielding abilities drop as they age and so does their playing time and so does their place in the defensive spectrum.

But they don't forget how to play a position once learned.

He's still listed as a RF, but he is a minor leaguer now and apparently being used only as a PH.

10-02-2011, 02:39 PM	#1
Matches Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 112	Should defensive ratings decay over time if unused? One thing that doesn't feel right to me is that players abilities to play a certain position don't really decay, even if they've never played that position. This feels particularly "wrong" to me when a player is gold-glove caliber at multiple infield positions. I'm not sure how the overall fielding ability at positions is calculated (seems to be a combination of their generic abilities of range and arm combined with their hidden "experience" at that position. It seems odd to me though that for a lot of players I can just swap them out of various positions with seeming impunity, especially on the infield. I have a players who is rated an 8/8 at every infied position. Yet he's only played 10 games at third and 1 at second his entire major league career (and I know he never played third regularly in the minors. Certainly SS is the most demanding of those positions, but it feels odd to me that I can just plug him in at third and he'd be a gold glover there as well. I understand the need for utility men, but I think that somehow the experience ratings for the various positions should degrade over time if the player is not used there. Not to the point where they can't play the spot, but a gentle downward slope to where you can't just tell a career second baseman, "You're playing third against lefties this year" and he's still rated as a gold glove type player. You might need to counter this in the code with by not penalizing players as much for games in which they don't play. Otherwise utility infielders would degrade too much as they only might play 40-50 games a season. This would attempt to model the fact that a starter who is playing the same position every game is not working out and taking balls in practice at a position he's not playing that day. But if you're not starting, you're more likely to work harder at maintaining your skills at every position, since your versatility is part of what's keeping you on the roster.

10-03-2011, 02:24 PM	#8
fintach Major Leagues Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 481	I think that if this is included, it might also include a "floor" if you will, the idea that the skill will only degrade so far due to disuse. If a Gold Glove third baseman moves to first base, he probably won't become worse than an average third baseman unless other factors are involved. I don't know. This one is hard to develop. Are there examples to point to? I mean, there is logic to the idea, but without numbers to back it up it would be difficult to quantify. When a real player changes position for five years, how much of whatever he has lost at his previous position is due to disuse and how much due to age? How do we gauge it? __________________ Currently managing: The Bridgetown Gruffs History: Portland Purple Knights of the USBL: 1x NL Champs 1970-74 Berkeley Free Radicals of the BBL: 4x Division Title, 3x LCS, 2x Left Coast Cup Champions 2011 Portland River Dragons of the SPL: 1x Division Title 2011 Las Vegas Coyotes (MLB): half season before DH bored me to death.

10-03-2011, 08:43 PM	#12
Spritze OOTP Historical Czar Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bothell Wa Posts: 7,253	Ran some numbers on players who switched positions. pretty much similar results. Players don't lose any ability switching back and forth from position to position except Catchers who gain ability for the most part as they are in a weird place defensive spectrumwise. As you will have noted in the previous spreadsheet the pcts stay pretty stable independant of age. What this seems to mean is that if a player is 97% as good as an average player he can play a position regardless of age. Of course that also means that a lot of aged players at less than 97% no longer play the position at all. They move along the defensive spectrum as expected until they find a position they can play 95% as well as anybody else. If they run out of positions then it is DH or out! Overall fielding ability doesn't change all that much as a player ages but the position he plays does. Which makes the actual fielding ability age hit masked to the extent it is semi-unknowable. So players do field worse as they age but they get moved to a different position rather than chopped altogether. For the most part. When I look at individual players their fielding abilities do change and then comes the position shift and they get a boost because of the easier position which pretty much gets them back where they were just somewhere else on the field. I'm not sure how Markus could model that. __________________ It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it!

10-02-2011, 03:12 PM	#2
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 15,878	I would like to see the ratings degrade very fast, but also recover very fast. For example, Alexei Ramirez hasn't played 2B in a few years. He pretty much shouldn't be rated at 2B right now, but he probably wouldn't need more than 5-10 games there to get up to being a current gold-glove type player there. The easiest way I can think of is players should have basically 3 ratings at a position - current value, potential value, and some sort of "learning curve" for it. The learning curve can probably be a hidden attribute, but overall it would be the ease of "learning" that position. Current value would degrade the fastest, so once a player doesn't play a position for a year, he'd pretty much lose all value at that position. However, since potential and leanring curve degrade slower, it wouldn't take a lot to get back to it if you wanted. If you combine that with some sort of penalty for regularly switching some positions regularly (it's so easy in the game to do the "SS vs R" and "3B vs L" type platoons, which fairly rarely happens in real life), that would be a good way to model this.

10-02-2011, 03:28 PM	#3
ike121212 All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 938	The one that bugs me more is that Pitching Ratings develop for Batters. I'm looking at an All-Star CF, who has developed into the best Closer in the game, despite never throwing an inning in the majors or minors. Fielding development, position progression, and aging could use a complete overhaul.

10-02-2011, 03:44 PM	#4
StyxNCa Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Victoria, Texas Posts: 3,136	I would think they should.

10-02-2011, 04:32 PM	#5
snepp All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,502	Some kind of fluctuating positional ratings would be nice, assuming it's done in a way that the AI can properly deal with.

10-03-2011, 11:36 AM	#6
mouse001 Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 343	I like the idea. It should degrade faster for younger players and slower for veterans, especially if they are legendary at their respective positions. Omar Vizquel can move from SS to 2B but he shouldn't lose his ability at SS since he's amazing But I don't want to see a LF move to CF and lose all his points in LF...

10-03-2011, 01:13 PM	#7
t-bone shuffle All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: The dull edge of the blade Posts: 867	Yes, experience accumulation should deteriorate over time if a player doesn't play the position. In addition to this, there should be something that makes experience "points?" whatever it's labeled in the editor, increase and decline at different speeds depending upon the position. For example, I think we all know that there are way too many highly rated 1B's and I think it's because it's too easy to acquire experience at 1B. It should take something like 5 years of ML level experience for someone to max out their 1B ratings. Really great, difference making defensive 1B's don't come along that often. The two best I've seen with my eyes were Keith Hernandez and Jeff Bagwell and each became "great" after a considerable period of time. Likewise, a predominantly SS guy shouldn't lose "experience" so quickly if he's playing 2B most of the time, and the same should go for corner OF's. It's convoluted, but not really complicated if you think about it.

10-03-2011, 04:43 PM	#9
JMDurron All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,262	Instead of having the actual defensive ratings/experience degrade, I would actually prefer for a rust factor, similar to that for players coming off of long DL stints to be included. A player who develops a certain level of ability at a position should not lose it, but there should be an adjustment period when they transition back to that position from another. If it should only take a week or two of games to adapt back to max ratings, then why not just make it a rust factor? Keep it hidden, even in the editor, just like DL or Spring Training rust.

10-03-2011, 05:09 PM	#11
Bluenoser Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In The Moment Posts: 14,224	I've seen exactly what you're asking for. I have a guy who was highly rated at 3B, 2B, and SS. I played him at 2B all last year, and his SS rating dropped a few points. This year he's back at SS and he got a boost after a couple of weeks. Keep in mind, (this is for simmers only of course), just because you put a guy like mine to start at 2B, it doesn't mean the AI isn't sticking him in at SS occasionally. So you should have a close look at his defensive stats first to be sure he has/hasn't gotten playing time at one of his other positions. I kind of agree with the SS/3b comparison, but if you can play SS, you can play 2B, and there shouldn't be any noticeable drop off in ratings if you don't play 2B for a season or two.

10-03-2011, 08:59 PM	#13
StyxNCa Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Victoria, Texas Posts: 3,136	I have seen players fielding abilities go down as they age. One of my ex-players, Brandon Germany, was a 9-7-8 rated OF for most of his career. Now, at age 38, his ratings are 2-2-2. However, none of my current players ratings have gone down at any of the positions they haven't played in years and year so I guess they don't go down from not playing a position, they only go down with age.