AI Defensive Choices/IF Defensive Ratings

[RchW]

I don't often complain about things affecting realism but the combination of too many above threshold IF ratings and bad AI choices due to those ratings is killing the realism for me.

The latest is Zhi-jun Yu, Gold Glove winner at 3B in 2041. He had a ZR of +14.1, a 0.979 FP, 6 errors in 120 starts at 3B. In 2042 he plays SS very badly. A ZR of -8.3, FP of 0.955 and 14 errors in 76 starts. This player was never a SS in the minors and played only parts of 40 games in the previous 3 major league seasons. This is not the only player, just one that stands out.

I think OOTP badly needs a revamp of the defensive position rating generation, especially IF players. No matter what the talent level most RL infield players establish a primary position by college at the latest. Even if a player has more than one position once he reaches the majors the skills at the alternate positions should drop. It would help if the AI had a different defensive threshold value requirement that would say this player can start at 3B but not at SS. IRL Starting 3B just don't play SS at all. I checked BR and at least 12 of the top 20 in GS at 3B played less than 4 games at SS. OOTP should reflect this reality.

OK rant over.

[Matt Arnold]

Well, sounds like he did play SS badly there, so that part seemed to work. But it would be nice to not see them move around too much. I've seen Longoria moved to a SS and 2B.

It would be nice if you even had a case where you tried to put him on the depth chart or in the lineup at a different position and the game would actually physically stop you with a "I'm sorry, I really don't want to play at that position". If you force them and insist, sometimes they give in and adjust, sometimes they fight back and demand a trade.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by UWHabs

Well, sounds like he did play SS badly there, so that part seemed to work. But it would be nice to not see them move around too much. I've seen Longoria moved to a SS and 2B.

It would be nice if you even had a case where you tried to put him on the depth chart or in the lineup at a different position and the game would actually physically stop you with a "I'm sorry, I really don't want to play at that position". If you force them and insist, sometimes they give in and adjust, sometimes they fight back and demand a trade.

Just to clarify, Longoria has played 1 game at SS in his career. It's possible he may have played a couple of innings at 2B without it being recorded. My point in the OP was that at the Major League Level position changes for good players specifically IF (starting lineup or star players) are rare. I checked 10-12 of the top 20 3B in 2011 and none of them played any significant time at another position. That applies to all IF positions with one or two exceptions.

OOTP changes defensive positions all the time.

The first way is based on platoon splits in the batting lineup.

In an AI lineup your 2B vs RHP may be replaced by his SS partner at 2B vs LHP and a third player now plays SS. This just doesn't happen IRL. I can't find a starting 3B, SS or 1B in 2011 who played any significant time at another IF position. At 2B Ben Zobrist played 38 games in RF in 2011. That's one player out of 120+ real life infield players. OOTP does not reflect this reality.

The second way occurs when a player is lost or acquired.

In real baseball when a player is lost the team typically replaces them with a utility player (temporarily), or another player via acquisition or from the minors who is primary at that position. That is a SS typically replaces a SS. Real life teams almost never move a 3B or 1B to SS or 2B and slot a second replacement into 1B or 3B. This indicates that RL baseball management understands that having skills does not automatically produce results, so moving your 3B to SS and playing someone else at 3B weakens the team at two positions vs one. Exceptions like a Kevin Youkilis (1B 3B) and Zobrist do exist, but we are talking 1 or 2 players or maybe 5 per league not 4-5 players per team as is the norm in OOTP.

In OOTP an injury or the acquisition of a new player can result in 3-5 position changes, including IF moving to OF and vice versa. The results can be laughable. Teams sign aging (35+) power hitting 1B that retain marginal SS ratings (while never playing SS) to FA contracts. They play them ahead of a primary SS who may be a good prospect but a lesser bat. This never happens IRL. In the same lineup because the signed 1B is now playing SS one of the catchers plays 1B just because he can and the remaining catcher gets exhausted because there is no backup C in the depth chart. These are not isolated situations, many AI teams have 3-5 players out of position and very often have one or two exhausted players because there is no backup.

My suggestions are:

OOTP needs to reduce the number of highly rated 4 position IF players generated. They really don't exist IRL.

Defensive skills should match physical attributes in some way. A 5' 11" 240lb power hitter is rarely a 2B/SS or CF. The number of 30HR+ middle IF in OOTP is higher than in RL.

First and third base skills should be separate from 2B/SS skills for good batters.

Power hitting 1B/3B should not ever become SS (name one). Create a rare power hitting SS/2B instead.

Learning new positions should be tied to development ie a prospect who's development stalls should get a bump in defensive ratings. This ties in with the points below.

Learning new positions should occur later in a players development not earlier. That would allow a SS/2B to become a 1B but not at 22!!

Marginal or poor hitters should develop multiple position skills far more often than good hitters. Classic utility players or defensive specialists IRL baseball don't hit. If they did they wouldn't be utility players.

Good or great hitters with multiple IF positions should be exceedingly rare. Where they do exist there should be a quick drop off in defensive skills for positions they don't play often. A 50% dropoff per season may be needed.

After 3-5 seasons 1B/3B good hitters should not be able to play 2B/SS as starters.

The AI should have different defensive criteria for starting players vs substituting (pinch hitting) vs defensive replacements. This would reduce the AI's choices and reduce the amount of defensive shuffling. If defensive ratings were made as recommended above this would be easy for the AI to figure out.

Sorry for the long winded answer but the current issues with defensive ratings are a serious flaw IMO

[Qwerty75]

Just wondering: What are Yu's positional ratings at SS and 3B?

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by RchW

No matter what the talent level most RL infield players establish a primary position by college at the latest.

I agree with most of your points, but this one's off imo. A lot of college players slide down he defensive spectrum, and that's the part that OOTP completely misses the boat on. You draft players with absolute certainty of how well and where they'll play defensively in the majors. Players rarely move back up the spectrum, but in OOTP, it's almost a game by game AI decision.

This pales in comparison to the SP/RP paradigm, but it's a huge blemish that doesn't get enough attention.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by RchW

...

Generally, these kind of statements do not make much sense without real data backing up your claims.

The AI in terms of constructing the depth chart is pretty complex and leads to the best combination of offense & defense playing on the field. In real life, other factors influence the decision of the manager, i.e. personal preferences & stuff like team chemistry, these do not matter for the AI obviously.

Anyway, I do agree that the development of the player defensive ratings could get some work. Right now, the overall defensive rating at a position is determined by experience & the composite defensive ratings. The latter do change over time (i.e. decrease when aging), experience just grows though (until maxed out). Maybe when a player does not play a position at the higher end of the defensive spectrum than his current position, he should lose his experience over time?

[Chicagofan76]

RCW, what bothers me in part with your idea/theory is that OOTP does not take into account that players IRL usually start at 1 position, say when they are drafted and then get moved based on the fact that they suck at their orig position. OOTP starts players out at 1 position then moves them to others where then they suck.
Paul Konerko was a C for the Dodgers before moving to 3B then to 1B
Carlos Lee was a 3B in the minors.
Mickey Mantle was a SS

In OOTP we have MR & CL in every draft, IRL SP get turned into CL and MR because they have 2 pitches or dont have the endurance to go at least 5 IP.

How many of the current 3B started at another position in
HS/College/minors then got moved to 3B?

The other thing is in OOTP players must learn new positions and usually suck til they have atleast a 1 rating, where as IRL a guy like Brent Lillibridge can be a SS playing every position not called SS and be downright gold glove like at those positions.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by RchW

In an AI lineup your 2B vs RHP may be replaced by his SS partner at 2B vs LHP and a third player now plays SS. This just doesn't happen IRL. I can't find a starting 3B, SS or 1B in 2011 who played any significant time at another IF position. At 2B Ben Zobrist played 38 games in RF in 2011. That's one player out of 120+ real life infield players. OOTP does not reflect this reality.

You are obviously not familiar with the New York Mets' jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none Daniel Murphy.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

You are obviously not familiar with the New York Mets' jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none Daniel Murphy.

I specifically referenced starting players. If he started 110 at 2B and 45 at 3B then he would be like many OOTP players.

Murphy is a high end utility player who can hit: double rare. I indicated in my post that such players should be rare. Note he hasn't played one game at SS. SS is the crux of my argument. In OOTP he would have played SS too.

Did the Mets have injuries or were they just bad?

It seems like 50%+ of OOTP IF are Daniel Murphy's plus and they can play SS.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Maybe when a player does not play a position at the higher end of the defensive spectrum than his current position, he should lose his experience over time?

That would help a ton on the aging side. Something is still needed on the development front. Simply allowing the core defensive skills to develop would be a big step. This would still leave some big holes in the spectrum, ie. C to 3B, 2B to CF, 3B to LF/RF, but it would be a lot better.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by RchW

I specifically referenced starting players. If he started 110 at 2B and 45 at 3B then he would be like many OOTP players.

Murphy is a high end utility player who can hit: double rare. I indicated in my post that such players should be rare. Note he hasn't played one game at SS. SS is the crux of my argument. In OOTP he would have played SS too.

Did the Mets have injuries or were they just bad?

It seems like 50%+ of OOTP IF are Daniel Murphy's plus and they can play SS.

I know, I was mostly poking fun.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Generally, these kind of statements do not make much sense without real data backing up your claims.

Thanks for responding. What data would help?

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

The AI in terms of constructing the depth chart is pretty complex and leads to the best combination of offense & defense playing on the field. In real life, other factors influence the decision of the manager, i.e. personal preferences & stuff like team chemistry, these do not matter for the AI obviously.

Could you possibly make the AI maintain position priority? What I mean is, if your SS vs RHP is going to be in the batting lineup vs LHP then don't allow his defensive position to be changed. That's the key issue. On the same tack, if the SS vs RHP is not in the lineup vs LHP then don't move the 2B, 3B or 1B to SS but insert the backup SS.

I guess that would be difficult if the goal is the best batting lineup.

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Anyway, I do agree that the development of the player defensive ratings could get some work. Right now, the overall defensive rating at a position is determined by experience & the composite defensive ratings. The latter do change over time (i.e. decrease when aging), experience just grows though (until maxed out). Maybe when a player does not play a position at the higher end of the defensive spectrum than his current position, he should lose his experience over time?

That would be helpful.

Could you make the player position choice (ie the indicated player position) more important by suppressing his other defensive ratings proportional to the defensive spectrum for the non chosen positions? So a 1B would see a bigger drop off at SS/2B and less at 3B. This could have the effect I'm looking for. It would force human players and the AI to pick a primary position for players. Something that's easily avoided now.

Such players could still play all positions but there would be a penalty for putting them in a tougher defensive position vs other player choices. The AI would still have flexibility, but 35 year old 1B would not likely play SS much.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

I know, I was mostly poking fun.

Oops I missed the tongue.

[SandMan]

I play only fictional and I love to find the bargain players that play all IF with very good ratings. I platoon these players and instead of one player that wants 10M or more I can get two of these players for about 2M per season each. I sometimes select 1 starting 1B and have 4 players that can play all the infield positions platoon 2B, 3B and SS. I usually have 5 IF with more than 400+ AB. I know that there are not many of these players in real life but I would not change anything in the OOTP world to make it so that these players are not created. Just my 2cents.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by SandMan

I play only fictional and I love to find the bargain players that play all IF with very good ratings. I platoon these players and instead of one player that wants 10M or more I can get two of these players for about 2M per season each. I sometimes select 1 starting 1B and have 4 players that can play all the infield positions platoon 2B, 3B and SS. I usually have 5 IF with more than 400+ AB. I know that there are not many of these players in real life but I would not change anything in the OOTP world to make it so that these players are not created. Just my 2cents.

Valid point. Most of the time I can live with it but when I see exhausted catchers with no backup available, CF playing 3B and 1B playing SS I realize that the game is easier to dominate for the human because AI teams often end up with poor defense and tired players due to poor roster management. I think my ideas might actually help the AI compete.

I don't want to eliminate multi-position players just make it harder to exploit them.

[JohnHoward]

This example is from OOTP 11 but in a game I played last night against the Astros they ended up with a nearly 600 pound middle infield with Chris Davis at SS and Adam Dunn at 2b (!!!). Dunn made a diving play up the middle to rob one of my hitters.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by JohnHoward

Adam Dunn at 2b (!!!). Dunn made a diving play up the middle to rob one of my hitters.

Cool maybe Ventura can use him there vs at DH,1B or LF next yr.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JohnHoward

This example is from OOTP 11 but in a game I played last night against the Astros they ended up with a nearly 600 pound middle infield with Chris Davis at SS and Adam Dunn at 2b (!!!). Dunn made a diving play up the middle to rob one of my hitters.

I find that issue very annoying.

While I agree with RchW's points there is one real life example somewhat similar to that example.

When the Yankees first signed ARod he was still a gold glove caliber SS but they moved him to 3rd instead of moving their below average defensive SS in Jeter. Still its very ususual and I wonder why that team would move their gold glove 3rd baseman from 3rd to play a below average SS.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I find that issue very annoying.

While I agree with RchW's points there is one real life example somewhat similar to that example.

When the Yankees first signed ARod he was still a gold glove caliber SS but they moved him to 3rd instead of moving their below average defensive SS in Jeter. Still its very ususual and I wonder why that team would move their gold glove 3rd baseman from 3rd to play a below average SS.

The Braves tried it briefly with Chipper Jones and the Met's with Howard Johnson. Anything to get a little more offense.

Part of the problem is that 1B is considered an IF position (I feel a little stupid writing that, but I think you know what I mean). If you can play 1B, you've got at least some ability to play everywhere in the IF, and the game will use that at some point. Then it snowballs, as they accumulate experience. The flip side is that an Omar Vizquel makes the best defensive 1B ever. Anyone believe that a 5'9'' career SS would make a great 1B?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by ike121212

The Braves tried it briefly with Chipper Jones and the Met's with Howard Johnson. Anything to get a little more offense.

Part of the problem is that 1B is considered an IF position (I feel a little stupid writing that, but I think you know what I mean). If you can play 1B, you've got at least some ability to play everywhere in the IF, and the game will use that at some point. Then it snowballs, as they accumulate experience. The flip side is that an Omar Vizquel makes the best defensive 1B ever. Anyone believe that a 5'9'' career SS would make a great 1B?

Good points.

Thats a good question you have about Omar. He would make plays other 1st baseman wouldnt make but on the other hand the other infielders would hate throwing it to him because hes so short. I really have no idea how he would grade out at that position.