I don't get defensive/position ratings

[Bledsoe]

This is the thrust of my issue: I have a top prospect who is a 20/20 as a CF (and only qualified for CF), yet when I bring him up in September for defense, he is incompetent at the corner OF positions. That doesn't make a lot of sense. A CF playing LF will very likely be as effective as he is in CF. At worst there is a minimal drop off.

I've seen several PBP messages saying "A better fielder would have made that play!" so I know this is definitely an issue. I understand if I made "weird" changes there would be adverse effects, like putting him at 3B. But a SS can play 2B, a CF can play RF, etc without turning into a complete disaster. I don't think a simple/small position change should require tons of time to acquire an acceptable positional rating. Here is what the manual says:

Playing out of Position
Even if your player does not have a rating at a position, you can still play him at any position in a game. Just place him wherever you would like in your lineup or depth chart. You could even place a second baseman in your pitching rotation, although he's not likely to do well. However, a player who is not rated at a position is well below average in his ability at that position, and is likely to have poor range and make frequent errors.

Learning New Positions
Players learn new positions through practice. The best way to accomplish this is by having them play in a new position. Players learn more quickly when they play regularly in the minor leagues, or in spring training. The more a player plays at a certain position, the more he improves. After he has acquired a certain amount of experience at a position, he will be given a position rating that will display on his profile.

OOTP follows the concept of the "defensive spectrum." The defensive spectrum is as follows: DH - 1B - LF - RF - 3B - CF - 2B - SS. Generally speaking, the further to the right, the harder the position is to play and the harder it will be to convert a player to that position. Position players can learn to play catcher, but it often takes a very long time, and they typically don't make very good ones.


I would be ok with there being some penalty (even if I don't agree), but the current state is just not realistic. I think the current way makes sense if you're taking a SS and putting him in CF, or a 3B moving to OF, but there's too many logical moves that are unnecessarily punished.

[TribeFanInNC]

There is an experience component to positional fielding in OOTP. If you play him at LF for a certain period of time, his rating there will grow and he will end up pretty good. But it occurs over time and is not instant.

I know, your argument makes sense. But at the same time, you can't expect that just because a guy is a Gold Glove CF that he would be a Gold Glove RF from day 1.

[s0ni42]

That is frustrating. Combat that by force-starting your top prospects as soon as they get to double-A at complimentary positions. In other words, you should have had that prospect playing LF in AA and RF in AAA/Spring Training for example.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Should have played him in other OF positions while he was in the Minors. He has skill to play those positions (his defensive ratings) but does not have the experience...

Keep playing him there during the season or just wait until spring training to quickly teach him the positions.

[JcBoscan]

Totally agree with Bledsoe.

I've had similar issues. If you have a CF who is rated a 20/20 he should immediately be decent in LF or RF. Doesn't have to be amazing right away obviously, but starting at something like a 12/20 seems reasonable. There's just no realistic scenario where a Gold Glove-caliber CF would be unable to catch a fly ball in LF or RF.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by JcBoscan

Totally agree with Bledsoe.

I've had similar issues. If you have a CF who is rated a 20/20 he should immediately be decent in LF or RF. Doesn't have to be amazing right away obviously, but starting at something like a 12/20 seems reasonable. There's just no realistic scenario where a Gold Glove-caliber CF would be unable to catch a fly ball in LF or RF.

And that isn't the scenario here, either.

[BMD]

Originally Posted by JcBoscan

Totally agree with Bledsoe.

I've had similar issues. If you have a CF who is rated a 20/20 he should immediately be decent in LF or RF. Doesn't have to be amazing right away obviously, but starting at something like a 12/20 seems reasonable. There's just no realistic scenario where a Gold Glove-caliber CF would be unable to catch a fly ball in LF or RF.

Apparently you have not watched Gregory Palaonco (very good CF in the minors with excellent range and arm) play RF in the majors. He has cost the Bucs a couple of games already this year with mistakes in RF. Poor route running, bad jump off the bat, playing the wrong angle on balls coming out of the corner. All issues he apparently never had until he moved to RF.

[ra7c7er]

Think of position ratings more as experience.

Personally don't see anything wrong with the way position ratings work.

[JcBoscan]

Originally Posted by BMD

Apparently you have not watched Gregory Palaonco (very good CF in the minors with excellent range and arm) play RF in the majors. He has cost the Bucs a couple of games already this year with mistakes in RF. Poor route running, bad jump off the bat, playing the wrong angle on balls coming out of the corner. All issues he apparently never had until he moved to RF.

Fair enough. I'm not saying that an elite CF would be immediately as effective if he moved to LF or RF. I just think that in-his-prime Andruw Jones wouldn't have turned into Josh Willingham or Chris Duncan if he had to play LF or RF for a game or two.

My experience is the penalty is a little harsh when moving a quality CF to a corner outfield spot. Mileage may vary of course. It's a minor quibble.

[sc_superstar]

its fine the way it is, some fielders are skilled across multiple positions, but they are few and far between.

take A-Rod, he won 2 straight gold gloves at SS, moved to 3rd the following season and was well below average defensively. Admittedly his numbers at 3B got better over the next couple seasons (until age regression started) just like he should have with more experience. OOTP does a fine job modelling this. Very very few players are talented enough to be gold glove level defenders at multiple positions and the ones that are probably are utility guys who play each position many many times a year.

This was one thing that bothered me about older versions of OOTP because it was way too easy when you had guys who had perfect ratings at 2B/3B/SS or all OF positions and you could sign anyone at any position knowing you could move that gold glover around. I mean a whole whomping 2 guys have won gold gloves at multiple positions in the last 60 years

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by JcBoscan

Fair enough. I'm not saying that an elite CF would be immediately as effective if he moved to LF or RF. I just think that in-his-prime Andruw Jones wouldn't have turned into Josh Willingham or Chris Duncan if he had to play LF or RF for a game or two.

My experience is the penalty is a little harsh when moving a quality CF to a corner outfield spot. Mileage may vary of course. It's a minor quibble.

If you develop players well you won't see a penalty.

[RchW]

I find it odd any prospect made it so far with only one position rating (outfield no less) when the AI is in charge. It makes me suspect he was force started. Can the OP confirm that the player was not force started?

The biggest issue I see; and there are several threads on it, is the AI playing players out of position early in their careers in opposition to the defensive spectrum. Typically it takes a good hitting OF and makes them a good hitting poor fielding infielder because it can. It's very bad logic, but it means that single position players are a rarity in any OOTP league.

I do agree with part of the original complaint. Players who start as OF should (and probably do IRL) have reason to have played all three OF positions. Doesn't mean they have good skills at each but it should be normal for some rating to exist at all three OF positions. Better logic would be that an IF transitioning to a utility role (correct by def spectrum) may never see CF or RF and therefor should not have a rating initially.

[ScottM816]

Is there a certain number of games for experience? How do players get experience in the minors? 1 every 4 games or so, just curious ...

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

Think of position ratings more as experience.

Personally don't see anything wrong with the way position ratings work.

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

If you develop players well you won't see a penalty.

This man thinks clearly and has grasped the issue with forceful logic. Huh? I mean, I think he's right.

This, from the online manual. Note the last sentence in italics. I venture to guess that the CF in question will not be as good in LF and RF due to lack of experience but he will perform adequately in the meantime.

[dpd376]

The problem isn't that there's a penalty it's that it's too extreme. Base ratings (infield, outfield) should matter more than experience for positions lower on the defensive spectrum.

[Hoiles]

I agree with the penalties being too extreme and the positional ratings weighing too much over IF/OF fielding ratings. Another example is 3b to 1b transitions, which are quite common IRL; having a backup 1b for defensive purposes is more important in OOTP than usual.

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by ScottM816

Is there a certain number of games for experience? How do players get experience in the minors? 1 every 4 games or so, just curious ...

Players get better with each game played there, up to a maximum of 200. Not 100% sure if it's games played or per 9 innings at the position.

[ScottM816]

Originally Posted by frangipard

Players get better with each game played there, up to a maximum of 200. Not 100% sure if it's games played or per 9 innings at the position.

So say a minor leaguer has 90 games in AA in CF and 20 in left. Would be have a rating of 90 in center and 20 in left?

[TonyJ]

Originally Posted by dpd376

The problem isn't that there's a penalty it's that it's too extreme. Base ratings (infield, outfield) should matter more than experience for positions lower on the defensive spectrum.

I think this is right. In general I like the fact that there is a penalty and the player has to learn the new position, but when moving from right to left on the spectrum I think the baseline should start above 0.