AI shuffling defensive positions for no reason

[Ron.]

Any ideas why the AI is shuffling defensive positions between these two lineups?

[DustinthePOWERHOUSE]

Originally Posted by Ron.

Any ideas why the AI is shuffling defensive positions between these two lineups?

What do the splits look like?

[Ron.]

Originally Posted by DustinthePOWERHOUSE

What do the splits look like?

Batting you mean? I can post them but they shouldn't make any difference, both lineups have all of the same players, the AI has just chosen to mix up the defensive positions. Here is what their positional ratings look like.

[Matt Arnold]

I'm guessing it's just a remnant of how we build the depth charts. The players come in a different order depending on splits, and probably not enough different in defensive values to swap them around.

[kq76]

Does the game at all try to spread out a player's playing time at different positions that they're proficient at to keep them from developing rust at their non-primary position?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by kq76

Does the game at all try to spread out a player's playing time at different positions that they're proficient at to keep them from developing rust at their non-primary position?

If it does that would be completely unrealistic v how current defensive position loading works in real life.

This looks like the same issue we've discussed for several versions now. In real life middle infielders primarily, then infielders in general do not change positions due to platooning. If an infielder is platooned he goes to the bench not a different position. I have to emphasize this. IRL we never see a starting SS split playing time between SS and 2B unless an injury occurs or a position switch is made (Starlin Castro). In OOTP this is a regular occurrence with 2B, SS and some OF (platooning as infielders) and 3B (platooning to 2B). It's not realistic.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by RchW

If it does that would be completely unrealistic v how current defensive position loading works in real life.

This looks like the same issue we've discussed for several versions now. In real life middle infielders primarily, then infielders in general do not change positions due to platooning. If an infielder is platooned he goes to the bench not a different position. I have to emphasize this. IRL we never see a starting SS split playing time between SS and 2B unless an injury occurs or a position switch is made (Starlin Castro). In OOTP this is a regular occurrence with 2B, SS and some OF (platooning as infielders) and 3B (platooning to 2B). It's not realistic.

What he said.

quoting for emphasis.

[Markus Heinsohn]

I dunno. If a platoon player is superior at a defensive position, then why not shuffle the positions to get the best possible defense on the field? I like it the way it works now. Maybe we can add an option in the future so that starters vs RHP retain their position vs LHP even when there would be a better solution.

[RchW]

Some data for SS GS in 2015 from BR. Note that 40 players started 87% of all games at SS in 2015. Nobody platoons at SS unless it is a special circumstance.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I dunno. If a platoon player is superior at a defensive position, then why not shuffle the positions to get the best possible defense on the field? I like it the way it works now. Maybe we can add an option in the future so that starters vs RHP retain their position vs LHP even when there would be a better solution.

Two points

I'd submit that infield defense in baseball is so skill based that even the best SS and 2B would suffer if regularly made to switch positions based on a platoon.

Would you advocate changing defensive positions when the other team changed pitcher handedness? If not then starting them that way makes no sense.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by RchW

This looks like the same issue we've discussed for several versions now.

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I dunno. I like it the way it works now.

This seems very familiar.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I dunno. If a platoon player is superior at a defensive position, then why not shuffle the positions to get the best possible defense on the field? I like it the way it works now. Maybe we can add an option in the future so that starters vs RHP retain their position vs LHP even when there would be a better solution.

Logically that seems fine but in OOTP there a lot of players highly experienced at too many positions where a situation like you described happened far more often than in reality.

Also there is rarely any platooning at SS, most of the platooning comes from offensive positions. You will occasionally see platooning at 2nd & CF but not as often as RF/LF or 3B.

[pstrickert]

On a related note ...

IRL, managers of the home team will use their closers in the top of the 9th of a tie game. The logic is to keep the game tied and let the home team win it in the bottom of the 9th. (Besides, at this point, there can be no save situation for the home team.) By contrast, visiting managers will save their closer for save situations in the 9th or beyond.

Markus believes that it makes more sense, if you're a visiting manager, to use your closer in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game (even though it is not a save situation). The logic is that if you don't use your closer and a run scores, the game is over. If you do use your closer, he's more likely to keep the score tied and give the visiting team another at-bat in the next inning.

For this reason, you'll see the visiting manager AI in OOTP use a closer in a non-save situation such as the bottom of the 9th of a tie game. Markus thinks it makes sense, even though in real life it seldom if ever happens.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Logically that seems fine but in OOTP there a lot of players highly experienced at too many positions where a situation like you described happened far more often than in reality.

Also there is rarely any platooning at SS, most of the platooning comes from offensive positions. You will occasionally see platooning at 2nd & CF but not as often as RF/LF or 3B.

There is more justification to corner OF platooning. It would be logical for a guy playing LF v RHP to go to RF v LHP if a big bopper RHB was available

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Logically that seems fine but in OOTP there a lot of players highly experienced at too many positions where a situation like you described happened far more often than in reality.

Also there is rarely any platooning at SS, most of the platooning comes from offensive positions. You will occasionally see platooning at 2nd & CF but not as often as RF/LF or 3B.

I'm with you, SirMichael. I think something is lost (at least IRL) -- maybe it's more intangible than anything else -- when a manager does too much platooning.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

On a related note ...

IRL, managers of the home team will use their closers in the top of the 9th of a tie game. The logic is to keep the game tied and let the home team win it in the bottom of the 9th. (Besides, at this point, there can be no save situation for the home team.) By contrast, visiting managers will save their closer for save situations in the 9th or beyond.

Markus believes that it makes more sense, if you're a visiting manager, to use your closer in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game (even though it is not a save situation). The logic is that if you don't use your closer and a run scores, the game is over. If you do use your closer, he's more likely to keep the score tied and give the visiting team another at-bat in the next inning.

For this reason, you'll see the visiting manager AI in OOTP use a closer in a non-save situation such as the bottom of the 9th of a tie game. Markus thinks it makes sense, even though in real life it seldom if ever happens.

That's exactly what I was seeing in 16 that led to a lot of decisions for closers. The rate of saves were down (not on the level of 17 pre-release beta) and the number of wins-losses were up for all closers.

I thought it was a bug because I didn't see that happening in 15. I am guessing it's still there for 17?

[pstrickert]

I have no reason to think it has changed in 17. Markus has decided to impose his will on AI managers. Who am I to disagree?

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

I have no reason to think it has changed in 17. Markus has decided to impose his will on AI managers. Who am I to disagree?

Another reason I like playing historical. Reality just doesn't often create guys that play 2b, SS, 3b and all three outfield positions. When it does, they are usually way more Don Kelly than they are Tony Phillips.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Logically that seems fine but in OOTP there a lot of players highly experienced at too many positions where a situation like you described happened far more often than in reality.

Also there is rarely any platooning at SS, most of the platooning comes from offensive positions. You will occasionally see platooning at 2nd & CF but not as often as RF/LF or 3B.

Right...tools can and should determine where you position a player, but experience should play a much larger role in a player's overall positional rating, as so primary position ratings are higher. And secondary positions are much much lower

[Mat]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Right...tools can and should determine where you position a player, but experience should play a much larger role in a player's overall positional rating, as so primary position ratings are higher. And secondary positions are much much lower

agreed.