AI not caring about defense at all?

[SirMichaelJordan]

Aaron Murray (Fictional) The worst CF in the screenshot is the best CF in the organization, who can hit at the MLB level. This doesn't suggest the AI is ignoring defense. It just values production more.

[highandoutside]

Is everyone using sabermetric over traditional lineup settings?

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by highandoutside

Is everyone using sabermetric over traditional lineup settings?

I'm using Saber FWIW

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Hand-created players and the game-generated players aren't a 1:1 comparison.

Also, the players in question don't have terrible fielding stats relative to their DEF ratings. The 1 only has a -11.9 ZR. The OP said players like him were holding the team back, and it's easy to score a lot of runs on AI teams because they can't field...

FWIW, I simmed to the break and adjusted to a 1-100 scale... I don't see there issue.

We can't argue that those players in question shouldn't have that many starts if we don't even know who else is available on the team.

What does the 1 DEF CF batting ratings look like? Plenty of real-life examples of teams sacrificing a -12 ZR CF in favor of him getting on base. Can the best defensive CF on the team hit at the MLB level?

I didn’t spot David Sulser in the screenshot. In the screenshot, he’s listed as the worst defensive CF. However, his team traded for a better CF (not perfect, but an upgrade from 27!). This backs up the idea that the AI doesn’t overlook defense.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Remember, the way players are being graded has changed from previous versions.

[DennisDenver]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Remember, the way players are being graded has changed from previous versions.

Is there write up or something that breaks these changes down? One thing I will admit i am sometimes completely oblivious to certain things. Lord it took me 200 hours to learn how play CK3 lol. And I still suck but oh well easy mode for win.

I think one thing I did wrong for example is with the title jumping to "AI Doesn't value defense" but I am in hindsight not sure if that is the problem.

I got several saves and going through them it's not so much it isn't valuing it it is like they don't seem as organizations to have many to pick from.

Like the focus has been on CF but it ends up happening in every position (other than LF/1st/ and 3rd is generally covered defense wise since weak defenders can do ok with them).

Teams have bad outfielders because everyone who is a decent bat is a terrible defender. Using 1 to 20 scale if choice between 5 defense player that is 15/20 player vs 10 defense 9/20 offense player I get why one might go with the 5 defense.

But when you do that team wide with every position (and it has been as bad as 7 of 8 fielders being "-" to 7"). It's a big problem and pretty easy to not only beat but to destroy.

I am not disagreeing with you but using modern day baseball players starting fresh save, locking league totals, it's just weird to see teams who had average overall defense of 12 to 15 in 2025 depending on the team drop down to 5 to 7 for their average starting line up (not counting pitcher as defense obviously) after 25 years.

It could possibly be something to do with minor leagues and way players are selected there. Who gets promoted who gets kicked. Basically think my original thought of "Doesn't value defense" is incorrect I believe something else is at play and it might just be as you said. Readjustment

Honestly, I just can't wrap my head around "I" who takes forever to build expansion teams made it to play offs in first round with team of cast offs no one wanted.

What I did was focus on defense and build around best starters possible. I had HORRIBLE offense but their defense was so bad I was still able to score and offset their hitting ability since I had high defensive players (They also scored a ton of runs but it equaled out).

This got me third place in division as whole and i won NL Central with a very beefed up St Louis (I changed their market size and owner spending and played as the Reds). I didn't even get anyone off the wavier wire...

That might been fluke though who knows.

Got off subject but would be interested in reading about how player adjustments was made.

Main thing with me

I want to be wrong. I love this franchise and if it is mistake I am making or way to fix it by all means let me know. It just seems wildly different than past versions.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by DennisDenver

Is there write up or something that breaks these changes down? One thing I will admit i am sometimes completely oblivious to certain things. Lord it took me 200 hours to learn how play CK3 lol. And I still suck but oh well easy mode for win.

I think one thing I did wrong for example is with the title jumping to "AI Doesn't value defense" but I am in hindsight not sure if that is the problem.

I got several saves and going through them it's not so much it isn't valuing it it is like they don't seem as organizations to have many to pick from.

Like the focus has been on CF but it ends up happening in every position (other than LF/1st/ and 3rd is generally covered defense wise since weak defenders can do ok with them).

Teams have bad outfielders because everyone who is a decent bat is a terrible defender. Using 1 to 20 scale if choice between 5 defense player that is 15/20 player vs 10 defense 9/20 offense player I get why one might go with the 5 defense.

But when you do that team wide with every position (and it has been as bad as 7 of 8 fielders being "-" to 7"). It's a big problem and pretty easy to not only beat but to destroy.

I am not disagreeing with you but using modern day baseball players starting fresh save, locking league totals, it's just weird to see teams who had average overall defense of 12 to 15 in 2025 depending on the team drop down to 5 to 7 for their average starting line up (not counting pitcher as defense obviously) after 25 years.

It could possibly be something to do with minor leagues and way players are selected there. Who gets promoted who gets kicked. Basically think my original thought of "Doesn't value defense" is incorrect I believe something else is at play and it might just be as you said. Readjustment

Honestly, I just can't wrap my head around "I" who takes forever to build expansion teams made it to play offs in first round with team of cast offs no one wanted.

What I did was focus on defense and build around best starters possible. I had HORRIBLE offense but their defense was so bad I was still able to score and offset their hitting ability since I had high defensive players (They also scored a ton of runs but it equaled out).

This got me third place in division as whole and i won NL Central with a very beefed up St Louis (I changed their market size and owner spending and played as the Reds). I didn't even get anyone off the wavier wire...

That might been fluke though who knows.

Got off subject but would be interested in reading about how player adjustments was made.

Main thing with me

I want to be wrong. I love this franchise and if it is mistake I am making or way to fix it by all means let me know. It just seems wildly different than past versions.

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=360992

There wasn’t much variance in the past, and almost all fictional players were solid to great defensive players until they started to decline.

It comes down to preference: Do you want many high-rated players? The franchise has struggled with this for a while now, especially with the draft class and POT ratings.

[venflaalachi]

I prefer how it is now. In previous OOTPs, there were too many good fielders in my book. I’ve been enjoying the more varied profiles of 26, and it lets generational defenders stand out in a way they hadn’t before in my leagues.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by venflaalachi

I prefer how it is now. In previous OOTPs, there were too many good fielders in my book. I’ve been enjoying the more varied profiles of 26, and it lets generational defenders stand out in a way they hadn’t before in my leagues.

I agree, the series game a long way because I remember 10 versions ago, you could literally play musical chairs with fictional players by plugging them in at different positions on a game by game basis and the AI did the same.

Currently, it makes finding a 5 tool player satisfying more than ever and keep the late rounds of the draft interesting by focusing on defensive players in hope that they can improve their bat with with things like dev lab, dev focus and even basic development or TCR hits.

[DennisDenver]

Just so I am clear. Having a full time position player with literally zero skill fielding in their position is the new normal? So my analogy of say Joey Votto at 35 in Centerfield is correct? Zero at CF is zero regardless who it is?

Sorry that just doesn't make sense. I am glad others are enjoying it but that makes absolutely no sense having people in full time positions they literally can't play.

But cool glad figured out it was way suppose to be at least.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by DennisDenver

Just so I am clear. Having a full time position player with literally zero skill fielding in their position is the new normal? So my analogy of say Joey Votto at 35 in Centerfield is correct? Zero at CF is zero regardless who it is?

Sorry that just doesn't make sense. I am glad others are enjoying it but that makes absolutely no sense having people in full time positions they literally can't play.

Tbh, i think you are too focused on the DEF rating and not the individual fielding ratings. Votto at CF would probably result in a historically poor ZR and EFF because he doesn’t even have the OF range to play CF…

In previous versions, you would never see the game generate a Bernie Williams who was a CF but didn’t have elite range. Not having great range will cap a players DEF rating at positions like SS & CF.

A CF with average range but don’t commit errors can win a gold glove…

I should also note that if you have a player playing a corner defensive position but lack power, they would not be as highly rated in OVR vs if they were playing up the middle.

[venflaalachi]

Originally Posted by DennisDenver

Just so I am clear. Having a full time position player with literally zero skill fielding in their position is the new normal? So my analogy of say Joey Votto at 35 in Centerfield is correct? Zero at CF is zero regardless who it is?

Sorry that just doesn't make sense. I am glad others are enjoying it but that makes absolutely no sense having people in full time positions they literally can't play.

But cool glad figured out it was way suppose to be at least.

It is not correct, seems to me like the AI will put in center the best option they have on the roster. Joey Votto would never be in CF

[DennisDenver]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Tbh, i think you are too focused on the DEF rating and not the individual fielding ratings. Votto at CF would probably result in a historically poor ZR and EFF because he doesn’t even have the OF range to play CF…

In previous versions, you would never see the game generate a Bernie Williams who was a CF but didn’t have elite range. Not having great range will cap a players DEF rating at positions like SS & CF.

A CF with average range but don’t commit errors can win a gold glove…

I should also note that if you have a player playing a corner defensive position but lack power, they would not be as highly rated in OVR vs if they were playing up the middle.

I get where you are coming from but honestly can't believe a lot of what I am seeing is right. Looking at editor. Richest team in my league is the St Louis Cardinals.

Using the editor

CF-34 years old, fragile, ratings Range-84,error 83, arm 83
RF- 28 years old, normal, ratings- Range-136, error 134, Arm 159
LF- 24 years old, normal, ratings-136, error 140, arm 133

This doesn't add up but I fear I am coming across as troll at this point. But AI should know to shift CF to LF, LF to RF/CF and RF to RF/CF. This isn't even going into who is playing DH. But alas I am tapping out lol.

Thanks though for help though all

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by DennisDenver

I get where you are coming from but honestly can't believe a lot of what I am seeing is right. Looking at editor. Richest team in my league is the St Louis Cardinals.

Using the editor

CF-34 years old, fragile, ratings Range-84,error 83, arm 83
RF- 28 years old, normal, ratings- Range-136, error 134, Arm 159
LF- 24 years old, normal, ratings-136, error 140, arm 133

This doesn't add up but I fear I am coming across as troll at this point. But AI should know to shift CF to LF, LF to RF/CF and RF to RF/CF. This isn't even going into who is playing DH. But alas I am tapping out lol.

Thanks though for help though all

Without more context and by looking at the ages, I can only guess that the 34 year old CF is declining and the others might not have that much experience at CF for the AI to make a switch at that very moment.

The Def rating is made up of experience at position and the individual fielding ratings.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Without more context and by looking at the ages, I can only guess that the 34 year old CF is declining and the others might not have that much experience at CF for the AI to make a switch at that very moment.

The Def rating is made up of experience at position and the individual fielding ratings.

How would that RF get experience in CF? The Dev Lab won't train him to play CF.

[uti-pontus-hage]

interesting topic. Would be good to have some words from the devs regarding this. If it is as intended or not or somewhere between.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

How would that RF get experience in CF? The Dev Lab won't train him to play CF.

We don't know if he has a grade at CF, but playing them at CF during ST or any time gains them experience there, as it always did.

If that RF were moved to CF, his ratings would only yield a 25 rating (20-80 scale) because he doesn't have the range.

If anything, the 34-year-old should be playing DH or 1B as he loses range while declining.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

We don't know if he has a grade at CF or not.

If that RF were moved to CF, his ratings would only yield a 25 rating (20-80 scale) because he doesn't have the range.

???

"RF- 28 years old, normal, ratings- Range-136, error 134, Arm 159"

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Brad K

???

"RF- 28 years old, normal, ratings- Range-136, error 134, Arm 159"

And what I gather from that is he's the starting RF...Players have grades at different positions correct?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

And what I gather from that is he's the starting RF...Players have grades at different positions correct?

Those skill ratings apply to other OF positions. Despite those ratings I assume his CF rating is lower than the current CF due to lower experience.