Defense!

[David Watts]

I think when I get home tonight, I'm going to switch over to entire career for fielding. Maybe this will give the AI enough options to keep it from using zero rated smokestacks at positions.

[David Watts]

I think I may have figured out a solution. Got to thinking and realized, I've been playing OOTP22 since it was released and during that time, I never had issues with so many players playing out of position Doing so with awful ratings. I asked myself, what was different about then and the past few weeks. The answer I think is Neutralized Stats. I started using neutralized stats instead of real stats. Last night, I created a league and went back to using real stats. Too early to tell, but so far I haven't seen any players with zero fielding ratings manning a position. Have yet to see any red minimums either. Fingers crossed this solves the problem.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by David Watts

How much is the AI hurting the team when it chooses to play a guy with no ratings at all at a position? How bad are guys with red minimum ratings? For example, would the AI be smart if it plays Fred Lynn in LF rated red 24(20-80) scale, when there are at least 3 other options on the roster that have 40 - 60 ratings to play LF? Lynn is rated green 44 in CF. The AI has Leonys Martin starting in CF. Guessing this is an attempt by the AI to get both bats in lineup.

If Lynn has a 44 in CF, but a 24 in LF they likely have the skills to play LF, just not the experience.

I'm not sure exactly how experience works in Historical, but I believe if you are allowing development then Lynn will get better in LF the more he plays there. I'm not sure how it will work if you have development off.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

If Lynn has a 44 in CF, but a 24 in LF they likely have the skills to play LF, just not the experience.

I'm not sure exactly how experience works in Historical, but I believe if you are allowing development then Lynn will get better in LF the more he plays there. I'm not sure how it will work if you have development off.

Lynn started the season with only a 44 in CF. The AI started him in LF with no ratings for LF at all. After one game he was a Red 20. He then progressed to a Red 24. So, I do think he will eventually improve ratings wise. Thing is, what happens at the end of the season when recalc occurs? Does he start the next season with zero LF ratings, or does he keep the ratings he acquired during the previous season? I don't have a problem with Lynn playing LF or RF at all. He did so in real life. My issue is, shouldn't defense matter to the AI when creating rosters and lineups, or should offense be the only thing of value?

I do have issues with playing a historical game that moves guys like Scott Rolen or Brooks Robinson to SS. Just because we can all imagine they could do so if they wanted to, doesn't mean I want OOTP to turn it into reality. In the above example using Barry Larkin and Derek Jeter, I would rather the AI see that it has two studs at one position and trade one of them away, rather than all of sudden Derek Jeter is playing 2B.

I was seeing the game use players with zero ratings in a historical game with development disabled. The guys would have zero ratings, and then the red minimum after one game.

I'm really hoping using real stats instead of neutered stats solves my problem. I wasn't seeing this stuff until I went a way from real stats.

[Rain King]

I actually think it is smart of the AI to see that a player has the skills to play a position and uses them there. It actually makes MORE sense to play a CF 44 in a corner OF position IMO as that is not a good center fielder but will translate to a decent guy in the corner.

But also, the game provides a setting for whether you want it to think that way or just use the players as they were used historically.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I actually think it is smart of the AI to see that a player has the skills to play a position and uses them there. It actually makes MORE sense to play a CF 44 in a corner OF position IMO as that is not a good center fielder but will translate to a decent guy in the corner.

But also, the game provides a setting for whether you want it to think that way or just use the players as they were used historically.

But, Lynn had no ratings at all to play LF, so the AI is playing a guy with no ratings or then the bare minimum. Like I said, he played there in real life, so that isn't a deal breaker. Maybe the game should simply start most CF's like Lynn with some sort of rating at the corners. Moving Scott Rolen to SS is hard for me to stomach. I tried that based on real stats deal and was getting even screwier nonsense. I will play some more this evening with this league using real stats instead of neutered. I have a feeling I've already solved my problem.

[David Watts]

I've read on here plenty of time, folks saying they can't play historical because firing up the game and seeing Mickey Mantle playing for the Cleveland Indians just doesn't do it for them. Well, for me it's stuff like Brook Robinson playing SS or 2B that would drive me to fictional or to another game like Strat or Action Pc. I know that's probably nuts coming from someone that has Rogers Hornsby and Babe Ruth playing in the 80's against Jeremy Bonderman and Robert Fick, but I've never claimed to be the most sane ant in the hornets nest. Ugh!

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by David Watts

But, Lynn had no ratings at all to play LF, so the AI is playing a guy with no ratings or then the bare minimum. Like I said, he played there in real life, so that isn't a deal breaker. Maybe the game should simply start most CF's like Lynn with some sort of rating at the corners. Moving Scott Rolen to SS is hard for me to stomach. I tried that based on real stats deal and was getting even screwier nonsense. I will play some more this evening with this league using real stats instead of neutered. I have a feeling I've already solved my problem.

Lynn has Outfield Range, Outfield Error and Outfield Arm ratings. Those are what really determine whether he can play a position. Experience is by far the smallest barrier for that...especially when talking about corner outfield from a center fielder.

I see what you are saying...and again, there is a Historical Setting that you can choose to have the game play it the way you want. However, the AI when being utilized fully absolutely shouldn't be seeing that lack of experience as a reason to play him at a position he is sub-par at instead of allowing him to gain experience at a position he could play better.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Lynn has Outfield Range, Outfield Error and Outfield Arm ratings. Those are what really determine whether he can play a position. Experience is by far the smallest barrier for that...especially when talking about corner outfield from a center fielder.

I see what you are saying...and again, there is a Historical Setting that you can choose to have the game play it the way you want. However, the AI when being utilized fully absolutely shouldn't be seeing that lack of experience as a reason to play him at a position he is sub-par at instead of allowing him to gain experience at a position he could play better.

Okay, so this might be me looking at the wrong thing then. I play the game simply as an observer. I don't manage or gm and hardly ever pay attention to ratings. It's just when I see a lack there of, it jumps out at me. So the color bar and number for example, Lynn has a green 44. That's his experience and it being say a red 20 doesn't mean he is going to make tons of errors and be a total liability in the field?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Okay, so this might be me looking at the wrong thing then. I play the game simply as an observer. I don't manage or gm and hardly ever pay attention to ratings. It's just when I see a lack there of, it jumps out at me. So the color bar and number for example, Lynn has a green 44. That's his experience and it being say a red 20 doesn't mean he is going to make tons of errors and be a total liability in the field?

The most-accurate mode is going to be:

historical txns
historical injuries
historical lineups
no minor leagues
1-year recalc
development off
fielding & pitcher stamina ratings based on current season
Retire accg to history and Miss seasons accdg to history on
"ideal" adjust/weaken settings, whatever those might be (I wish I knew...)

The farther you get away from these settings, the more-likely you'll see the stuff that drives you (and me) nuts. And not much can be farther away from those settings that Random Debut Not that this fully explains all of AI's head-scratching moves, but probably a good amount of it...

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Okay, so this might be me looking at the wrong thing then. I play the game simply as an observer. I don't manage or gm and hardly ever pay attention to ratings. It's just when I see a lack there of, it jumps out at me. So the color bar and number for example, Lynn has a green 44. That's his experience and it being say a red 20 doesn't mean he is going to make tons of errors and be a total liability in the field?

The individual ratings for the specific skills are the most important factor from what I understand. They will determine whether the player is skilled enough to play the position, so Lynn should not be a liability in that way.

The lack of experience can cause problems in that he might misplay a ball occasionally because he is not used to that specific position. I do not know exactly how often that is expected to happen.

However, a player that is learning an easier position than one they already have experience in (so LF compared to CF) should learn the position very quickly. I would guess it would be only weeks before Lynn has a higher "rating" at LF compared to CF.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The individual ratings for the specific skills are the most important factor from what I understand. They will determine whether the player is skilled enough to play the position, so Lynn should not be a liability in that way.

The lack of experience can cause problems in that he might misplay a ball occasionally because he is not used to that specific position. I do not know exactly how often that is expected to happen.

However, a player that is learning an easier position than one they already have experience in (so LF compared to CF) should learn the position very quickly. I would guess it would be only weeks before Lynn has a higher "rating" at LF compared to CF.

Thank you and thanks for being patient. Like I said, since I don't manage I hardly pay any attention to ratings and such. Your explanation helped a lot.

[David Watts]

Getting a lot better results with real stats vs Neutralized. Lou Boudreau is the only guy I've seen playing with a Red 25. He's playing the occasional game at 2B, a position he did play sparingly in real life.

[Reed]

I like the concept of using neutralized stats but had problems when I tried to set up a league a few months ago.
First I set up a real stat league and fast simmed from 1901 to 1950 twice and had reasonable results. One time had eleven .400 seasons and another time had sixteen .400 season. Then I created another league using neutralized stats and everything else set up the same. Simulated 1901-1950 twice and both times had over thirty five .400 seasons but couldn’t figure out the discrepancy so just went with real stat league.

[David Watts]

Alright, 40 games into this random debut using real stats instead of neutralized stats and I'm not seeing any of the issues that caused me to start this thread. I knew something had to be up, as I've played OOTP22 since release and never had any problem until the last few weeks. That's when I started using neutered stats.

[Garlon]

There is only one fielding file. There is not a neutralized version of fielding. I play only with neutralized stats and I do not see the things you are getting.

[David Watts]

Could be all in my head, but as long as the "real stats" method isn't giving me Scott Rolen playing SS and every other team sporting guys playing with red minimums, I can live with my messed up head. Just seeing what I see. It's fun waking up knowing there's a good chance Mark Belanger might not be playing 1B with a red 20, while holding a blue 80 at SS in his pocket.

[Syd Thrift]

One thing I think that should be coded into the game fairly hard is that the AI should basically never be starting someone rated lower than, say, 35/80 at shortstop or centerfield (and arguably C) under any circumstance. If the choice is between a 25/80 guy who rakes and a 60/80 guy who will probably hit .160 in the majors, it should choose the latter. If it has to move guys all over the field (or, again, make otherwise strange call-ups from the minors) in order to ensure that at least passable fielders are playing SS and CF, it needs to do that. To some extent I think 2B and even 3B a little should also have some sort of scale but not as drastic. If you're going to put in guys who are learning the position on the job or are rated like 25/80, those players should be playing 1B or corner outfield.

This isn't just about whether or not a given player is detrimental to their team overall: I'm sure that in some scenarios, playing a guy at shortstop who can barely field it but who can OPS over 1.000 there might very well lead to more wins than the good-field, no-hit guy. This is about the way managers in Major League Baseball work. By and large, they manage to not get fired far, far more than they manage in order to maximize potential outcomes. One big way they get fired is to have a glaring hole on the roster that they choose not to address. The second they lose for, like, any reason, the local (and today, the national) media and "hot take" crowd point to the hole as the reason because the hole is very, very obvious, and it's embarrassing to the manager and the team as a whole, and not only can it lead to a manager losing his job, even if the reasons why the team is underperforming are completely unrelated to that hole, it can make it much, much harder for them to get another job in the future because they're not thinking the way a "proper" manager should. So in a sense, even if a directive came down from on high that Jeff Bagwell is now the starting SS, a manager might actually resign before doing so, lest he get his own reputation tarnished (and TBF any manager fired for a reason so dumb would get picked up by another team in a second).

I've talked in the past about giving managers "bad boy" points a la Europa Universalis. While, okay, that's not going to get implemented, the next best thing is to try to get the AI to think in these terms. Sure, it means that savvy players might have more room to exploit market inefficiences. I feel like that's kind of why a lot of people play the game, to prove that they're smarter than the average GM/manager, but besides that it should add that extra wrinkle when, as a GM, you trade for one of those no-glove, good-hit middle infielders and your manager refuses to look like a fool and play them in that slot. Baseball is a very tradition-heavy game, and there are a lot of things you just don't question.

Also of course in OOTP defense, especially defense up the middle, means a looooooot. Like, over the course of a full season that .160 hitting SS with an averagish 60/80 rating at the position (yeah, I know that technically 45 is average but the game makes the "average" determination based on a lot of guys who are theoretically rated to play a given position, not the median actual starter as you might see in real life baseball) might actually be worth more wins than a guy who OPSes 1.000 with a 25/80 rating. CF is almost as extreme, and catcher can be fairly extreme too with the caveat that you won't necessarily see low C ability show up in their own fielding stats but in the K and BB rates of the pitchers they handle.

[Rain King]

Well, I think that all goes into the weeds away from what is happening here though.

These aren't situations where guys aren't skilled enough to play a position, it is situations where they have low ratings completely because they do not have any experience at the position.

I do not think that the game, for example, should decide that Derek Jeter cannot play 2B simply because he does not have enough experience. Derek Jeter can obviously become a competent 2B given the opportunity.

[Rain King]

I'll concede the Scott Rolen at SS example as a bad idea, I guess....although we just saw the Reds essentially do this with Eugenio Suarez in 2021 (which of course failed miserably).

However, most of the examples in this thread have been moving down the spectrum and that is definitely something the AI should be doing.