The problem now too big to ignore - playing out of place... - Page 3

The Game · 06-01-2015, 10:19 PM

Just checked the team i am playing against in my EBL league. Very bad team the last 4 years. Only one guy played out of position and was not for the team he plays for now. Only thing i can think off for his 2B play was that might have been when their All Star 2B missed 4 months. No one else on this team in their starting lineup has played out of position. i will check my 2 historical leagues tomorrow.

david limbaugh · 06-01-2015, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Game

2-3 by rchW none by DL. David post some screenshots of these players who have played out of position. I play many different styles in OOTP and yes players do play out of position on occasion, not nearly as much as in past versions and it's rare that I see it these days. Through 12 games in my HoB league i have yet to see more then 1 AI guy play out of position and that was because of injury.

Jake Burdock not rated for 3B:

david limbaugh · 06-01-2015, 11:29 PM

He started first 16 games of season at 3B....

david limbaugh · 06-01-2015, 11:31 PM

A position he was not qualified to play:

david limbaugh · 06-01-2015, 11:35 PM

Roster had 2 others who were rated at 3B and they never started a game at 3B.

One of many examples I have found....

He DID NOT play 3B that year: Jack Burdock Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com

david limbaugh · 06-01-2015, 11:46 PM

After more checking, I am finding occurrences of players put in starting lineups and depth charts at positions they are not rated for, and DID NOT PLAY that Position THAT Season "in real life" while other players on the roster who are rated for those positions do not start...

So, I am back to my original request - an option to prohibit the AI from putting players in the starting lineup at positions they are not rated for...

David Watts · 06-02-2015, 08:27 AM

Again, what's strange is Jack Burdock played some 3B in real life. He started 60 games there in 1874 and 7 more over the course of his career. It looks like you're in 1873 and from an earlier screenshot, it looks like you're using 3 year recalc and 3 years for your fielding settings. I'm wondering if this has anything to do with Burdock playing 3B. Wonder if things would be different if 1 year recalc was used or if fielding roles were based on 1 year.

David Watts · 06-02-2015, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david limbaugh

Roster had 2 others who were rated at 3B and they never started a game at 3B.

One of many examples I have found....

He DID NOT play 3B that year: Jack Burdock Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com

Your settings for fielding are 3 years according to your earlier screenshot. I wonder if that is a factor in this?

david limbaugh · 06-02-2015, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Watts

Your settings for fielding are 3 years according to your earlier screenshot. I wonder if that is a factor in this?

You have probably 'solved' it :

Basically the game is doing an awesome job of being smarter than I am.

But I still wish I had an option box that stopped AI from starting/playing players at positions they are not rated for....

Questdog · 06-02-2015, 03:48 PM

This would not answer the question of why this happens in fictional play.....

Matt Arnold · 06-02-2015, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

This would not answer the question of why this happens in fictional play.....

The only times I've seen people start at a position they're not rated for is if there's nobody else on the roster who can play there, or maybe on the off-chance where the roster is weird (ie. better to have an 18/20 2B and a 0/20 3B than a 7/20 at both positions).

I did want to have a look through our logic to determine starters and which positions to put guys at (I have seen cases of playing a clearly inferior lineup, but haven't got around to fixing that), so when I come around to that I'll definitely poke around more and make sure this will only happen if truly nobody can play the position.

Déjà Bru · 06-02-2015, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The only times I've seen people start at a position they're not rated for is if there's nobody else on the roster who can play there, or maybe on the off-chance where the roster is weird (ie. better to have an 18/20 2B and a 0/20 3B than a 7/20 at both positions).

I did want to have a look through our logic to determine starters and which positions to put guys at (I have seen cases of playing a clearly inferior lineup, but haven't got around to fixing that), so when I come around to that I'll definitely poke around more and make sure this will only happen if truly nobody can play the position.

I may have lost my place in this thread, but I believe OP's complaint is not about people playing in positions with NO ratings, but with VERY LOW ratings at those positions and merely to suit the offensive lineup without consideration that other players are more defensively suitable for those positions. I gave several examples of this in post #20.

The Wolf · 06-02-2015, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The only times I've seen people start at a position they're not rated for is if there's nobody else on the roster who can play there, or maybe on the off-chance where the roster is weird (ie. better to have an 18/20 2B and a 0/20 3B than a 7/20 at both positions).

I did want to have a look through our logic to determine starters and which positions to put guys at (I have seen cases of playing a clearly inferior lineup, but haven't got around to fixing that), so when I come around to that I'll definitely poke around more and make sure this will only happen if truly nobody can play the position.

Thank you. That will fix everything.

Questdog · 06-02-2015, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The only times I've seen people start at a position they're not rated for is if there's nobody else on the roster who can play there, or maybe on the off-chance where the roster is weird (ie. better to have an 18/20 2B and a 0/20 3B than a 7/20 at both positions).

I did want to have a look through our logic to determine starters and which positions to put guys at (I have seen cases of playing a clearly inferior lineup, but haven't got around to fixing that), so when I come around to that I'll definitely poke around more and make sure this will only happen if truly nobody can play the position.

I have seen with other players rated to play the position.

OakDragon · 06-02-2015, 10:48 PM

Slightly tangential, perhaps, but it seems to me like it would be a good idea for there to be an option to choose whether or not to allow the AI teams to teach players new positions. If you have spring training and minors turned off (which I presume you might since you're doing early historical?), the AI would have to play players at unrated positions to give them experience. I wonder if the AI is trying to do this even though the setting to use players at their real-life positions is turned on.

sprague · 06-03-2015, 02:18 AM

See this more of an issue in historical games. The game rates players only on positions played not possible like fictional.
So a cf who only played cf is 200 there but 0 for lf rf which is not accurate. A fictional outfielder likely has some experience there. So the ai only has raw numbers to look at.

Perhaps the fielding ratings in a 1 or 3 year recalc league should include a small percentage of career as well thus adding more possible position to each player.

David Watts · 06-03-2015, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprague

See this more of an issue in historical games. The game rates players only on positions played not possible like fictional.
So a cf who only played cf is 200 there but 0 for lf rf which is not accurate. A fictional outfielder likely has some experience there. So the ai only has raw numbers to look at.

Perhaps the fielding ratings in a 1 or 3 year recalc league should include a small percentage of career as well thus adding more possible position to each player.

Seems to me, the better solution is for OOTP to give defense its due and not simply stuff lineups full of the best offensive players available. In most of the OP's examples he makes it clear that there were often several available options with fielding ratings, yet the AI inserted a player with no ratings at the position. WHY? I wonder if the inserted player was a superior offensive choice? The fictional game has more options, but more options often means we get a good bat/horrible defense CF playing SS, over a good defense/poor to average bat SS. I think we all know Ozzie Smith could have played 2B,3B and more than likely all of the outfield positions. We also know he never did so. Personally, I don't see a massive amount of guys playing out of position when I play historical. I clearly don't see enough doing so, to want the game to imitate the fictional one. If that happens, I say we change the name of the game from baseball to Zobrist.

pstrickert · 06-03-2015, 12:00 PM

Nicely summed up by David. ^^^^^^

Déjà Bru · 06-03-2015, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Watts

Seems to me, the better solution is for OOTP to give defense its due and not simply stuff lineups full of the best offensive players available. In most of the OP's examples he makes it clear that there were often several available options with fielding ratings, yet the AI inserted a player with no ratings at the position. WHY? I wonder if the inserted player was a superior offensive choice? The fictional game has more options, but more options often means we get a good bat/horrible defense CF playing SS, over a good defense/poor to average bat SS.

Exactly. I also give examples in post #20. With all due respect (and thanks) to Matt, I think he glossed over this aspect in his response.

Questdog · 06-03-2015, 12:57 PM

Well, I definitely believe the AI should pay more attention to defense when selecting its starters, but I am not convinced this issue has anything to do with it choosing offense over defense. The times I have seen this happen in fictional play, the player put in the lineup with no ratings at his position was not a clearly superior offensive player to the ones left out who had ratings for the position.

06-01-2015, 10:19 PM	#41
The Game Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Inside The Game Posts: 30,937	Just checked the team i am playing against in my EBL league. Very bad team the last 4 years. Only one guy played out of position and was not for the team he plays for now. Only thing i can think off for his 2B play was that might have been when their All Star 2B missed 4 months. No one else on this team in their starting lineup has played out of position. i will check my 2 historical leagues tomorrow. Attached Images __________________ Go today don't wait for tomorrow It isn't promised, all the time you get borrowed Don't live your life for other people Don't bottle your emotions till they crack and fill a couple just sorrows Take your mind and refocus go get a paper write your goals out Throw your middle fingers to all your haters "Stay Strong"

06-01-2015, 11:29 PM	#43
david limbaugh All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Murfreesboro (Nashville) Tennessee Posts: 700	He started first 16 games of season at 3B.... __________________ @RHS_SID on Twitter - Go Cubs - BoSox - World Series - One Day ...#WhenItHappens Last edited by david limbaugh; 06-01-2015 at 11:31 PM.

06-01-2015, 11:31 PM	#44
david limbaugh All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Murfreesboro (Nashville) Tennessee Posts: 700	A position he was not qualified to play: __________________ @RHS_SID on Twitter - Go Cubs - BoSox - World Series - One Day ...#WhenItHappens

06-01-2015, 11:35 PM	#45
david limbaugh All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Murfreesboro (Nashville) Tennessee Posts: 700	Roster had 2 others who were rated at 3B and they never started a game at 3B. One of many examples I have found.... He DID NOT play 3B that year: Jack Burdock Statistics and History \| Baseball-Reference.com __________________ @RHS_SID on Twitter - Go Cubs - BoSox - World Series - One Day ...#WhenItHappens

06-01-2015, 11:46 PM	#46
david limbaugh All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Murfreesboro (Nashville) Tennessee Posts: 700	I was wrong.... about being wrong.... After more checking, I am finding occurrences of players put in starting lineups and depth charts at positions they are not rated for, and DID NOT PLAY that Position THAT Season "in real life" while other players on the roster who are rated for those positions do not start... So, I am back to my original request - an option to prohibit the AI from putting players in the starting lineup at positions they are not rated for... __________________ @RHS_SID on Twitter - Go Cubs - BoSox - World Series - One Day ...#WhenItHappens

06-02-2015, 08:27 AM	#47
David Watts Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Looking for a place called Leehofooks Posts: 9,617 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Again, what's strange is Jack Burdock played some 3B in real life. He started 60 games there in 1874 and 7 more over the course of his career. It looks like you're in 1873 and from an earlier screenshot, it looks like you're using 3 year recalc and 3 years for your fielding settings. I'm wondering if this has anything to do with Burdock playing 3B. Wonder if things would be different if 1 year recalc was used or if fielding roles were based on 1 year.

06-02-2015, 03:48 PM	#50
Questdog Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: In a dark, damp cave where I'm training slugs to run the bases...... Posts: 16,142	This would not answer the question of why this happens in fictional play.....

06-02-2015, 10:48 PM	#55
OakDragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: San Jose, CA USA Posts: 3,494	Slightly tangential, perhaps, but it seems to me like it would be a good idea for there to be an option to choose whether or not to allow the AI teams to teach players new positions. If you have spring training and minors turned off (which I presume you might since you're doing early historical?), the AI would have to play players at unrated positions to give them experience. I wonder if the AI is trying to do this even though the setting to use players at their real-life positions is turned on.

06-03-2015, 02:18 AM	#56
sprague All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,947	See this more of an issue in historical games. The game rates players only on positions played not possible like fictional. So a cf who only played cf is 200 there but 0 for lf rf which is not accurate. A fictional outfielder likely has some experience there. So the ai only has raw numbers to look at. Perhaps the fielding ratings in a 1 or 3 year recalc league should include a small percentage of career as well thus adding more possible position to each player.

06-03-2015, 12:00 PM	#58
pstrickert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 16,407	Nicely summed up by David. ^^^^^^

06-03-2015, 12:57 PM	#60
Questdog Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: In a dark, damp cave where I'm training slugs to run the bases...... Posts: 16,142	Well, I definitely believe the AI should pay more attention to defense when selecting its starters, but I am not convinced this issue has anything to do with it choosing offense over defense. The times I have seen this happen in fictional play, the player put in the lineup with no ratings at his position was not a clearly superior offensive player to the ones left out who had ratings for the position.