|
||||
|
|
Perfect Team Perfect Team 2.0 - The online revolution continues! Battle thousands of PT managers from all over the world and become a legend. |
|
Thread Tools |
07-25-2019, 11:42 PM | #81 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,782
|
Quote:
There are also a ton of examples of a player being relegated to 1 or 2 infield positions & especially teams needing to have a kind of starting infield. I might have overlooked that difference between a real team & a fantasy team a little but still feel players that haven't demonstrated "infield flexibility" should be a little less flexible in order to mimic the reality of baseball being a team sport, particularly on the infield when it comes to defense. Unless something else is implemented to account for the same group of players playing at the same positions over the course of a numerous games becoming better as a group. (Could be as simple as players un-learning their former positions to some degree as they train up at a new one.)
__________________
Last edited by One Great Matrix; 07-25-2019 at 11:54 PM. |
|
07-26-2019, 07:34 AM | #82 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Willsboro, NY
Posts: 2,897
|
I think the player position "un-learning" is something that would be more geared toward the regular game as opposed to PT. Realism isn't really a key component of PT given things like Legend, Future Legend and POTM cards. It's more a fun little side game (though for others, it's more of a time spender than the regular game).
__________________
Currently Reading: The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen "Well, the game is afoot. I’ll take anal bum cover for 7,000." - "Sean Connery" SNL Celebrity Jeopardy R.I.P. Tommy Holmes 1917-2008 |
07-28-2019, 09:45 AM | #83 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,782
|
Hrmm
OK...but for Perfect Team, shouldn't players only have very high ratings/abilities at a specific infield position (& in some cases specific OF position) if their card is A. representative of very good real-life performances at that position or B. representative of a player who projects very well at a position.
I basically feel like a card having those blue ability ratings at a position should be limited to real-life performances & more cynical/less flexible projections than what I've seen. I feel a lot of players can play adequate outfielde. Although not excellent unless it's been demonstrated or is rather fathomable based on what is known. In many cases, I don't think a player playing a good 3B or 1B should give him the ability to project at SS or 2B at all or maybe lower than their proved position on the infield and normally would end up maxing out at average or slightly below. Some of the very basic infield stats like fielding PCT. at each infield position are rather telling. And like with PAs or ABs for a hitter the number means quite a bit more if there are say at least 75 games played there. This is sort of different for outfielders who rarely make errors and need ratings like range, arm & specific position (comfort) rating. Elite defense is a lot like elite hitting as far as an asset. If a hitter can have average (contact), power, and plate discipline etc., he is a great hitter all around. The different positions on the diamond, a player's ability to play a certain position is a lot like possessing one of those attributes as a hitter. If you can put them anywhere on the field and the player is excellent he is a great defensive player all-around. But a lot of players are only fathomable as average or better (especially elite level) at a certain position, maybe 2, 3. The topic is quite multi-faceted as there have been as many skillsets for defensive players as there have been players. Some PT players said they like the positional flexibility. Personally I just like it to be as true to the player's performance with a little room for realistic projections. Possibly most MLB hitters are trainable in the outfield. ...while only some MLB hitters are trainable at certain infield positions. If they've never demonstrated outstanding skill at a particular IF position, I have a harder time buying it translating to another IF position at close to the same level than if they've demonstrated outstanding skill in the OF & shift OF positions. I guess my take on it clashes a little bit with current sort of trends, projections & strategies, & some things that have become part of the OOTP game. From what I've seen, there a few infielders who in stark contrast to a utility-type player would sooner become a serviceable outfielder than change infield positions. Now practice can go a long way, & I understand games played there culmatively right now is serving as practice at that position, but then it is often unlikely that they could jump around the infield, in a nutshell, & retain high-level of play at every infield position they've played at one time. When I looked into it, the most obvious thing I noticed might have been that it entirely depends on the specific player.
__________________
|
07-28-2019, 09:50 AM | #84 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,782
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
07-28-2019, 10:10 AM | #85 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,782
|
47 different players have played all 9 positions.
Of these 47, 6 have played as many as 100 games at 4 different positions with OF listed as a position & the 6 IF positions listed separately. FYI Buck Ewing (636 C, 253 1B, 127 3B, 215 OF) Bernie Friberg (434 2B, 479 3B, 123 SS, 198 OF) Steve Lyons (115 1B, 118 2B, 229 3B, 339 OF) Jim O'Rourke (1377 OF, 209 C, 103 1B, 119 3B) Deacon White (226 C, 131 1B, 826 3B, 112 OF) Maybe it was only 5. Last edited by One Great Matrix; 07-28-2019 at 10:19 AM. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|