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

[david limbaugh]

I have complained about AI managers playing players at positions they are not qualified for. With OOTP16 it is out of control. I started a thread

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...not-rated.html

in future release thread but this version of game is almost unplayable it is so bad. Games with 20 errors for one team are no fun....

I have asked for a switch/option to not allow players to play positions they are not qualified to play, yet 1B continue to play SS, and continue to make 3-4 errors in a game and have fielding percentages less that .500 while players qualified to play those positions sit on the bench.

CFs that are not rated to play 2B SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN THE LINEUP AT 2B. Catchers who are not qualified to play 3B should not be put at 3B when roster has others who are qualified to play 3B.

Please address this... I have asked this to be looked at for years but it seems to be far worse in this release. Just about every team in my historical league has 1 or 2 or even 3 players playing out of position. G

20-13 games where each team makes 15-20 errors are no fun....

[The Game]

Are you playing real historical? Could you post some examples of who is playing out is position? What year are you in because 20 errors is common for leagues 1920 or before.

[david limbaugh]

Originally Posted by The Game

Are you playing real historical? Could you post some examples of who is playing out is position? What year are you in because 20 errors is common for leagues 1920 or before.

I agree errors were common back then Gloves weren't quite the same. I have posted several examples in Future Release thread - please see link above...

Problem is AI sitting players that are qualified (rated) for a position and playing people who are not. And the ones who are not make far more errors (3-4 or more a game - < .500 fielding pct) than ones who are qualified....

I have discussed this with Markus over the years. It just frustrates me to see players being put into lineups in positions they don't play.

[IsaacR]

It would probably help to see a couple screenshots.

[ScottM816]

Originally Posted by IsaacR

It would probably help to see a couple screenshots.

The thread he posted has plenty.

[IsaacR]

Originally Posted by ScottM816

The thread he posted has plenty.

Somehow I totally missed that thread.

[IsaacR]

If your problem is not creating enough good hitters who can field at prime positions, use feeders. I've never had a problem with the AI playing players at other positions too frequently (Real or Fictional), so I wonder if you have a setting checked/unchecked that is causing it.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by IsaacR

If your problem is not creating enough good hitters who can field at prime positions, use feeders. I've never had a problem with the AI playing players at other positions too frequently (Real or Fictional), so I wonder if you have a setting checked/unchecked that is causing it.

He is playing historical, so creating players with feeders is not likely something he wants to do.

[IsaacR]

Originally Posted by David Watts

He is playing historical, so creating players with feeders is not likely something he wants to do.

Wow, I really can't read today. Stayed up until 2 AM putting together a trade in an online league.... exhausted and not reading well.

[aquapong]

I end up force starting a lot of positions. Sometimes I let it go in hopes that the AI will platoon players on the roster according to splits...usually C, 2B, and LF unless I've got a clear starter. I've rarely seen the AI do what you are referring to however.

[Déjà Bru]

I agree with OP in this thread. While I do ignore it, which is my fault, I do not like seeing AI play a guy with a 3 (out of 20) rating at 2B when his natural position is CF. Move him to LF, RF, 1B, maybe, but no real team is going to stick a guy with little or no defensive aptitude at a middle-infield position except in an emergency.

Instead, I see this happening a lot in the game and it's to suit the offensive lineup instead of being realistically concerned about defense. So, if AI has four OF's and no 2B, it will do this dumb move instead of bringing somebody up from the minors, hunt the waiver wire, or go to the trading post.

So I agree, this flaw should be addressed.

[pstrickert]

It bothers me, too, Bru. This might be another example where Markus detours from real life practice in order to, as you said, maximize offense. If pressed, Markus would probably insist that real life managers would be wise to follow suit. (I apologize if I'm not doing justice to Markus' argument.)

[pstrickert]

FWIW, I don't see the problem so much with historical leagues. For one thing, the players seldom have ratings at more than one or two positions. But fictional leagues is another matter. It is common to see players with ratings at four, five, or even six positions. The AI can't resist the temptation to move players around the field willy-nilly. IRL, managers tend to use players more uniformly. But maybe that's changing. I don't know.

[IsaacR]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Move him to LF, RF, 1B, maybe, but no real team is going to stick a guy with little or no defensive aptitude at a middle-infield position except in an emergency.

Buck Showalter plays Steve Pearce at second, and played him at third in spring training.

[david limbaugh]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

FWIW, I don't see the problem so much with historical leagues. For one thing, the players seldom have ratings at more than one or two positions. But fictional leagues is another matter. It is common to see players with ratings at four, five, or even six positions. The AI can't resist the temptation to move players around the field willy-nilly. IRL, managers tend to use players more uniformly. But maybe that's changing. I don't know.

Problem I am having is AI playing players in positions they are not rated for.

Example:

starting at 3B is 1B Jim A Devlin - he is a 54 at 1B and a 34 at RF - not qualified to play 3B - no rating there

The roster has Frank Norton, a 42 at 3B and Fred Waterman, a 46 C, a 59 3B, a 32 SS and 35 CF

Neither player is in the starting lineup.

[pstrickert]

What kind of league is this, david?

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by IsaacR

Buck Showalter plays Steve Pearce at second, and played him at third in spring training.

He was kind of hamstrung with an outfield-heavy roster and two infielders out with injuries. Buck, though, is one manager who likes players to be versatile.

[david limbaugh]

Originally Posted by IsaacR

Buck Showalter plays Steve Pearce at second, and played him at third in spring training.

And in my historical league, AFTER Buck does that, I don't mind my AI manager doing that reflecting HISTORY

Ernie Banks Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com

Ernie Banks moved from SS to OF to 1B. I don't mind that happening WHEN/AFTER it happens.

[pstrickert]

One thing I've done before is compare the game's use of players at different positions during a full season to real life usage. So, I'll go to baseball-reference and click on fielding stats for a particular team. Then I'll scroll down and count the number of different players who appeared at each position during the season. Catcher, shortstop, and centerfield, as you would expect, usually have the fewest names listed. First base, second base, and leftfield usually have the most. In my fictional league, I checked a team from last season. Something like 9 or 10 players appeared at SS and 10 players appeared at CF for this particular team.

Here's the fielding screen for the Nationals from 2014: 2014 Washington Nationals Fielding Statistics | Baseball-Reference.com

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by IsaacR

It would probably help to see a couple screenshots.

Originally Posted by ScottM816

The thread he posted has plenty.

Since I missed that other thread, I will add some screenshots of my own as examples.

Braves: I would not have Lindsey at 1B when it's obvious that he is a SS but the game puts him there to make room for James and Crawford (who should be switched as well). Why? Because Lindsey can hit (although he's in a slump at this time). So instead of moving him to SS and either sitting or trading James or Crawford, it does this move, creating a defensive liability at 1B.

Red Sox: Same story here. Would you have Woolf playing 1B just to get his bat in the lineup? With a defensive rating of "1"? I wouldn't. He'd be either playing the OF where he belongs, be on the bench behind the other guys, or be traded.

Phillies: They have Wagner at 2B with a rating of 4. He must be a much better hitter than Gilbert or Crowley, I guess. The last two screen prints show you that he is out of position; he is a much better outfielder.

Some of this may be the result of L/R platooning but even so, a rational manager would not make these defensive sacrifices. The fact that my league does not have the DH is no excuse.

Now, in the other 11 teams in my league, I do see some priority given to defense and nearly all positions have at least yellow-rated defensive ratings. That is, most players are playing where they should be. So the problem is not extensive, but nagging nonetheless.