Suggested Tweak to how Fielders are Handled

[Honorable_Pawn]

On a 10 point scale I have an OF who is a 6 in both LF and RF defensively. But he is a zero in CF despite having played 451 innings in CF over the course of his professional career. His arm and glove are solid but his range is slightly lacking. He should have some skill in CF besides a zero, no?




I was getting blown out so I took my All-star CF out of the game and brought in my back-up 4th OF'er to play CF. Immediately he commits an error. I'm not upset about the error or anything like that but I got to thinking about the way player positions are handled in OOTP.

Of course he is not an everyday CF'er but in a pinch he should be better than a C or a 1B in CF. He should be better than some Joe Schmoe in CF. I think if you are talented enough to play a corner OF position at the big-league level than you are better than some bum off the street who has never played there before especially if you have some experience playing the position.

No way this guy should be zero.

What I'm saying is that I think outfielders should just be OF. Let the three defensive factors dictate where a player plays. Let where a guy plays most of his innings determine if he is listed as a LF, CF, or RF.

Put another way, player X's natural talent is OF so he gets generated as an OF. But since he has limited range, a solid arm, and a solid glove he generally plays LF. So he is listed as a LF because that's where he plays not because he was born a LF.

Put another way, no player should be generated as a specific position. Instead players should have ratings as they do now. It is where they play that determines how they are listed.

If that is too much how about just generating players as OF IF or C. Let experience dictate their position not some arbitrary random number generated position.

$0.02

[TomVeal]

My understanding, supported by at least anecdotal evidence, is that a player with no rating at a position but with good scores in the pertinent defensive ratings will handle it better than a guy with low ratings.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Now that I look more closely I see that his fielding percentage is the same in RF as it is in CF.

Maybe I am too hung up on the rating and not the actual results.

[sprague]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

Now that I look more closely I see that his fielding percentage is the same in RF as it is in CF.

Maybe I am too hung up on the rating and not the actual results.

The fielding percentage should be the same at any postion.
The big difference is going to be in the range. A 167 range OF at CF is going to get to a ton of more balls than a 98 range OF (which yours in question might be). That difference won't show up in fielding but in the number of hits (esp doubles and triples) your pitchers give up. .I think that is more what the rating is trying to suggest.

Me personally I have more of a thing about good SS or 3B automatically becoming a gold glove 1B with a rating of 180 there after a year. This position should have a special (first base ability) so that a SS can not just become a super first baseman (as many SS are short and lose the stretch or catch a high throw ability ect). To me that is the one fielding position not really accurately presented in OOTP

[MarkInCincy]

I REALLY like HP's idea and sprague makes a good point also. Fielding is behind hitting and pitching in how it is modeled / implemented in game but the same can said of fielding when it comes to stats / sabermetrics IRL

just my $.02

[rpriske]

I have heard people complain about there being too many players created who have multiple positions.

I think there aren't enough.

If you have someone who is a very good shortstop, for example, he should probably have ratings - even low ones - at virtually every other position. There is no way someone moves over for SS to 3B and suddenly has no idea how to play the position. That is ludicrous, really.

[bwburke94]

This is exactly why the "minimum threshold" method of determining positional ratings needs to be changed for OOTP17.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by rpriske

I have heard people complain about there being too many players created who have multiple positions.

I think there aren't enough.

If you have someone who is a very good shortstop, for example, he should probably have ratings - even low ones - at virtually every other position. There is no way someone moves over for SS to 3B and suddenly has no idea how to play the position. That is ludicrous, really.

I agree that players should be able to play other positions. However some things stand out from real life that suggest teams don't agree with many OOTP players about defensive player usage.

1. MLB teams like to establish a primary position for IF unless injuries or bad play force it to be otherwise. Switching IF positions regularly in-season is rare.
2. Defensive metrics often show huge drop offs when skilled players switch. Often these last 50-100 games.
3. I showed in another thread that MLB teams try to use backup infielders by primary position ie a SS plays backup SS and a 2B plays backup 2B whenever possible. It's rare for a backup to play both.
4. Defensively sound utility players are very rare. By definition teams will play the better bat and take the defensive hit on a temporary basis. OOTP does this far too often and too easily by playing displaced OF at 2B. This alone shows that OOTP has insufficient penalties for playing players out of position.

Simply put there is not sufficient penalty for playing out of position in-game in OOTP because player base skills don't change when they switch. IRL that SS will have trouble with how quickly the ball gets on him at the hot corner. He will be late on balls right and left no matter his SS range. This will make him play further back making him late on slow GB. Just being late a few times will increase BABIP significantly. To me that clearly translates into reduced range and possibly more errors. You could also make the case that even a SS with a great arm might suffer when late to the ball playing 3B. How many games does it take to reach a plateau? I'd suggest 50 plus and more if the player switches back and forth.

If I could be assured that there was a finer granularity in skill ratings in OOTP I'd buy the play anywhere idea. Not sure that the internal workings of OOTP are sufficient IMO. Not sure that some buyers want it to be.

[rpriske]

I don't disagree with this... just the extent of it.

Picture a very good SS... not super-elite, just very good. Say a 15 rating on the 1-20 scale.

Shift that player to 3B. In real life, there is no question that this player would not be an embarrassment at 3B... though it is likely that they would not be as good as a regular 3B.

What would that convert to, anecdotally? A 5 at 3B? A 4? (Probably higher, really, but I am trying to be conservative here)

Currently, that player will be a zero.

That is what I am talking about. Don't make him suddenly great at every position - just reflect the likely reality.

Currently if you move a 20 from SS to 3B, OR if you move a lousy 1B (say a 6 rating) to 3B, those players will go there with the exact same rating. That doesn't make sense.

[Number4]

How about this: Right now, playing one position increases expierience only for that position. It could instead increase exp for similar positions as well, but only to a certain point, expressed in a percentage of maximum skill.

I'd suggest that by getting 100% exp in a certain position, a player should get:

100% (LF,CF,RF) - 80% in (other 2 outfield positions). The other 20% would represent getting used to actually playing the other position and learning differing park features for this position (LF learning the monster, CF Tal's hill for example)

100% SS - 75% in (2B,3B), 40% in 1B. A shortstop needs both a good arm and be able to turn a DP, so he'll probably do well at 2nd and 3rd.
It is important at 1B to be able to stretch for the ball, but I imagine being a good gb/ld fielder and thrower is useful at first as well.

100% 3B - 60% SS, 40% 2B, 50% 1B
Playing third helps more in learning SS than 2B; more similarities in throws. Remember that 60% of his maximum ability at SS might not be much if range or turn DP is low.
I imagine that 3B is in fielding balls more similar to 1B than middle IF, so slight bonus there.

2B: 60% SS, 40% 3B, 40% 1B
Reasoning similar to 3B->SS, only instead of throwing, 2B understands the turning dp part at SS.

1B: 25% at (2B,SS), 30% at 3B - both only if infield ratings for those positions don't suck. (which, the way the game generates ratings, disqualifies lefty throwers as well)
If a player plays the not 1B-infield, I imagine coming from 1B is better than coming from OF, DH, C or P. But still a long way to go.
Don't want the game to suggest a fat slugger can play non-1B IF because he learned to stretch for balls at first a bit.

C or P are specialized.

[joefromchicago]

Starlin Castro switched from SS to 2B this season, and it hasn't affected his fielding at all.

He still sucks.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Number4

How about this: Right now, playing one position increases expierience only for that position. It could instead increase exp for similar positions as well, but only to a certain point, expressed in a percentage of maximum skill.

I'd suggest that by getting 100% exp in a certain position, a player should get:

100% (LF,CF,RF) - 80% in (other 2 outfield positions). The other 20% would represent getting used to actually playing the other position and learning differing park features for this position (LF learning the monster, CF Tal's hill for example)

100% SS - 75% in (2B,3B), 40% in 1B. A shortstop needs both a good arm and be able to turn a DP, so he'll probably do well at 2nd and 3rd.
It is important at 1B to be able to stretch for the ball, but I imagine being a good gb/ld fielder and thrower is useful at first as well.

100% 3B - 60% SS, 40% 2B, 50% 1B
Playing third helps more in learning SS than 2B; more similarities in throws. Remember that 60% of his maximum ability at SS might not be much if range or turn DP is low.
I imagine that 3B is in fielding balls more similar to 1B than middle IF, so slight bonus there.

2B: 60% SS, 40% 3B, 40% 1B
Reasoning similar to 3B->SS, only instead of throwing, 2B understands the turning dp part at SS.

1B: 25% at (2B,SS), 30% at 3B - both only if infield ratings for those positions don't suck. (which, the way the game generates ratings, disqualifies lefty throwers as well)
If a player plays the not 1B-infield, I imagine coming from 1B is better than coming from OF, DH, C or P. But still a long way to go.
Don't want the game to suggest a fat slugger can play non-1B IF because he learned to stretch for balls at first a bit.

C or P are specialized.

I think some of these are way off-base (excuse the pun).

You cannot seriously believe that a classic 3B type would have an easy transition to SS. Range alone is a big deal never mind starting/turning DP. My bet would be 5%-25% depending on the athleticism. Middle infield is a highly skilled set of positions. I think for some more athletic 3B the transition to 2B might be easier if they could make the DP turn. Brett Lawrie is trying that now. Jury is still out.

Same with 1B. Again you make a wild leap that a typically large power hitting player with good footwork in that very narrow alley at 1B would get 25% of the skill of a SS. I'd put it at 3%-8%. There isn't any set of skills that a player reaching MLB as a 1B really has to even consider playing SS.

There are always special cases but they would by definition be exceptional players not easily categorized.

[Number4]

You didn't get what I was trying to say. The 3B would not get 60% of his maximum skill at 3B at SS, he would get 60% of that skill he would gain if he was playing SS.
So your normal 3rd baseman (middle range, good arm, can't turn a dp) would get at the moment 60% of 0, because the game doesn't even qualify him for SS.
But if it was, he'd be playing regularly at SS a maybe 3/10 SS. So I estimated that he would be a 2/10 SS if he was playing 3B, compared to 0/10 with no IF exp.

But if you have 2 shortstop capable players and so a player with all the tools for SS plays 3B, then is moved back to SS following an injury, I don't think he should start with a "never touched a ball in the infield" level of exp. I'd wildly guess he'd be about 60% competent there.

The 1B part is more or less only for semi-decent infielders playing 1st because that bat has to play somewhere. I specifically wanted to exclude standard 1B. We both agree it's low. All my numbers are guesses anyway.

[RamMan12]

To be honest, it just seems like everything is streamlined so that the majority of players will still enjoy the fielding mechanics in the game. If you get too complex, it will be harder for the average person to understand what is going on, and they will not have fun playing this awesome game.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by rpriske

I have heard people complain about there being too many players created who have multiple positions.

I think there aren't enough.

If you have someone who is a very good shortstop, for example, he should probably have ratings - even low ones - at virtually every other position. There is no way someone moves over for SS to 3B and suddenly has no idea how to play the position. That is ludicrous, really.

What if the SS never ever played any other position in his playing career (HS/Col) other than SS? His experience ratings for other positions would be 0. Which results in a 0 fielding rating. But because he's a SS and has good infield ratings then it will be easy for him to learn other positions quickly. I don't think a player who is elite at a position like CF or SS should be expected to automatically have experience at other positions. It can be argued that a SS/CF at high school level are usually the team's best player and could pretty much play anywhere but I would argue that gaining experience at HS is not on the same scale as gaining experience in Col and the minors.

A SS who more than likely have good fielding ratings that moved to 2B or 3B would quickly gain a rating if you play him there throughout the season especially if he's playing in the minors or spring training. Unfortunately its rare for players to come into the game without ratings at most if not all positions. This is true for players who do not use feeders but generated players. So the effect of players losing skill as they change position is somewhat in the game and its simulated in position rating. I think the general mindset is that since player X does not have a position rating at position Y then he should never ever play there which is not true at all. Judge a player by his fielding rating.

[RonCo]

To some degree, I think the fielding ratings are too easy to get caught up in. Yes, this guy in the OP should probably have a fielding rating for CF, but his actual numbers seem to match his "tools" ratings--meaning, he's a little below average in CF (-1.4 ZR, .987 EFF overall), but quite good when he plays either corner OF role, particularly so when he's in RF (+19.7 ZR, 1.046 EFF).

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Number4

You didn't get what I was trying to say. The 3B would not get 60% of his maximum skill at 3B at SS, he would get 60% of that skill he would gain if he was playing SS.

How do you know what skill he would gain in order to say he would get 60% of it? I realize you are guessing so I'm not critiquing the numbers. I picked mine from thin air. I question the entire premise. IMO the infield is two distinct categories. The middle, SS and 2B are separate from the corners, 3B and 1B just as they are on the defensive spectrum. Unless the backup SS is starting at 3B or you have Manny Machado a team will replace a SS with a SS not a 3B. This is where OOTP has issues.

Originally Posted by Number4

So your normal 3rd baseman (middle range, good arm, can't turn a dp) would get at the moment 60% of 0, because the game doesn't even qualify him for SS.
But if it was, he'd be playing regularly at SS a maybe 3/10 SS. So I estimated that he would be a 2/10 SS if he was playing 3B, compared to 0/10 with no IF exp.

You missed my point earlier. Maybe I made it badly. OOTP in my opinion allows unqualified players with good/average baseline defensive skills to be too good in-game. This is why AI teams can win divisions and rarely WS with a collection of horrendous defenders who can hit. The penalty is not sufficient to force the AI to pick different players. This may have changed in v15, v16; I've not had enough time to test it.

In real life baseball, players are eliminated as they rise up the pyramid first by hitting, then fielding, with position(s) played establishing the threshold for each of the two skills. Simply put the hitting expectations for a 1B, 3B, are different than a SS, 2B. Good hit/ good field middle IF are a significant bonus to any team.

Poor fielders must be exceptional hitters and have a team with a DH need or spot open to hide them on the left side of the defensive spectrum. Good field/poor hit players form a very large pool of backup/bench players whose value varies inversely with the defensive skills of the players starting ahead of them.

Originally Posted by Number4

But if you have 2 shortstop capable players and so a player with all the tools for SS plays 3B, then is moved back to SS following an injury, I don't think he should start with a "never touched a ball in the infield" level of exp. I'd wildly guess he'd be about 60% competent there.

This just muddies the water. Shortstop capable suggests backup/utility not a starter so they should have multiple position ratings anyway. Not sure what you mean by the bold. You moved a player from SS to 3B and back. Why would he be starting over? He was a SS with ratings right?

SS is the most important fielding position (C is a special case). Most if not all teams try to find a true SS even if they give up some hitting to do so. The critical point I'm trying to make is that MLB players are far less mobile than we think and that mobility is affected by hitting skills expected by position (see below).

IRL good SS don't get moved, unless a better SS comes along. Good SS don't get moved to 3B because that would weaken IF defense. A SS who is replaced at SS will be traded, go to the bench or to 2B if he is better than the incumbent 2B. If a 3B is needed most teams will live with reduced defense and look for a bat unless they are loaded at other positions.

Originally Posted by Number4

The 1B part is more or less only for semi-decent infielders playing 1st because that bat has to play somewhere. I specifically wanted to exclude standard 1B. We both agree it's low. All my numbers are guesses anyway.

In my previous reply I wasn't addressing semi decent IF (or do you mean MI) because they wouldn't be on the team if they are semi-decent. Real life teams value defense first for MI and will generally have a good bat to play 1B both as a starter and as a backup PH/DH unless they have a Mark Texeira type. Catchers especially in the NL often play a few games at 1B. MI will only play 1B due to injury or circumstance like an extra inning game.

[Number4]

Look, RichW, you're missing the point. This thread is -not- about why and how real life baseball players play certain positions. Even if it was, SS are moved between infield positions, think A-Rod. Or Bogaerts. But this is not what we discuss.

What we discuss is: how the game OOTP 16 represents skill in playing a certain position, playing similar positions and moving between them.
If certain players should or shouldn't play certain positions is a question for the manager to decide. Then, the game needs to represent as realistically as possible the effect of his choices.

At the moment, the game has static "ratings" and dynamic "experience". Both combine for the on-simulated-pitch-results.

Now, playing a player in a similar position does exactly as much in terms of preparing him for a certain position as having him sit on his ass all the time. The player might play a year in LF, but he will be in RF as bad as if he was at 1B all the time.
This is not a realistic part of the simulation, and so needs improvement.

So, I suggested a system, in which players playing a position with similarities get a part of the maximum experience in those positions.

Therefore: Can we please talk about how the game OOTP should represent the fact that moving from certain positions to others is easier than learning this position from scratch?

[bwburke94]

A "0" rating at a position isn't actually a rating of 0, it's a rating of null. This is important to keep in mind when shifting players around.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Considering LF/RF/1B are the easiest positions to learn and requires the least amount of fielding ratings I do not see what's the problem. Also majority of the players in the OF generate with high position ratings as is. You'll rarely see a OF with only one OF rating. An experienced LF placed at RF without any experience will only increase his errors slightly if at all and he will not get to balls quick enough until he gains more experience. Nothing else in his stats changes...