minimum skill requirements to learn new positions

[Zeyes]

I've played around with the player editor over the weekend, and maybe somebody will find the following useful...

The game enforces skill minimums for each position, in order to keep players from getting a fielding rating at positions they're not suited for. On the 1-250 rating scale internally used by the game (which is what's displayed in the editor):

Infield positions (R = Range, E = Error, A = Arm, TDP = Turn DP):

Pos | IF R | IF E | IF A | TDP
----|------|------|------|------
P   |  10  |   0  |   0  |   0
1B  |   0  |   0  |   0  |   0
2B  |  40  |  50  |  10  |  60
3B  |  40  |  40  |  60  |  20
SS  |  70  |  50  |  70  |  60

Outfield positions:

Pos | OF R | OF E | OF A 
----|------|------|------
LF  |  40  |  40  |  40
CF  |  90  |  40  |  40
RF  |  40  |  40  |  40

The minimum values for a catcher's Catcher Ability and Catcher Arm are 10 each. (Edit: For the sake of completeness...I forgot to mention that catchers are also affected by the Infield Error rating, but the minimum requirement for that is 0.)

Players lacking these minimum requirements will not get a position rating no matter how long they play that position. (More specifically, it seems that the game assigns an internal rating of 1 to such a player once he has reached the maximum experience of 200 for that position, but there will be no rating displayed within the game, e.g. in the player profile.)

Note that the visible in-game 1-100 scale (and all the others) corresponds to the 1-200 section of the internal scale, with 201-250 being "off the charts", much like it was in OOTP6. In other words, a minimum rating given as 60 above will be 30 on the 1-100 scale (60/2), not 24 (60/2.5).

[Gator]

I know this has probably been addressed some where else in these threads, but maybe you can explain to me why leftfielders often have no rating for rightfield and vice versa. This just does not relate to reality in my opinion. I totally get that some players are going to be more comfortable or even better suited at left vs. rightfield, but to have no rating at all, just is not realistic. In a pinch, a rightfielder will always be able to do at least a serviceable job in left.

[MadMax58]

Nice work Zeyes!!!

It seems fairly logical, by what you've found.

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by Gator

I know this has probably been addressed some where else in these threads, but maybe you can explain to me why leftfielders often have no rating for rightfield and vice versa. This just does not relate to reality in my opinion. I totally get that some players are going to be more comfortable or even better suited at left vs. rightfield, but to have no rating at all, just is not realistic. In a pinch, a rightfielder will always be able to do at least a serviceable job in left.

In OOTP2006, this comes down completely to the hidden experience values. A guy with only one of the two corner OF ratings simply has no experience at the other position.

Given that the minimum requirements for LF and RF are the same, if you do play a capable right-fielder in left field, he should get a LF rating fairly quickly. Very low at first, of course, but you should see it rise gradually as he gains experience at the new position.

At any rate, even "no rating" doesn't mean the guy will be totally atrocious...I suspect that the player skills have some effect on this, too, so that a no-experience guy with above-average OF skills will perform better than his below-average counterpart. And he'll definitely be learning his new position more quickly.

[Gator]

Are you saying that in OOTP, Willie Mays, who in his prime was one of the greatest centerfielders of his era, but who would be without ratings in leftfield or rightfiled would be less than an average corner outfielder until he developed experience. If that is the case, then IMHO this is a game design problem.

[beorn]

I also would object that most any player with an adequate infield arm would have sufficient arm to learn left field.

[Mr. Capo]

In real life, if you played Willie Mays in RF or Ozzie Smith at 2B, they would probably field better than the guy they replaced. I've posted in the suggestions forum that there should be "courtesy" ratings: gold glove shortstops should have ratings at the other infield positions, etc.

BUT... I'm now guessing that the displayed position rating is a visual reference, and not what is truly determining the outcome of fielding plays. I think the fielding skills (range, error, arm) are used, and maybe the position experience is factored in.

So if I need to play Smith at 2B or Mays in RF, then I don't expect them to be a liability. The displayed rating might be a bit disconcerting, but I take it as an indication that something unusual is happening, rather than necessarily a weakness at the position .

[RonCo]

I think Mr.Capo is right -- I suspect (but do not _know_) that the overall rating of a player at any position is not what determines events. I suspect that actual events are determined by a player's ratings at the sub-level, and perhaps modified up or down a bit by experience--only Markus can say for sure. I suspect overall player ratings are generally used by the AI to determine starting lineups and depth charts and whatnot. Again, I don't know for sure.

If I'm correct, though, this means a Willie Mays-quality player would come into a position he had no overall rating for (say LF), and would bring his HoF-level Range, Error, and Arm ratings along with him. If I'm correct, then that would mean he would be a pretty good LF, even without an overall rating.

Before we decide something is "realistic" or not when it comes to defense, we ought find out what the game really does.

[sporr]

Found this thread by trying to answer a question. I found it frustrating to try to edit player error ratings. I really prefer the 6.5 system of entering a fielding %. Now that this has been replaced by Error Ratings, is there any equivalent? This might explain the problem I've found with 1B fielding. It's nearly impossible to have a poor fielding 1B because practically any range/error rating you provide the player will make them a '10' (on the 1-10 scale). I now wonder if it is tied to the fact that the average 1B often has a fielding % well over .990. So then I wonder...if a player has a certain error rating does that translate based on position? i.e. will that error rating result in a .995 F% at 1B while just a .950 at 2B? I mean, a .950 F% for a 1B would be very poor while it would be decent for any other infielder.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by sporr

I mean, a .950 F% for a 1B would be very poor while it would be decent for any other infielder.

That would depend upon your era. For the post expansion era, .950 isn't good at any postion, but it might not get a thirty homer guy fired at third base. For second and short .975 is decent, and .965 at third, but you'd (I'd) prefer another five percentage points at any of those positions (and a .995 at first).