Please fix the AI threshold on defensive ability vs batting

[RchW]

This is my rant.

For the 10th to 15th time, I had to edit another power hitting 1B All Star and (not always but more than once) former MVP who was playing SS very badly for an AI team. This really destroys my sense of realism in a fictional league. Please please fix this major flaw.

In v11 the AI weighs hitting vs defensive ability incorrectly, creating unrealistic lineups with with power hitting corner infielders playing SS and 2B despite marginal defensive skill. This has a cascading effect producing poor infield defense that wouldn't be tolerated IRL. To a lesser extent the AI will put OF that gain marginal skills at 1B and 3B at those positions too but the main problem is the unrealistic distribution of infielders that should never develop major league skills at 2B/SS.

To me there are several flaws;

Player creation
Far too many 1B 3B players are created with 2B/SS ratings. IRL 1B and 3B to a lesser extent are usually big kids with big bats and not nimble feet. Other kids who may start out as 2B/SS may gravitate to the corners as their defensive skills change/fall behind or their batting skills change. In either case skill development at all four IF positions should be rare. Obviously there special cases, big bats such as ARod, Tulowitski or a Jeff Kent. However as in RL these players are rare and should be rare in the game.

Infielders should be created as two sub groups, middle IF and corner IF with appropriate physical characteristics. Corner infielders should have little or no chance of gaining threshold skills at 2B/SS with the few exceptions noted above. Middle infielders should have a better chance to gain skills at 1B and 3B but there should be a corresponding decline of their 2B/SS skills as a function of playing time at other positions.. It's completely unrealistic for a former SS who plays 1B for 10 years to retain high SS skills. OTOH it is just as unrealistic for a 10-12 year power hitting 1B to be converted to a SS at 34. The current game does this a lot.

Middle infielders should not be created with superior 1B skills. That flaw skews development as they have multiple paths to MLB. This skewed development is self replicating, fictional leagues become overloaded with entire infields with GG skill at 1B. This is completely unrealistic. If possible the player development algorithm should delay the ability of MI to learn 1B until much later in the career cycle. This corresponds much better to real life.

AI logic
Specifically for middle infielders there should be a much higher threshold of defensive skill required before the AI can put a player at 2B/SS. I don't see why there can't be a different threshold set for starting vs substitution in game. That gives the AI freedom to use poor IF players temporarily or in emergencies. OTOH the AI should have to look at a corner IF who has 85% of his games at 1B and 3B and be internally forced to start them at those positions instead of 2B/SS.

Flawed Lineup logic
Currently AI teams load up on hitters with no regard for the defensive skill set. Some teams have 4 or 5 1B or 3B with poor skills at other positions. A real life comparison would have the Red Sox dumping Marco Scutaro and playing Kevin Youkilis at SS.

A lesser problem occurs when some teams decide to have no CF. Playing an average corner OF at CF has a dramatic and negative effect on defense, which in turn affects (inflates) offensive statistics.

Correcting these lineup/roster flaws would have a positive effect.

Better trade availability
If the AI used better logic to determine lineups there would be more players available for trades. Teams would offer surplus position players in trades for other teams surplus. Right now little or no player movement occurs because of the flawed lineup logic that incorrectly values hitting over basic defensive skills in critical positions.

OK end of rant. Please look at this during beta testing.

[Chicagofan76]

I have yet to see this...For the San Jos eSharks of The ABF they have 2 stellar C's fighting for playing time neither has played another pos includ 1B. The also happen to have 2 good def 1B 1 with a range of 9 and he has never played say more then 1 game at SS in 7 sns. he did play 1 game there in 2000 but i cant get upset over 1 game. and he didnt start it.

[Eumel]

Part of the problem is that corner infielders aren't severely enough punished if they're playing SS/2B. This is even true if they have no fielding skills whatsoever.

I made an experiment and converted the 2001 Jason Giambi to shortstop. The result: 22.4 runs below average defensively and 91.8 runs above replacement level offensively. He made the all star team at SS. So the AI actually has an incentive for converting guys to 2B/SS.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Hmmm, to be honest, I am not seeing these problems in my test leagues. In order for a 1B to be converted to SS for example, he'd have to have a minimum skillset at his infield ratings for SS and also gain experience at the position by playing there. The AI does NOT do this, unless the player does indeed have a skillset at the position (through player creation, but this is very rare) and gained eperience by (somehow) getting playing time at the position.

Same for the roster AI, it does a good job at keeping dependable fielders at all positions.

I wonder why your league suffers from the problems you describe.

[Matt Arnold]

I've seen it too. Not insane amounts, but very often (on a 2-8 scale), I see outfielders who are like 8/3/8 in LF/CF/RF being played in CF. Or you have the obvious 3B/1B type (8 at 1B/6 at 3B, 4 at 2B/SS with strong arm and weak DP ratings) being played at 2B or SS.

I think it does need some tweaking to properly optimize the lineups. It's not that a 1B gets converted to a SS that I've seen, but a guy who's vey obviously a 1B ends up playing where they probably shouldn't be. Maybe some players just need to demand their primary position (like pitchers demand being a SP/RP/Closer)? So a guy like Crawford, even if he's rated well in CF, will pretty much refuse to play there and instead stay in LF. That might help in optimizing, since then for each player, they'd have their top couple positions they want to play, and it might help hint the AI into playing them there?

[Dreifort]

Originally Posted by UWHabs

So a guy like Crawford, even if he's rated well in CF, will pretty much refuse to play there and instead stay in LF. That might help in optimizing, since then for each player, they'd have their top couple positions they want to play, and it might help hint the AI into playing them there?

Isn't RL the opposite? Guys like Crawford wants to play CF, but Managers properly play him in LF or RF?

A good example would be Manny. He is an atrocious outfielder at any position. So if he's rated 4/1/2 in LF/CF/RF... but the AI has a good LF with 7 or 8 rating... Manny gets moved to CF. I've seen stuff like that on rare occasions. I do a lot of historical sims... and I see the AI take guys that IRL played 3B or 1B get moved to SS or 2B just because he can hit and that team has more than 1 good 3B or 1B.... but back in the days, most players could at least play almost every position to some horrible extent.

[Chicagofan76]

I just looked at the 16 starting 1B in my ABF league out of the 16

4 have ratings other then 1B also so i eliminated them

4 have played SS most was 3 games in 2004 witha total of 5 innings didnt start any of the 3 games.
out of those other 3 they have a total of 4 games at SS with total of 7 innings

thats over 7 sns.

So if your league has been around for a long time maybe u have seen it far more widspread then mine but I would imagine these was either bad roster moves by the AI late in games or because of injury...in either case i cant complain.

What is odd the 1 guy with 5 innings in 2003 was with 3 GG caliber SS on the roster which is my team.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by Dreifort

Isn't RL the opposite? Guys like Crawford wants to play CF, but Managers properly play him in LF or RF?

Big time Rays fan here. Watch every game. Active on both Rays message boards. Crawford refused to play CF. Crawford refused to bat 1st or 3rd. We finally got him to bat 3rd a couple times last year but he refuses to bat leadoff.

Anyway, Fenway has a short field in left and deep in center. One would think that his defensive skills are going to waste playing left in Fenway. Centerfield would be the position for him, but you will never see that. He will not play CF.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Hmmm, to be honest, I am not seeing these problems in my test leagues. In order for a 1B to be converted to SS for example, he'd have to have a minimum skillset at his infield ratings for SS and also gain experience at the position by playing there. The AI does NOT do this, unless the player does indeed have a skillset at the position (through player creation, but this is very rare) and gained eperience by (somehow) getting playing time at the position.

Same for the roster AI, it does a good job at keeping dependable fielders at all positions.

I wonder why your league suffers from the problems you describe.

This is the current guy. There have been others as I posted earlier. He was ROY and MVP as a 1B. I don't know what his skill set was at creation (I can find out from a backup) but he was drafted as a poor fielding 3B and took several years to learn 1B. His SS experience is very low. He never made a start at SS until he was traded to an AI team. I'm not sure how 13 minor league and 19 MLB appearances (over 8-9 years) constitutes enough playing time to make him a starting SS at any level. BTW his fielding stats suck 0.916 fielding % and 35 errors in 107 games.

The most important issue for me is that once a player has established a position or positions over multiple years in the minor leagues (5 seasons) and in MLB (5 before the trade), a move against the defensive spectrum is categorically unrealistic. Any skillset he had at 2B and SS should have long since disappeared.

Level	                   SS games	SS starts
MLB 5 seasons	             19	             0
AAA	                       6	    0
AA	                       1	    0
A	                       6           0
Trade		
2033	                       21	   18
2034	                      107	  106

[statfreak]

what? If that is a 1-10 scale, I would try the player at SS as well depending what my other choices were. He has above average range, errors, and arm and a decent enough DP rating to be a SS.

I don't understand the issue here.

[statfreak]

dola,

If you don't want this player to play SS, lower his DP to 2 or 1. That should prevent the AI from using him there.

To be honest, with his ratings, the game is correctly using him whether or not you agree with it.

[snepp]

My gripe in this area is similar.

I hate that the manager will insist on placing infielders/catchers with horrible outfield ratings as primary outfield backups. They like to do the same for outfielders with horrendous ratings at first base. Often times these players aren't markedly better offensively than the superior defensive players that belong there.

I often find myself editing players to remove this rogue fielding experience to keep the managers from putting together lousy depth charts.


More on-topic, high school players in the draft that have a ton of experience at every infield or outfield position. This should probably be limited to one at most. It's hard enough to master one position by the time you're 18, but four?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by statfreak

dola,

If you don't want this player to play SS, lower his DP to 2 or 1. That should prevent the AI from using him there.

To be honest, with his ratings, the game is correctly using him whether or not you agree with it.

The game is supposed to be a realistic baseball sim. If you can show me any All Star 1B in MLB history who converted to and started at SS having never started a game at that position in their career, you might have a point

The game should not operate such that his skills are sufficient to start at SS. His defensive stats clearly show that the game engine is penalizing him for playing out of position. To me that shows a flaw in the logic of the AI as it selects lineups.

A claimed feature of the game is that it follows the defensive spectrum in its development engine. In this case it's obviously wrong.

He is just one example. I could post more.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by RchW

The game is supposed to be a realistic baseball sim. If you can show me any All Star 1B in MLB history who converted to and started at SS having never started a game at that position in their career, you might have a point

The game should not operate such that his skills are sufficient to start at SS. His defensive stats clearly show that the game engine is penalizing him for playing out of position. To me that shows a flaw in the logic of the AI as it selects lineups.

A claimed feature of the game is that it follows the defensive spectrum in its development engine. In this case it's obviously wrong.

He is just one example. I could post more.

I understand and appreciate your point; however, based on ratings alone, he is or could be a capable SS given enough experience.

Just because he was used at 1B doesn't mean that he should lose his fielding ability.

I would 100% disagree with the notion the game is wrong for using this player at SS. I don't think you can fault the AI for when it decides to use a player perfectly well rated to play a position at that position, regardless the stage of the player's career. Obviously you have a much different view.

Like I said, if I had a hole at SS and had this player on my team, I would have put him in at SS as well. There's nothing in his ratings (other than lack of experience) to suggest he's not capable of being an average SS. It doesn't matter what position he was moved from.

[OakDragon]

Seems to me the issue is that an 1B should not have those range or arm ratings. IRL, 1B's have the worst range and arm of any infielder... or any fielder at all, for that matter. That's why they play 1B.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by RchW

If you can show me any All Star 1B in MLB history who converted to and started at SS having never started a game at that position in their career, you might have a point

If you can show me any All-Star 1B in MLB history that had the same defensive skillset and was capable of playing SS, but didn't, then I might be more inclined to see a problem.

Based what was presented here, I can't fault the game for its decision.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by OakDragon

Seems to me the issue is that an 1B should not have those range or arm ratings. IRL, 1B's have the worst range and arm of any infielder... or any fielder at all, for that matter. That's why they play 1B.

I was going to say I agree, but there are too many players that play 3B and 1B. Arm shouldn't be an issue, it's the range and DP ability that determine whether an infielder is a middle or corner infielder. If you look at bench players, you'll often find at least one player on a team capable of playing all four infield positions IRL. Do we have to go away from real life just to ensure a 1B in OOTP is not able to play 2B or SS?

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by statfreak

I understand and appreciate your point; however, based on ratings alone, he is or could be a capable SS given enough experience.

Just because he was used at 1B doesn't mean that he should lose his fielding ability.

I would 100% disagree with the notion the game is wrong for using this player at SS. I don't think you can fault the AI for when it decides to use a player perfectly well rated to play a position at that position, regardless the stage of the player's career. Obviously you have a much different view.

Like I said, if I had a hole at SS and had this player on my team, I would have put him in at SS as well. There's nothing in his ratings (other than lack of experience) to suggest he's not capable of being an average SS. It doesn't matter what position he was moved from.

But the AI should not do this with total disregard to the defensive aspects of the game. Right now the AI will put this type of player at SS to get his bat in the lineup, ignoring what it does to the teams fielding.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by statfreak

I understand and appreciate your point; however, based on ratings alone, he is or could be a capable SS given enough experience.

Just because he was used at 1B doesn't mean that he should lose his fielding ability.

I would 100% disagree with the notion the game is wrong for using this player at SS. I don't think you can fault the AI for when it decides to use a player perfectly well rated to play a position at that position, regardless the stage of the player's career. Obviously you have a much different view.

Like I said, if I had a hole at SS and had this player on my team, I would have put him in at SS as well. There's nothing in his ratings (other than lack of experience) to suggest he's not capable of being an average SS. It doesn't matter what position he was moved from.

I think we're arguing across one another.

I'm not disputing that the AI can conclude he has skills enough to play, I'm arguing that it shouldn't based on what we know actually happens IRL.

As such the player creation/development curve and AI judgment/logic is flawed based on the claim that the game is a realistic expression of what happens IRL.

I'd also dispute the notion that his limited skills at SS would not deteriorate over a 9 year period. I've heard players talk about 1-2 months off affecting their skills defensively.

[Ktulu]

The game is supposed to be a realistic baseball sim. If you can show me any All Star 1B in MLB history who converted to and started at SS having never started a game at that position in their career, you might have a point

The game should not operate such that his skills are sufficient to start at SS. His defensive stats clearly show that the game engine is penalizing him for playing out of position. To me that shows a flaw in the logic of the AI as it selects lineups.

A claimed feature of the game is that it follows the defensive spectrum in its development engine. In this case it's obviously wrong.

He is just one example. I could post more.

Your looking at this the wrong way. The issue isn't that this guy was a 1B playing SS, it's that he's a talented infielder playing 1B. The player in question has all the component skills required to play an above average SS, the only thing he lacks is experience at SS.

The problem is that the game as it currently stands doesn't recognize the real life skill set required to play 1B and instead relies too heavily on the defensive spectrum. This issue is also compounded by the fact that defensive skill at a position does not degrade with a lack of playing time.

Basically a good middle infielder shouldn't automagically be an elite 1B