AI using position experience rather than position ratings

[CobaltJays]

I raised this issue last March in relation to OOTP16. To summarise the issue, the AI will sometimes use players' experience at positions (visible only in the Editor tab) to determine its starting lineups, rather than players' actual position ratings (visible in the player's profile). The issue in OOTP16 was that a single point of experience at a position (gained from playing a single game there) was enough for the AI to consider the player qualified to start at the position, even if the player was incapable of ever developing an actual rating at the position. This led to situations where left-handed first baseman would routinely start at shortstop or third base, even when there were qualified players available to play those positions.

While the situation is not as bad as it used to be, it is still present. Last night I discovered a catcher named Soto who was the starting shortstop for an AI-controlled AAA team. The first screen shows the AAA team's lineup, with the position ratings of everyone on the roster (using a 0-20 scale). The second screen shows Soto's fielding ratings from the Editor tab. The third screen shows Soto's awful fielding stats for his 41 games at shortstop.

While the two players capable of playing shortstop did not have good ratings at the position, the ones available would have been better choices than Soto. Hendriksen's ratings are in the fourth screen, and while he would have been a below-average fielder at shortstop, he would have been competent there with more experience.

After I discovered this issue, I edited Soto's experience down to zero at both shortstop and centre field. The AI then put Pollet as the starting shortstop and even changed his listed position from LF to SS. I discovered that this was due to Pollet having a single point of experience at shortstop, even though Pollet had no ability to play the position. For curiosity I gave Pollet 200 points of experience at shortstop, and this still did not result in him getting a position rating there. It was only after I gave Pollet zero experience at shortstop that Hendriksen became the starter.

In addition to the issue described above, the consideration of experience also leads to older players who have lost their position rating at a position continuing to play there. This is because those players continue to have the maximum 200 points of experience at those positions, even if there is no longer a position rating there.

As I mentioned above, the situation isn't as bad as it used to be. For example, the AI no longer puts left-handed throwers at second base, third base or shortstop. However, I've noticed the AI starting players badly out of position with enough frequency that I still consider this a significant issue. I periodically search for players in my game who have no rating at their listed position, and I always find some.

Experience at a position should be irrelevant when the AI determines lineups. Experience has nothing to do with actual ability to play a position, and the AI's consideration of it leads to poor and unrealistic decisions like the ones described above. Prudent human managers would never continually use a player at a position he has no ability to play, and I fail to see why the AI would do it. The only way to properly address this issue is to take experience out of the equation altogether. This needs to be done in OOTP19.

[CobaltJays]

As a follow-up to this, I went through all of my major league and minor league teams in my game to see just how widespread this issue was. I found numerous instances of catchers and first basemen either starting or serving as the backup at positions they had no ability to play, such as shortstop and centre field. Some corner outfielders were also used in this manner.

When one of these players was used as the starter, I didn't see any examples of teams actually lacking someone capable of playing the position, so there was no actual need to use a catcher or first baseman badly out of position. In some cases, the AI was making the worst possible choice from a defensive standpoint by relying on experience.

Depth charts were a different story, as many teams did lack a possible backup at second base, third base, shortstop and/or centre field. However, this was not always the case. Sometimes a catcher with a few points of experience at shortstop was the primary backup ahead of a player with a rating at the position.

There are obviously significant roster construction issues in the game. The AI tends to carry too many catchers/first basemen, resulting in insufficient backups and decent starters for other positions. One AA team had four catchers and four first basemen. Using position experience to determine lineups and depth charts doesn't solve the game's roster construction issues -- it just masks them.

One issue is that the AI is apparently unable to recognize who is capable of learning a position and who isn't. For example, in OOTP currently, a shortstop will always be able to learn to play second base, and if he has a good arm, he'll also always be able to learn third base. However, if that shortstop only has experience at shortstop, the AI will never insert him into a lineup or depth chart at either position, even though he could be a competent defensive player with experience. Right now a catcher with a single point of experience at second base will be slotted in as a starter or backup at second before the shortstop. This makes no sense.

I've often felt that there should be a potential rating at positions, much like there is for contact, power, stuff, control, etc., except that the position potential would be based on a player having the maximum amount of experience there. Using position potential to set lineups and depth charts would improve the AI's lineup and depth chart choices, at least somewhat.

[bwburke94]

The intent here was probably to prevent players from being moved all over the place, by making past position experience matter.

However, if a player cannot receive a position rating due to positional minimums, this should not have applied.