[knockahoma]

Thanks for the response, folks.

I hope the powers that be really consider this issue. I think getting the middle infield situation down would greatly improve the game.

I agree that the AI should have to factor defensive ability more in MI. My other beef is that unless you are a very good or great hitter all middle infielders created should be above average defensively. There is no other purpose for having a weak hitting MI other than defensive, in any era.

Absolutely!

Given that players already have separate arm/reliability/running ratings, you could create requirements by position (RF needs to throw. Running and catching are nice. In LF, running, throwing and catching are all bonuses. At 1B, catching is everything and running/throwing are wasted, etc., etc.)
Ideally, coding the defensive spectrum into the game would help the AI make more-realistic personnel decisions.

It would make the AI consider what real human managers consider regarding the strategy of defense. Could do nothing but help the situation, I'd think.

I will say DeCinces and Schmidt played SS in their careers. (only a handful of games, generally emergency situations) ANd I think DeCinces did play a little 2B with the Orioles (to get playing time, they did have Brooks Robinson after all) But, point taken, these things annoy me greatly too. (though I love taking advantage of it

Yeah, I remember DeCinces rated on strat-o-matic as a 3 for 2b, ss and 3b (scale of 1 to 4, 1 being the highest). So, he had some competency at the middle infield positions. Not in OOTP. And maybe that's the fix? If someone is rated to play a position, there's a much higher minimum rating. Sure, someone might have an .880 field % in 6 games at SS. But let's make that a case of too little time for the numbers to even out. ANYBODY who might play SS would have at least a .925 % if he played out 40 or 50 games. Every member of my softball infield can field at least .900 over the course of a season! Well, you get my point, I think.

Any manager who fails to realize a guy playing 50 games at SS will wind up with an .880 field % should be sent to the softball fields himself.

Anyhow, if you look at 70s era teams, they would sacrifice greatly at SS offensively.....I think a lot of current SS if they were sent back to the 70s (or even 80s) would be converted to 3B or 2B (especially the Jeters and Tejadas )

And yet, the fielding percentage league-wide is up over the 70s decade. Maybe the fields and the training, and better athleticism, have really changed the game for good? It's hard for me to say. I grew up a huge fan of the game. But about 8 years ago I stopped following regularly when every 2B could hit 20 homers. Just didn't have the same strategic value anymore. I'm trying to revive my inner child this year, though!


If someone is rated to play a position, they should be rated highly enough that 60 games produces a believable fielding percentage for that position. It seems that would be a pretty easy thing to implement simply by squeezing the best and worst closer together in ratings. But, I'm not great at computer programming, so maybe it's easy only in the eye of the ignorant.