All 1B are gold glovers

Giants44 · 06-09-2006, 11:10 AM

Very odd, but for whatever reason almost every 1B in my league is a "10" (on 1-10 scale) at 1B - An entire league of gold glovers - and in fact if you go to edit them even what I would consider very poor (under 100 ratings) in each of the IF categories is still producing 9's and 10's at first.

anyone else notice this? Is this a byproduct of the 1-10 scale?

CaLíKrAzY · 06-09-2006, 11:29 AM

I just used my filter, and theres a ton of good fielding 1B. I use 1-100 & theres ALOT (I filtered 58 contact +). Of course you do have to factor in 1B error, range, etc. right? I think error would be the most important you would think. It could be about right I'm playing all minors & 30 teams, tough to tell.

fauteuil7 · 06-09-2006, 12:36 PM

I have noticed this. At first I thought that Donnie Baseball finally got imported as the Gold Glover he was, but then I saw that Mike Stanley had the same rating at 1B. Odd.

Raidergoo · 06-09-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giants44

Very odd, but for whatever reason almost every 1B in my league is a "10" (on 1-10 scale) at 1B - An entire league of gold glovers - and in fact if you go to edit them even what I would consider very poor (under 100 ratings) in each of the IF categories is still producing 9's and 10's at first.

anyone else notice this? Is this a byproduct of the 1-10 scale?

How was the league created? Default fictional?

Giants44 · 06-09-2006, 01:04 PM

Here is an example:

Lance Niekro the Giants current 1B is average at best IRL.

in the game these are his "real" ratings as seen by the editor:

Range: 87 out of 250
Error: 90 out of 250
Arm: 115 out of 250
Double Play: 91 out out 250

all 4 of these ratings are "below" average (assuming average is 125 on a 250 scale - which I don't know to be true, I am just assuming)

His "resulting rating" at 1B is 298 - which all of my scouts view as a "10"

There are 344 players in my MLB league (cubsfan 6.5 import) that rate as a "10" at 1B

In a different MLB league there (2005 6.5 import) was 244

In my fictional league - 151

In the "default" league - 203 (which kills the import only possibilty)

Giants44 · 06-09-2006, 01:14 PM

I am running a more complete test as the numbers of "10" rated fielders was in triple digits for every position in the default league - but that was with a SISA scout, who we all know don't really amount to anything.

So I hired a "10" fielding scout and am giving him a chance to scout every team. Once I do that I will post the results.

My primary concern is that if good defense is so overwhelming that every team has it at every position 5 deep, then defense becomes a totally worthless attribute and players who are good defensively really have no impact on the game.

swampdragon · 06-09-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giants44

I am running a more complete test as the numbers of "10" rated fielders was in triple digits for every position in the default league - but that was with a SISA scout, who we all know don't really amount to anything.

So I hired a "10" fielding scout and am giving him a chance to scout every team. Once I do that I will post the results.

My primary concern is that if good defense is so overwhelming that every team has it at every position 5 deep, then defense becomes a totally worthless attribute and players who are good defensively really have no impact on the game.

Right. Davy Force, who was supposed to be a defensive great at shortstop, is buried behind the fictional players on the depth chart in my 1871 league, because he's not much of a hitter. In 1871, I have commonplace games with 1-2 errors, and lots of 2-1 games, when the teams are supposed to score about 10 per game because no one can catch the ball.

Giants44 · 06-09-2006, 03:37 PM

alright - so I did a comprehensive test - to test this theory.

first I used the "default" ML league and I hired a scout with a "10" in scouting fielding and sent him off to scout each team in the league and then I did searches for "10" rated fielders.

when I first did this search I was finding hundreds of fielders at each position rated 10. I think the problem with that test, was that I was using the SISA scouts and they clearly are not very accurate.

using the top rated scout - these are the results:

1B - 28
2B - 4
3B - 2
SS - 10
LF - 14
CF - 16
RF - 22

I am fairly happy with these results for the most part. at initial glance I thought the OF numbers were too high - however some of that is good CF's who are also showing up in the corner OF numbers - so I think it is OK there.

SS might be a tad high - but that is where defensive orientated players play -so I think we are OK, and the rest of the IF looks good.

which brings me back to the original problem of 1B - I don't believe that there should be enough gold glove 1B to cover almost every team in the league - especially when tradionally 1B is a position manned by power hitters who are adequate at best defensively. There are always a few outstanding 1B and those players should shine above the average 1B.

Obviously not a super high priority - however it would be nice to have someone take a look at the calculations for 1B and why so many players are being rated so highly.

Splitter24 · 06-09-2006, 03:48 PM

I've noticed the same thing on my 1970 roster set that I'm building. Most 1B's overall ratings are 100 on a scale of 1-100. But if you go into the editor for the player, they will have very average ratings 80-90's on the 1-250 scale.

When you think about it in very general terms, if you can't throw but have good range, they make you a 2B. If you lack a lot of range but you can throw, they make you a 3B. If you can do both, they make you a SS. If you can't do either, they make you a 1B. If you have a player with subpar infield range and a rag arm who gets generated as a SS, he shouldn't have the same ratings as a 1B (where his range and arm might be average). His ratings should be in relation to other 1B's, not all IF's. If that were the case, the majority of all 1B's, even ones who are pretty good defensively, would have cruddy ratings.

On a related note, I was thinking of starting a standard fictional league and take every minor league 1B who has high defensive ratings in infield range and error and coverting them into SS's just to see what happens. I'm of the opinion that 1B should be totally separate from the infield rating.

Giants44 · 06-11-2006, 02:04 PM

yet another problem met with crickets.

Perhaps there are so many problems to fix,

perhaps in past years there was a smaller community base,

perhaps the fact that I have complained about the new version I have lost the attention of the developing staff,

but in every prior version when I posted concerns on these very boards, for the most part they were addressed - not always to my satisfaction - but at least they were addressed. to me that was one of the real core strengths of the franchise - the fact that the community has a lot of input in the direction of the game.

now it seems as though it all just gets lost in the jumble - and "concerns" are no longer heard.

RonCo · 06-11-2006, 03:21 PM

Testing that I ran a few days back showed that, using default player creation settings, defense has been running a tad bit too good relative to modern-day MLB. It's not hugely out of whack, but it's not quite right. I've brought the issue to Markus's attention via the bug tracking tool SI is using. He'll see it when he returns from his weekend off.

Giants44 · 07-08-2006, 12:25 PM

Defensive 1B - In every league I have (about 4) there are hundreds of 1B with an overall rating of 100 at 1B.

In my current MLB league there are 284 in my league who are rated 100.

This problem essentially makes defense, especially at 1B completely irrelevant.

I posted a lot more detail on this issue here:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=123103

TC Dale · 07-08-2006, 12:53 PM

Merged threads so they can be tracked properly. Please make sure to post something like this FIRST in Tech Support. I really appreciate it. And we need to keep them to one thread if at all possible

. Thanks!

steady teddy · 07-08-2006, 01:03 PM

I see a total of 83 1B in my standard MAL and 25 have a position rating of 100. 6 more are in the mid to high 90s.

The total number of Catchers in my league is 91 and 15 have a position rating of 100 with 5 more in the high 90s.

kq76 · 07-08-2006, 03:59 PM

When I first saw this issue brought up by Giants in another thread, I didn't see the problem, but now I see that it just might indeed be a problem, just not as bad as he was saying it was in another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter24

I've noticed the same thing on my 1970 roster set that I'm building. Most 1B's overall ratings are 100 on a scale of 1-100. But if you go into the editor for the player, they will have very average ratings 80-90's on the 1-250 scale.

When you think about it in very general terms, if you can't throw but have good range, they make you a 2B. If you lack a lot of range but you can throw, they make you a 3B. If you can do both, they make you a SS. If you can't do either, they make you a 1B. If you have a player with subpar infield range and a rag arm who gets generated as a SS, he shouldn't have the same ratings as a 1B (where his range and arm might be average). His ratings should be in relation to other 1B's, not all IF's. If that were the case, the majority of all 1B's, even ones who are pretty good defensively, would have cruddy ratings.

On a related note, I was thinking of starting a standard fictional league and take every minor league 1B who has high defensive ratings in infield range and error and coverting them into SS's just to see what happens. I'm of the opinion that 1B should be totally separate from the infield rating.

I wonder if we're all just looking at this the wrong way. I agree, common sense would say that a 1B rating is not comparable to any other positional rating, but maybe in OOTP it is. That is, I would think that at any position you would see a bell curve (very few great fielders, some good ones, most average, some poor, very few awful). Looking at it I'm afraid that IF error not only applies to 2B, SS, and 3B, but also to 1B when it shouldn't. The vast majority of the time a 1B touches the ball is upon catching it from another infielder and IMO you have to be pretty bad to not be good at catching a ball thrown directly at you even if it is a bit off sometimes. Other infielders make much more of their errors throwing the ball than a 1B does and when they do make catching errors often times the ball is not hit directly at them.

However, maybe OOTP is looking at it from the perspective that 1B men really don't add a whole lot to defense so there's not as much of a difference between them. Think back to previous versions where most 1B men, IIRC, had very high fielding %s. It was only if your player had a really bad fielding % that he could hurt you at 1B. Maybe that is how 2006 is doing it. I agree, I'd like to see a lot less apparently great 1B, more of a bell curve, but is the problem actually hurting the game like the previous paragraph explains or is it just cosmetic like this paragraph explains? I'm thinking the problem is the latter and that because the game is telling itself that it should be pretty easy to catch a ball thrown to you that it is inflating the 1B rating.

RonCo · 07-08-2006, 04:41 PM

First, let me say that I agree with Giants on the raw numbers thing. It's bothersome to see so many players rated so highly. On the other hand, here is the body of the last post I made in the beta tester's forum with regard to fielding percentages found during testing...the first columns are initial release data, the next are modern-day MLB data, and the last column is from among the last beta builds:
---------------------------------------

Retesting with 12250. Infield data looks great. Could maybe bring the OF back up just a little.

Code:

	OOTP v2006	MLB		12250
POS	PCT	RF	PCT	RF	PCT
---	---	---	---	---	---
1	.9551	2.57	.9570	1.72	.9634
2	.9904	7.21	.9920		.9909
3	.9925	9.67	.9935	9.62	.9934
4	.9858	4.89	.9820	4.97	.9843
5	.9707	2.73	.9575	2.77	.9491
6	.9801	4.67	.9740	4.76 .9734
7	.9843	2.04	.9860	2.02	.9672
8	.9926	2.58	.9880	2.62	.9774
9	.9866	1.95	.9810	2.11	.9634

This data shows that on-field performance is matching modern-day MLB on-field performance pretty closely--especially with regard to the 1B position. Note: I don't know is Markus tweaked the OF defense prior to release or not.

Anyway...there's that. If nothing else, please know that the issue of defense was not totally ignored during the patch.

Zeyes · 07-08-2006, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kq76

I agree, I'd like to see a lot less apparently great 1B, more of a bell curve

I think there is a bell curve among first basemen, it's just that the mean value is way too high. The game allows for "excess" ratings to be calculated which then get displayed as the maximum (i.e. any calculated skill level above 100 will show up as 100 in the game), so if you have a nice bell curve with 2 standard deviations going from e.g. 50 to 130 with a mean of 90, you'll get the impression that there are lots and lots of top-quality first basemen, even though there's an "invisible" distribution among those guys, as well.

Giants44 · 07-09-2006, 12:02 AM

Here is a perfect example - Jeff Kent - widely considered an average defensive player at best.

his range is 60, well bellow avg on 1-250 scale
his error is 78, also well bellow avg on a 1-250 scale
his experience or familiarity at 1B,2B and 3B are all 200 - he has maxed at all 3.

his corresponding "resulting" rating is 50 at 2B and 37 at 3B - both well bellow average.

His rating at 1B? a whopping 226!!!

pretty much every 1B I have in every league I have is like this. I think this very clearly shows that there is an error in the calculation for 1B overall rating.

(note: this is an exact duplication of a post I made in general discussions, I just don't want to see it overlooked again.)

Giants44 · 07-09-2006, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonCo

This data shows that on-field performance is matching modern-day MLB on-field performance pretty closely--especially with regard to the 1B position. Note: I don't know is Markus tweaked the OF defense prior to release or not.

that is good news that the 1B fielding pct are matching, I think the problem is ALL 1B are pretty much the same defensively in OOTP and that is obviously not the case IRL.

RonCo · 07-09-2006, 06:24 AM

I understand the concern is that all players are the same at 1B. Here's a comparison of the 2005 American League 1B, and a 16-team, all DH Test OOTP league that I ran prior to release. You can see many highly-rated 1B in OOTP, yes. But you also see that the spread of 1B fielding capability is very fine in the majors, too.

I'm not saying this isn't a problem. But I'm also not yet saying it is. At question in the new engine is how fielding ratings translate to the field, IMO. Right now, the data suggests that OOTP is differentiating performance at the 1B position with only a small portion of the scale, which may well be appropriate due to the lack of variance in 1B performance in real life.

If anything, the data below says that 1B in OOTP perform _worse_ than those in real life.

Still looking at it, though.

Code:

OOTP Test Season					AL Starters, 2005		
Rating	Player	E	PCT		Player              	E 	PCT
12	Ray O'Danaher	7	0.997		 Mark Teixeira      	3	0.998
20	Tom Larson	12	0.995		 Darin Erstad       	4	0.997
16	Néstor Marrero	7	0.995		 Paul Konerko       	5	0.996
20	Tom Kerry	13	0.995		 Travis Lee         	4	0.996
20	Tameyoshi Kak	15	0.994		 Richie Sexson      	7	0.995
20	Charlie Majors	13	0.994		 Rafael Palmeiro    	4	0.995
15	Alfredo Becijos	19	0.993		 Dan Johnson        	6	0.994
20	Steve Edwards	19	0.993		 Justin Morneau     	8	0.994
18	Pete Blackden	20	0.992		 Eric Hinske        	7	0.993
19	Seung-heui Kim	20	0.992		 Matt Stairs        	4	0.993
8	Randy Robinson	19	0.992		 Chris Shelton      	6	0.993
17	Ken Simmons	19	0.992		 Kevin Millar       	7	0.992
9	Hidalgo Castro	17	0.991		 Ben Broussard      	9	0.992
9	Bill McDonald	25	0.99		 Tino Martinez      	8	0.991
16	Bartolomé Vasq	25	0.99

06-09-2006, 11:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
Giants44 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,039 Thanks: 25 Thanked 63x in 27 posts	All 1B are gold glovers Very odd, but for whatever reason almost every 1B in my league is a "10" (on 1-10 scale) at 1B - An entire league of gold glovers - and in fact if you go to edit them even what I would consider very poor (under 100 ratings) in each of the IF categories is still producing 9's and 10's at first. anyone else notice this? Is this a byproduct of the 1-10 scale?

06-09-2006, 03:48 PM	#9 (permalink)
Splitter24 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Houghs Neck, MA and Willsboro, NY Posts: 2,182 Thanks: 2 Thanked 158x in 84 posts	I've noticed the same thing on my 1970 roster set that I'm building. Most 1B's overall ratings are 100 on a scale of 1-100. But if you go into the editor for the player, they will have very average ratings 80-90's on the 1-250 scale. When you think about it in very general terms, if you can't throw but have good range, they make you a 2B. If you lack a lot of range but you can throw, they make you a 3B. If you can do both, they make you a SS. If you can't do either, they make you a 1B. If you have a player with subpar infield range and a rag arm who gets generated as a SS, he shouldn't have the same ratings as a 1B (where his range and arm might be average). His ratings should be in relation to other 1B's, not all IF's. If that were the case, the majority of all 1B's, even ones who are pretty good defensively, would have cruddy ratings. On a related note, I was thinking of starting a standard fictional league and take every minor league 1B who has high defensive ratings in infield range and error and coverting them into SS's just to see what happens. I'm of the opinion that 1B should be totally separate from the infield rating. __________________ Currently Reading: Freshly Remember'd by Walter A. Berger and George M. Snyder "Julie Andrews. 1962. Up the a**." - Sean Connery R.I.P. Tommy Holmes 1917-2008 Check out my real-life baseball team here.

07-08-2006, 12:25 PM	#12 (permalink)
Giants44 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,039 Thanks: 25 Thanked 63x in 27 posts	All 1B are gold glovers Defensive 1B - In every league I have (about 4) there are hundreds of 1B with an overall rating of 100 at 1B. In my current MLB league there are 284 in my league who are rated 100. This problem essentially makes defense, especially at 1B completely irrelevant. I posted a lot more detail on this issue here: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=123103 __________________ "In a text sim - Immersion is everything" -Me "Judge a man not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" -Martin Luther King "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." -Einstein "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." -Muhammad Ali "Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything." -Toby Harrah

07-08-2006, 12:53 PM	#13 (permalink)
TC Dale Global Moderator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,932 Thanks: 8 Thanked 19x in 9 posts	Merged threads so they can be tracked properly. Please make sure to post something like this FIRST in Tech Support. I really appreciate it. And we need to keep them to one thread if at all possible . Thanks! __________________ TC ---------------------------------- You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus- Mark Twain. Last edited by TC Dale; 07-08-2006 at 12:55 PM.

07-08-2006, 04:41 PM	#16 (permalink)
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 6,566 Thanks: 21 Thanked 149x in 67 posts	First, let me say that I agree with Giants on the raw numbers thing. It's bothersome to see so many players rated so highly. On the other hand, here is the body of the last post I made in the beta tester's forum with regard to fielding percentages found during testing...the first columns are initial release data, the next are modern-day MLB data, and the last column is from among the last beta builds: --------------------------------------- Retesting with 12250. Infield data looks great. Could maybe bring the OF back up just a little. Code: OOTP v2006 MLB 12250 POS PCT RF PCT RF PCT --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 .9551 2.57 .9570 1.72 .9634 2 .9904 7.21 .9920 .9909 3 .9925 9.67 .9935 9.62 .9934 4 .9858 4.89 .9820 4.97 .9843 5 .9707 2.73 .9575 2.77 .9491 6 .9801 4.67 .9740 4.76 .9734 7 .9843 2.04 .9860 2.02 .9672 8 .9926 2.58 .9880 2.62 .9774 9 .9866 1.95 .9810 2.11 .9634 This data shows that on-field performance is matching modern-day MLB on-field performance pretty closely--especially with regard to the 1B position. Note: I don't know is Markus tweaked the OF defense prior to release or not. Anyway...there's that. If nothing else, please know that the issue of defense was not totally ignored during the patch.

06-09-2006, 11:29 AM	#2 (permalink)
CaLíKrAzY All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Costa Mesa, CaLí Posts: 688 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0x in 0 posts	I just used my filter, and theres a ton of good fielding 1B. I use 1-100 & theres ALOT (I filtered 58 contact +). Of course you do have to factor in 1B error, range, etc. right? I think error would be the most important you would think. It could be about right I'm playing all minors & 30 teams, tough to tell.

06-09-2006, 12:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
fauteuil7 Major Leagues Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Central NJ Posts: 331 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0x in 0 posts	I have noticed this. At first I thought that Donnie Baseball finally got imported as the Gold Glover he was, but then I saw that Mike Stanley had the same rating at 1B. Odd.

06-09-2006, 01:04 PM	#5 (permalink)
Giants44 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,039 Thanks: 25 Thanked 63x in 27 posts	Here is an example: Lance Niekro the Giants current 1B is average at best IRL. in the game these are his "real" ratings as seen by the editor: Range: 87 out of 250 Error: 90 out of 250 Arm: 115 out of 250 Double Play: 91 out out 250 all 4 of these ratings are "below" average (assuming average is 125 on a 250 scale - which I don't know to be true, I am just assuming) His "resulting rating" at 1B is 298 - which all of my scouts view as a "10" There are 344 players in my MLB league (cubsfan 6.5 import) that rate as a "10" at 1B In a different MLB league there (2005 6.5 import) was 244 In my fictional league - 151 In the "default" league - 203 (which kills the import only possibilty)

06-09-2006, 01:14 PM	#6 (permalink)
Giants44 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,039 Thanks: 25 Thanked 63x in 27 posts	I am running a more complete test as the numbers of "10" rated fielders was in triple digits for every position in the default league - but that was with a SISA scout, who we all know don't really amount to anything. So I hired a "10" fielding scout and am giving him a chance to scout every team. Once I do that I will post the results. My primary concern is that if good defense is so overwhelming that every team has it at every position 5 deep, then defense becomes a totally worthless attribute and players who are good defensively really have no impact on the game.

06-09-2006, 03:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
Giants44 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,039 Thanks: 25 Thanked 63x in 27 posts	alright - so I did a comprehensive test - to test this theory. first I used the "default" ML league and I hired a scout with a "10" in scouting fielding and sent him off to scout each team in the league and then I did searches for "10" rated fielders. when I first did this search I was finding hundreds of fielders at each position rated 10. I think the problem with that test, was that I was using the SISA scouts and they clearly are not very accurate. using the top rated scout - these are the results: 1B - 28 2B - 4 3B - 2 SS - 10 LF - 14 CF - 16 RF - 22 I am fairly happy with these results for the most part. at initial glance I thought the OF numbers were too high - however some of that is good CF's who are also showing up in the corner OF numbers - so I think it is OK there. SS might be a tad high - but that is where defensive orientated players play -so I think we are OK, and the rest of the IF looks good. which brings me back to the original problem of 1B - I don't believe that there should be enough gold glove 1B to cover almost every team in the league - especially when tradionally 1B is a position manned by power hitters who are adequate at best defensively. There are always a few outstanding 1B and those players should shine above the average 1B. Obviously not a super high priority - however it would be nice to have someone take a look at the calculations for 1B and why so many players are being rated so highly.

06-11-2006, 02:04 PM	#10 (permalink)
Giants44 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,039 Thanks: 25 Thanked 63x in 27 posts	yet another problem met with crickets. Perhaps there are so many problems to fix, perhaps in past years there was a smaller community base, perhaps the fact that I have complained about the new version I have lost the attention of the developing staff, but in every prior version when I posted concerns on these very boards, for the most part they were addressed - not always to my satisfaction - but at least they were addressed. to me that was one of the real core strengths of the franchise - the fact that the community has a lot of input in the direction of the game. now it seems as though it all just gets lost in the jumble - and "concerns" are no longer heard.

06-11-2006, 03:21 PM	#11 (permalink)
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 6,566 Thanks: 21 Thanked 149x in 67 posts	Testing that I ran a few days back showed that, using default player creation settings, defense has been running a tad bit too good relative to modern-day MLB. It's not hugely out of whack, but it's not quite right. I've brought the issue to Markus's attention via the bug tracking tool SI is using. He'll see it when he returns from his weekend off.

07-08-2006, 01:03 PM	#14 (permalink)
steady teddy Minors (Triple A) Join Date: May 2003 Location: Macomb, Michigan Posts: 278 Thanks: 13 Thanked 1x in 1 post	I see a total of 83 1B in my standard MAL and 25 have a position rating of 100. 6 more are in the mid to high 90s. The total number of Catchers in my league is 91 and 15 have a position rating of 100 with 5 more in the high 90s.

07-09-2006, 12:02 AM	#18 (permalink)
Giants44 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,039 Thanks: 25 Thanked 63x in 27 posts	Here is a perfect example - Jeff Kent - widely considered an average defensive player at best. his range is 60, well bellow avg on 1-250 scale his error is 78, also well bellow avg on a 1-250 scale his experience or familiarity at 1B,2B and 3B are all 200 - he has maxed at all 3. his corresponding "resulting" rating is 50 at 2B and 37 at 3B - both well bellow average. His rating at 1B? a whopping 226!!! pretty much every 1B I have in every league I have is like this. I think this very clearly shows that there is an error in the calculation for 1B overall rating. (note: this is an exact duplication of a post I made in general discussions, I just don't want to see it overlooked again.) __________________ "In a text sim - Immersion is everything" -Me "Judge a man not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" -Martin Luther King "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." -Einstein "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." -Muhammad Ali "Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything." -Toby Harrah

07-09-2006, 06:24 AM	#20 (permalink)
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 6,566 Thanks: 21 Thanked 149x in 67 posts	I understand the concern is that all players are the same at 1B. Here's a comparison of the 2005 American League 1B, and a 16-team, all DH Test OOTP league that I ran prior to release. You can see many highly-rated 1B in OOTP, yes. But you also see that the spread of 1B fielding capability is very fine in the majors, too. I'm not saying this isn't a problem. But I'm also not yet saying it is. At question in the new engine is how fielding ratings translate to the field, IMO. Right now, the data suggests that OOTP is differentiating performance at the 1B position with only a small portion of the scale, which may well be appropriate due to the lack of variance in 1B performance in real life. If anything, the data below says that 1B in OOTP perform _worse_ than those in real life. Still looking at it, though. Code: OOTP Test Season AL Starters, 2005 Rating Player E PCT Player E PCT 12 Ray O'Danaher 7 0.997 Mark Teixeira 3 0.998 20 Tom Larson 12 0.995 Darin Erstad 4 0.997 16 Néstor Marrero 7 0.995 Paul Konerko 5 0.996 20 Tom Kerry 13 0.995 Travis Lee 4 0.996 20 Tameyoshi Kak 15 0.994 Richie Sexson 7 0.995 20 Charlie Majors 13 0.994 Rafael Palmeiro 4 0.995 15 Alfredo Becijos 19 0.993 Dan Johnson 6 0.994 20 Steve Edwards 19 0.993 Justin Morneau 8 0.994 18 Pete Blackden 20 0.992 Eric Hinske 7 0.993 19 Seung-heui Kim 20 0.992 Matt Stairs 4 0.993 8 Randy Robinson 19 0.992 Chris Shelton 6 0.993 17 Ken Simmons 19 0.992 Kevin Millar 7 0.992 9 Hidalgo Castro 17 0.991 Ben Broussard 9 0.992 9 Bill McDonald 25 0.99 Tino Martinez 8 0.991 16 Bartolomé Vasq 25 0.99 Last edited by RonCo; 07-09-2006 at 06:27 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode