A new fielding system

[ctorg]

I've long had big problems with the way fielding works in OOTP. I think it needs to be reworked from the ground up, basically. The current system is similar to sims that are meant to replicate real life, but in a fictional world career simmer like OOTP, there should be more flexibility.

Instead of having simple range ratings at each position with fielding averages, here's a basic idea of what I'd like to see as ratings:

IF range
OF range
C range

IF arm
OF arm
C arm

Dexterity
Accuracy
(these could be combined or left individually, with one for fielding and one for throwing, and would be a primary factor in determining error rates)

And most important: positional familiarity for each position. So if a guy has great IF range but has never played SS and you stick him there, he will function as if he has lower range (though not as a complete buffoon as he would now) until he becomes more familiar, which could be as quick as spring training or as long as a full season. Familiarity would also go down if a position hasn't been played in over a year or so.

This would allow a 2B to be converted to a SS pretty sensibly and would avoid having the current issue of a 100-range 2B having a 0 range at SS when you put him there if he has no rating, which is very unrealistic.

Any thoughts on this?

[Gastric ReFlux]

I made a suggestion like this last year with many similar ideas, especially in regards to improving the way the game could simulate the natural progression of players along the defensive spectrum.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

I made a suggestion like this last year with many similar ideas, especially in regards to improving the way the game could simulate the natural progression of players along the defensive spectrum.

I remember that and actually looked for it before I posted this, but I couldn't seem to find it for some reason.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I remember that and actually looked for it before I posted this, but I couldn't seem to find it for some reason.

I did a search too, and found nothing.

[Ktulu]

I'm all for a change in the fielding system, especially when it comes to outfield range at the various positions.

[Eugene Church]

Good suggestions from all of you.

That why I play solo, in order to edit ratings, so that infielders and outfielders can play more the one position and have realistic ratings. That is my workaround.

I also disable the minors now and create my own "major league ready" players as a workaround for AI development weaknesses. I now have productive 21-25 year olds and a very few productive 18-20 year olds in my fictional leagues.

I am expecting great things from OOTP7/SI...with SI's seemingly fine codes and development experience, hopefully Markus will take his codes and experience and really refine, expand and improve OOTPB.

Championship Football sounds like a very complex and marvelous game.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by Eugene Church

Good suggestions from all of you.

That why I play solo, in order to edit ratings, so that infielders and outfielders can play more the one position and have realistic ratings. That is my workaround.

I also disable the minors now and create my own "major league ready" players as a workaround for AI development weaknesses. I now have productive 21-25 year olds and a very few productive 18-20 year olds in my fictional leagues.

I am expecting great things from OOTP7/SI...with SI's seemingly fine codes and development experience, hopefully Markus will take his codes and experience and really refine, expand and improve OOTPB.

Championship Football sounds like a very complex and marvelous game.

I often do the same. Each season, before the rookie draft, I look at all the players. I often change things around to make more sense. If, for instance, I see a guy who is a 5 (out of 5) in CF and is unrated at RF and LF, I give him ratings in the other two OF positions. It doesn't make sense to me to have it otherwise.

[andymac]

I have said this before, but I am going to throw it in here also. I believe every player should have a rating at EVERY position as well as a potential(talent) rating. Now, these ratings can be shown/hidden or whatever, but as a manager I should have an idea how any player could perform at any given position.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by andymac

I have said this before, but I am going to throw it in here also. I believe every player should have a rating at EVERY position as well as a potential(talent) rating. Now, these ratings can be shown/hidden or whatever, but as a manager I should have an idea how any player could perform at any given position.

That's kind of what this would accomplish. If a guy had an 86 rating for infield range and was a 2B, you know he will be at least a decent SS even if he lacks experience there. You can move him, he gains experience at the new position.

Players do position changes all the time in real life, and the game should allow for it to happen more logically than it does.

[kingcharlesxii]

I like the idea a lot. It would also be nice if ratings like IF rating and OF rating went down naturally as the player aged, reflecting a loss of speed. I think we'd see more Cal Ripken-esque situations where an aging SS or CFer is moved to a different position near the end of his career.

[Dan Theman]

Well, I kind of liked THIS IDEA, but I suppose I'm a little bit biased

[Jazzmosis]

I like the idea of ranger for all positions/talent defensive, but I think that the biggest problem in defence is in the OF.

The fielding percentages are ridiculous. They should all be .990 or above, since even a poor fielder makes at most 10 errors in a full season (including catches and throws)

In one of my online leagues, I had V. Guerrero make 19 errors in RF! As shocking as this was, what was more shocking was that he WON A GOLD GLOVE THAT YEAR!

Call me fickle, but to me if anything needs to be changed in defence, it's the OF fielding percentages. I know I can do it manually, but do you have any idea how long that takes to go through an entire league and gauge a fielder's worth of each OF position?

Also, I had a player in a solo league play 147 games in centrefield (all starts), making no errors on the year, and he lost the Gold Glove to another fielder that played 152 games (all starts also), had a slightly better range factor (which is really decided by the GO/AO ratio of the team's pitching staff rather than the fielder himself) but made 10 errors! It seems to me that the game decides GG's based moreso on range and games started at the position rather than fielding percentage. I think more emphasis (if not the majority of it) needs to be placed on FP and Innings Played at the position.

My two cents...

[canadiancreed]

i'll throw my hat into the ring on this. would make the leageu i'm doing irght now easier to switch my plethora of center fielders to left and right. i mean how can a guy rated a 6 in center be just a 1 in left? makes no sense

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

i'll throw my hat into the ring on this. would make the leageu i'm doing irght now easier to switch my plethora of center fielders to left and right. i mean how can a guy rated a 6 in center be just a 1 in left? makes no sense

Obviously, you have never played baseball, have you? The spin on the balls hit to left is much different than the spin on balls hit to centerfield. Even today, people still think that Greg Luzinski was stuck in left by the Phillies because he was slow and fat, but actually, he had excellent ballspin instincts that made him a natural left fielder. If it weren't for his prowess, Gary Maddox wouldn't have been able to cover center and right for the Phillies.

[canadiancreed]

Obviously, you have never played baseball, have you?

Actually i did till roughly ten years ago so I had forgotten about that aspect of the game. My though process was if a six in CF, which is a larger area, shouldnt it be a seven or eight in LF/RF? WIth your example, I see how that could affect fiedling.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Actually i did till roughly ten years ago so I had forgotten about that aspect of the game. My though process was if a six in CF, which is a larger area, shouldnt it be a seven or eight in LF/RF? WIth your example, I see how that could affect fiedling.

It wouldn't affect it that much though. At most, it could be handled by positional familiarity.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by Jazzmosis

I like the idea of ranger for all positions/talent defensive, but I think that the biggest problem in defence is in the OF.

The fielding percentages are ridiculous. They should all be .990 or above, since even a poor fielder makes at most 10 errors in a full season (including catches and throws)

In one of my online leagues, I had V. Guerrero make 19 errors in RF! As shocking as this was, what was more shocking was that he WON A GOLD GLOVE THAT YEAR!

Call me fickle, but to me if anything needs to be changed in defence, it's the OF fielding percentages. I know I can do it manually, but do you have any idea how long that takes to go through an entire league and gauge a fielder's worth of each OF position?

Also, I had a player in a solo league play 147 games in centrefield (all starts), making no errors on the year, and he lost the Gold Glove to another fielder that played 152 games (all starts also), had a slightly better range factor (which is really decided by the GO/AO ratio of the team's pitching staff rather than the fielder himself) but made 10 errors! It seems to me that the game decides GG's based moreso on range and games started at the position rather than fielding percentage. I think more emphasis (if not the majority of it) needs to be placed on FP and Innings Played at the position.

My two cents...

The way I see it, fielding pct should be era specific. While 19 errors may be a rarity now, it hasn't always been. Rather than assign fielding pcts the way the game does now, it should be based on a rating like everything else.