More middle infielders on 25 man roster?

[knockahoma]

I wrote about this issue on the "9" forum. Just curious how "10" might fix this issue.

Every year of my historical leagues, I see the AI move somebody out of position. The middle infield experiments are the horrible ones, along with 3b. The AI searches for a decent bat at SS, for example. Problem is, the guy can't play SS. He'll commit 46 errors in 88 games. Sometimes that happens at 3B or 2b, too.

Many times, a glove legend such as Mark Belanger is shoved at the end of the bench. That's because the Orioles AI has discovered rookie 3B Doug DeCinces. Why not? Belanger plays gold glove D, but hits .225-.250.

But DeCinces, now! Sure, his fielding % is below .900, but look what he brings to the plate. A .260 average with possibly as many a 10 dingers! A fair trade-off for an error every two games, eh?

I could believe a manager trying a player who fields like he wears no glove at 3b (earl Williams and the Braves comes to mind). But at SS?

The other problem is that the AI takes the same theory and applies it to the backups. Today, Larry Bowa gets nicked by the propeller of a plane crashing on the infield. He's out for 2 months. The Phils see the opportunity to move gold glover 3B Mike Schmidt to his un-natural position at SS. That's because real-life utility guy, Terry Harmon, is in AAA. Harmon can actually keep a fielding % above .950 at SS and 2B, but the Phils have opted to keep three mediocre hitting 3B-1B instead. The AI has the situation covered. In the event that Bowa goes down from a propeller spinning off a crashing plane, Schmidt can handle SS, right?

(AI note to Itself: The Phils lack a good 3B. Look for a deal before trade dead-line)

So, what's the answer in 10? How can we help the AI recognize the significance of SS? Should SS and 2B be more weighted for defense than other positions?

Anyway, OOTP really is a heckuva game. But, the roster selection and starting lineups could use help when it comes to the middle infield positions, especially SS. Doesn't seem to be as much a problem in my fictional leagues. But it's a huge issue for me in the historicals.

It would be an interesting study to see just how much managers historically were willing to sacrifice bat for glove at the SS.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

I wrote about this issue on the "9" forum. Just curious how "10" might fix this issue.

Every year of my historical leagues, I see the AI move somebody out of position. The middle infield experiments are the horrible ones, along with 3b. The AI searches for a decent bat at SS, for example. Problem is, the guy can't play SS. He'll commit 46 errors in 88 games. Sometimes that happens at 3B or 2b, too.

Many times, a glove legend such as Mark Belanger is shoved at the end of the bench. That's because the Orioles AI has discovered rookie 3B Doug DeCinces. Why not? Belanger plays gold glove D, but hits .225-.250.

But DeCinces, now! Sure, his fielding % is below .900, but look what he brings to the plate. A .260 average with possibly as many a 10 dingers! A fair trade-off for an error every two games, eh?

I could believe a manager trying a player who fields like he wears no glove at 3b (earl Williams and the Braves comes to mind). But at SS?

The other problem is that the AI takes the same theory and applies it to the backups. Today, Larry Bowa gets nicked by the propeller of a plane crashing on the infield. He's out for 2 months. The Phils see the opportunity to move gold glover 3B Mike Schmidt to his un-natural position at SS. That's because real-life utility guy, Terry Harmon, is in AAA. Harmon can actually keep a fielding % above .950 at SS and 2B, but the Phils have opted to keep three mediocre hitting 3B-1B instead. The AI has the situation covered. In the event that Bowa goes down from a propeller spinning off a crashing plane, Schmidt can handle SS, right?

(AI note to Itself: The Phils lack a good 3B. Look for a deal before trade dead-line)

So, what's the answer in 10? How can we help the AI recognize the significance of SS? Should SS and 2B be more weighted for defense than other positions?

Anyway, OOTP really is a heckuva game. But, the roster selection and starting lineups could use help when it comes to the middle infield positions, especially SS. Doesn't seem to be as much a problem in my fictional leagues. But it's a huge issue for me in the historicals.

It would be an interesting study to see just how much managers historically were willing to sacrifice bat for glove at the SS.

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.

It's still a problem in fictional leagues where there are too many power hitting 2B/SS. Some with and some without good defense. This skews lineups away from traditional power positions like 1B 3B and LF RF.

Check this thread for more discussion.

[Rondell Tate]

I would like to see the game (including the managers' AI) regularly using the defensive spectrum, where it's easy to move players from shortstop toward 1B and much harder to move them the other way. (If I remember, it's something like 1B/LF/RF/3B/CF/2B/SS/C).

It would achieve two things from a game standpoint:
1) It would make it easier to replace corner OF/1B, as it is in the majors. OK, so my Gold Glove CF never plays anywhere else ... that's not because he can't play LF/RF, it's because he's more valuable in center. Take him down a notch for not playing against the side walls if he's never played LF/RF, but don't give him a zero ...

and

2) It would bring order to the middle infield, as the OP pointed out. A good journeyman SS can almost always fill in at 3B/2B/1B (if you don't mind a .245 slap hitter at 1B). Good utilitymen play decently at 5-6-7 positions a year. But when you move a bad glove from 3B, you play him in LF (or 1B, or RF if he can throw), not SS or 2B.
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.

The one place I see it clearly in OOTP9 it is overdone, which is giving perfect or near-perfect 1B fielding ratings to SS/2B who have never/rarely played first. There should be a temporary ratings cap on guys moving into unfamiliar positions ... moving Jose Offerman or Rod Carew didn't make them into brilliant fielders overnight ... it just helped disguise their weaknesses. Great fielding ratings at any position should require some practice.

Catcher is almost a unique position, as I can't think of anybody who has moved to catcher at the ML level and thrived (nor any great SS or CF who caught first), although there have been plenty of catchers who moved to other positions (Yogi Berra, Joe Torre, Craig Biggio, etc., etc.) later in their careers.

[Left-handed Badger]

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 )

I myself, will sacrifice a great deal of offense for defense when I play. If you dont have a certain range at a position you want play it on my team (exceptions 1B and one OF corner maybe) Though, for OOTP I would sacrifice at C defense for offense because except for arm strength in OOTP defense is largely useless at C (one of my big gripes)

Anyhow, if you look at 70s era teams, they would sacrifice greatly at SS offensively. Heck, you should look at the Orioles in the mid-70s, they had no offense. Pitching, defense and 3 run HRs? Mostly Pitching and defense. The bottom 4 spots generally didnt produce squat. You had Belanger of course. Paul Blair had turned into a .230 hitter. Brooks lost his power then lost most of his average too. And the catcher spot, well once they dealt Etchebarren and got Dave Duncan, combining Duncan with Hendricks they did get 20 HRs between (on a combined .210 AVG or so). 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 )

[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, due to better training, better infields, and better athleticism? 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!


Bottom line. If someone is rated to play a position, they should be rated highly enough that 60 games produces a minimum percentage for that position. Of course, I don't know the limitations of a computer program. But, in real life, no one is going to play 50 games with an .880 field percentage.

[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.

[knockahoma]

Just musing over players being moved out of their natural positions, I recalled an unhappy catcher named Earl Williams.

Earl broke into the majors by hitting 30 homers for the Atlanta Braves in the early 70s. Sounds like the Braves were set for a decade at catcher, right?

No. Earl hated playing catcher. He complained incessantly. Well, so it has been reported. He liked 1B, or maybe 3B, anywhere but catcher! With limited tools, these corner positions seemed his only options. Problem was, the Braves were using Hammerin' Hank at 1B in 1973, Earl's 2nd full season in the bigs. But the righty might play some 3B against lefties, platooning with Darrell Evans.

Over the course of a few years, the Braves tried Earl at 3B more than once, but never for long. Finally, the Braves traded Williams to Baltimore, weary of his complaints about catching. In Earl's relatively short career, he played the equivalent of about 60 full games at 3rd. He finished with an .892 fielding percentage.

The interesting point here is that even a guy who could hit 30 homers was considered too great a defensive liability at THIRD base with a .900 field percentage. And it took a real life manager only 15 games or so (per year) to give up on the experiment.

So, how to signal to the AI we've got an "Earl Williams" situation at SS, rather than suffer through 80 games and 40 errors? Would some sort of "cut-off" signal work? Could the AI be trained to recognize, after a certain number of chances, that a .890 field percentage was unacceptable? Maybe the lowest acceptable number would be .910?

I dunno. Just trying to throw out a solution with the complaint. Probably the easiest solution is to make anyone rated at any position competent to a certain level after a good number of games.

[Siv]

Rondell thanks for the progression line by position. I never thought of it that way but this discussion brought it to light. I too dislike the inconsistancy of the middle infielder and the lack of a team keeping a utility fielder.

I hope the new AI looks to defense and sees the relevance.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Rondell Tate

OK, so my Gold Glove CF never plays anywhere else ... that's not because he can't play LF/RF, it's because he's more valuable in center. Take him down a notch for not playing against the side walls if he's never played LF/RF, but don't give him a zero ...

knockahoma said something similar to this about middle infielders in a later post. My experience (at least in the outfield) has been that when I move a good outfielder to an unaccustomed position he fields well, even though the numbers under his name say he has a single digit position rating. There might be an increase in his errors until his experience goes up, but nowhere near this 'error every other game' thing. Note that I haven't tried this with average-to-below fielders, and it may well be true for them.

*****AA when he finishes a painting, "There it is, Viola!"

AA knew my grandmother?

[knockahoma]

Hi Curtis.

I'll be happy to play your Igor to the Mass Select Idea since I play God mode almost exclusively..... what hump?

knockahoma said something similar to this about middle infielders in a later post. My experience (at least in the outfield) has been that when I move a good outfielder to an unaccustomed position he fields well, even though the numbers under his name say he has a single digit position rating. There might be an increase in his errors until his experience goes up, but nowhere near this 'error every other game' thing. Note that I haven't tried this with average-to-below fielders, and it may well be true for them.

I've never seen the problem much with outfielders. At the end of the season, I'll go to sort and see how everyone did defensively. Usually, nothing in the OF is beyond belief regarding number of errors. It's always a 2b, SS, 3b playing out of position.

I don't really mind the 2b who filled in at SS due to injury who played maybe 10 games and wound up with a .855 field percentage. It's the guys who play 30 or 40 games with that kind of futility. Heck, that's all a team in a pennant chase needs! I suspect those kinds of fielders damn a team's season. The AI just couldn't react to a ridiculous situation. If that kind of defense at SS isn't a season-killer, then the need for defense is an illusion in OOTP.

[Rondell Tate]

Originally Posted by Curtis

My experience (at least in the outfield) has been that when I move a good outfielder to an unaccustomed position he fields well, even though the numbers under his name say he has a single digit position rating. There might be an increase in his errors until his experience goes up, but nowhere near this 'error every other game' thing.

Hmm. Good point. I guess I always just assumed that the ratings reflected the performance so I never tracked back after the season to check.
Thanks.