Positions

[RchW]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

But that's not a problem with the game's split between historical and fictional play, that's a problem with the player creation formulas. And I agree, those formulas could stand some improvement.

Exactly. First we have the elevation of FM to be some sort of deity of management sims. It most definitely is not. Now we have the categorization of those of us who don't agree with the FM ization of OOTPB to be somehow amateurs or not interested in "a real GM experience". I believe PSU Colonel was taken to task several months ago for suggesting that many of us should consider Baseball Mogul.

How do you play OOTP?

I'm all for a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of OOTPB but the tone, condescension and false assumptions about other styles of play are not helpful.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

Actually it's the other way around...There's only 1 Closer who never started a game as SP...Bruce Sutter. Most young pitchers start in the rotation, depending on the team, then get put in the pen based on how well they do.
Kerry Wood was a SP from Day 1 same with Kyle Drabeck, Felix Hernandez started 9 of 13 games his 1st pro yr, Buehrle 14 GS of 20. 16 GS of 16G his 2nd yr, but yes only started 3 of 28 games in 2000 with the Sox before becoming a SP. Out of the 10 guys I looked at while some of them didnt start every game from year 1 as a pro or year 1 as a rookie it is higher then 80% with the exception of Buehrle in 2000. Even Mo Rivera started 10 games as a rookie.

I think that almost all pitchers should be created with 3 or more pitches. Stamina should be something that changes over time. In my concept, most pitchers would be created with a stamina around 100, some higher, some lower. This would make almost every pitcher in the draft a potential starter, then usage would determine stamina, maybe through pitches per game or something like that. Pitchers used in the bullpen would see their stamina decrease and starters would see their stamina increase. An example would be if someone like Sabathia got moved to the bullpen for several years, he would no longer be capable of throwing 110 pitches every 5 days. By the same concept, if Neftali Feliz was moved to the rotation he would build up arm strength over time until he was capable of throwing 200+ innings a year.

The better pitchers would evolve into starters and the lesser pitchers would become relievers like real life. The drawback would be a reduction in elite relief pitchers, though it is a little overloaded with them now, and pitchers who got a rating jump after being moved to the bullpen would remain in the bullpen and become great relievers, making, as in real life, many good relievers late bloomers.

Also, it would be good to see velocity brought closer to 90ish, there are too many pitchers on the extremes, throwing high 90s or mid 80s. Most pitchers throw within a handful of mph of 90.

What do you guys thinks?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

Yeah this is 1 thing i do hate is the amount of already established 1B in each draft. Mark McGwire orig 3B, Paul Konerko C, Todd Zeile C, Albert Pujols 3B/LF are all just a few players that I cant think of that played a different position in college/minors 1st yr ML before being moved to 1B. It's also rare that you have many natural 2B, most are converted 3B or SS, Sandberg, Soriano, Beckham, Fontenot, Theriot, Alexei Ramirez.

But I think the game creates the 1B and 2B and MR/CL to simplify things for the average gamer/baseball fan.

It's a device to help the AI with roster management while maintaining the "optimum" batting lineup. If you don't have suitable position players the AI would have to make many more roster moves just like real life.

In real life baseball when your SS goes down with an injury you either replace him with a bench player who can play SS or call up a replacement. If it's a long term injury you may make a trade. You rarely move another starting player to SS.

In OOTP the AI will move the 1B or 2B or whatever player can play SS and cascade other position moves to satisfy the optimum batting lineup. It's efficient but not realistic. Markus mentioned this in a thread some time back.

For an example of this just look at how the AI shuffles IF and OF starters by pitcher handedness. For IF no SS/2B/3B combination do this in real life. IRL Ben Zobrist is the closest but he goes 2B/RF. Teammate Sean Rodriguez played 2B/SS/3B last year but he was not the primary starter at any of these positions.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

I think that almost all pitchers should be created with 3 or more pitches. Stamina should be something that changes over time. In my concept, most pitchers would be created with a stamina around 100, some higher, some lower. This would make almost every pitcher in the draft a potential starter, then usage would determine stamina, maybe through pitches per game or something like that. Pitchers used in the bullpen would see their stamina decrease and starters would see their stamina increase. An example would be if someone like Sabathia got moved to the bullpen for several years, he would no longer be capable of throwing 110 pitches every 5 days. By the same concept, if Neftali Feliz was moved to the rotation he would build up arm strength over time until he was capable of throwing 200+ innings a year.

The better pitchers would evolve into starters and the lesser pitchers would become relievers like real life. The drawback would be a reduction in elite relief pitchers, though it is a little overloaded with them now, and pitchers who got a rating jump after being moved to the bullpen would remain in the bullpen and become great relievers, making, as in real life, many good relievers late bloomers.

Also, it would be good to see velocity brought closer to 90ish, there are too many pitchers on the extremes, throwing high 90s or mid 80s. Most pitchers throw within a handful of mph of 90.

What do you guys thinks?

Then what happens to guys who get injured and get moved into the pen for a few seasons then go back to being SP ala John Smoltz, in your scenario He would never have became a SP again. Also Chris Sale has #1 SP potential but was in the pen his 1st 2 yrs and should be the #4/5 for the Sox this yr, again with yours he would never be a SP in 2012. Same with Netali Feliz.

There are by far more guys these days that throw 94MPH+ then ever before.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

Then what happens to guys who get injured and get moved into the pen for a few seasons then go back to being SP ala John Smoltz, in your scenario He would never have became a SP again. Also Chris Sale has #1 SP potential but was in the pen his 1st 2 yrs and should be the #4/5 for the Sox this yr, again with yours he would never be a SP in 2012. Same with Netali Feliz.

There are by far more guys these days that throw 94MPH+ then ever before.

Smoltz or Sale could return to the rotation if they were forced to by a user. They would be able to build their stamina over time, I doubt the AI would try this though. It would probably be very shaky that first year back in the rotation, but the pitchers who would make that switch would probably already have high stamina for a relief pitcher making the transition a little easier. Though, in the current system this would be highly unlikely as well.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

I doubt the AI would try this though. It would probably be very shaky that first year back in the rotation,

andf those 2 things are way I dont like that idea. Sale should win 12+ games mid 3 ERA in 2012. Smoltz went 14-7 3.06 his 1st yr back as SP. and if they AI wont put quality pitchers as SP they wont compete.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

andf those 2 things are way I dont like that idea. Sale should win 12+ games mid 3 ERA in 2012. Smoltz went 14-7 3.06 his 1st yr back as SP. and if they AI wont put quality pitchers as SP they wont compete.

The idea is that the pitchers who would be quality starters wouldn't have gotten moved to the bullpen in the first place, not entirely realistic I know. No system is perfect and I know historical players wouldn't like it because Randy Johnson might become a closer or Trevor Hoffman might become a starter in this system.

[Mr. Baseball]

I'd prefer Markus focused on more important issues rather than concerning himself with labels.

Some people want to re-design every little aspect of the game, which is fine, were all entitled to our own opinion. But there comes a point when you need to ask yourself; is this really necessary?

[RonP]

Joe DiMaggio was a hell of a shortstop.!!!
RP

[ctorg]

I think a lot of issues with very unusual situations like Smoltz becoming a reliever and then a starter again would best be handled via storylines, which is a sadly underutilized feature in the game, the potential for which is very high. You could have a guy get an injury that cuts his stamina way down, and then have it go back up a year or two later.

[szathkey]

Can we at least all agree that someone rated in RF should always at least be rated at the other 3 positions? If I have an outfielder play out of position they make dozens of errors while "learning" the other outfield position.

I know there are different demands and nuances of each individual outfield position, but playing in RF if I'm only rated in LF shouldn't lead to me acting like I've never played out there before...

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by szathkey

Can we at least all agree that someone rated in RF should always at least be rated at the other 3 positions? If I have an outfielder play out of position they make dozens of errors while "learning" the other outfield position.

I know there are different demands and nuances of each individual outfield position, but playing in RF if I'm only rated in LF shouldn't lead to me acting like I've never played out there before...

You dont see many LF play RF or RF play LF, unless they have been playing both from day 1 and are usually backup OF. Even a play like Griffey sucked in RF his 1st full season there. David Justice was a terrible LF and an avg RF.
Adam Dunn was bad in both so I guess he isnt a good example.

[EvilGenius]

Originally Posted by RchW

It's a device to help the AI with roster management while maintaining the "optimum" batting lineup. If you don't have suitable position players the AI would have to make many more roster moves just like real life.

In real life baseball when your SS goes down with an injury you either replace him with a bench player who can play SS or call up a replacement. If it's a long term injury you may make a trade. You rarely move another starting player to SS.

In OOTP the AI will move the 1B or 2B or whatever player can play SS and cascade other position moves to satisfy the optimum batting lineup. It's efficient but not realistic. Markus mentioned this in a thread some time back.

For an example of this just look at how the AI shuffles IF and OF starters by pitcher handedness. For IF no SS/2B/3B combination do this in real life. IRL Ben Zobrist is the closest but he goes 2B/RF. Teammate Sean Rodriguez played 2B/SS/3B last year but he was not the primary starter at any of these positions.

I think this post is dead on. OOTP is way too generous with fielding ratings. Most players are not interchangable even in related positions (such as RF/LF, or SS/2B).

There is more to outfield ability than just raw talent. For example, outfielders have to know the ins and outs of every stadium. The quirks of the field dimensions, how the sun and shadows play at different times of the day, how to judge the wind, etc. Players may have a quicker step to their right than to their left, which affects which outfield position comes more naturally to them. These don't necessarily translate from RF to LF.

And having nearly every infielder able to play 1B is unrealistic. I believe trivializes the natural players at that position. I found myself turning down trades and draft picks for 5 star first basemen. Why would I go out and get a dedicated 1B when I could get a 3B or SS instead who could also play 1B? And nearly all the utility infielders in the game have a higher 1B rating than the natural first basemen.

Of the ones that can be used interchangably, they typically need all of spring training to adapt to their new position. This is usually true of players who perhaps played the infield in college, but outfield the majority of their professional career. They need to re-adapt to their former positions.

Of the remaining few that legitimately can play multiple positions, I can't think of any who are also good enough with the bat to be a starter.



I'm not saying players shouldn't have any ability in other positions, I just don't think it should be quite so generous. Personally, if I have a RF with an overall value of 88 at that position, I think his LF ability should be half that or less. Not zero, but not equal either. Enough to discourage just shifting players all over the field at whim.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by EvilGenius

I think this post is dead on. OOTP is way too generous with fielding ratings. Most players are not interchangable even in related positions (such as RF/LF, or SS/2B).

There is more to outfield ability than just raw talent. For example, outfielders have to know the ins and outs of every stadium. The quirks of the field dimensions, how the sun and shadows play at different times of the day, how to judge the wind, etc. Players may have a quicker step to their right than to their left, which affects which outfield position comes more naturally to them. These don't necessarily translate from RF to LF.

And having nearly every infielder able to play 1B is unrealistic. I believe trivializes the natural players at that position. I found myself turning down trades and draft picks for 5 star first basemen. Why would I go out and get a dedicated 1B when I could get a 3B or SS instead who could also play 1B? And nearly all the utility infielders in the game have a higher 1B rating than the natural first basemen.

Of the ones that can be used interchangably, they typically need all of spring training to adapt to their new position. This is usually true of players who perhaps played the infield in college, but outfield the majority of their professional career. They need to re-adapt to their former positions.

Of the remaining few that legitimately can play multiple positions, I can't think of any who are also good enough with the bat to be a starter.



I'm not saying players shouldn't have any ability in other positions, I just don't think it should be quite so generous. Personally, if I have a RF with an overall value of 88 at that position, I think his LF ability should be half that or less. Not zero, but not equal either. Enough to discourage just shifting players all over the field at whim.

Thanks. The challenge for Markus I believe is to get the AI away from the optimum batting order meme. The result will be a lot more player movement which may be challenging to humans and AI both.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by RchW

OOTP has an issue with producing too many multi-position infielders that is totally unrealistic in any type of league. It also seems to assume that players who play 1B are created as IF then converted. I would state that IRL they are likely very bad OF who are generally big, with a secondary source being 3B with no range. I'd say that LH throwing players who are poor OF are a major source of 1B players. There is no other position other than DH for them. I don't think 1B should even be considered an IF position for the purpose of player creation and development.

...

If one looks at readily available data from Baseball Reference MLB infielders specifically 2B/SS and less so 3B are very much one-position players. No one says they can't play other positions but as a matter of fact they don't ever, play as starters at two IF positions.

...

It should also be part of a poor hitting IF skill set as their continued presence on an MLB roster has to be tied to defense. There is a connection between 2B/SS and CF which does not appear in OOTP.

...
There should be a hard ceiling for skill development at a position that does not match the player attributes. All OF should have some ability to learn 1B. That is a very common occurrence IRL.

1. I am not sure I agree even though the defensive spectrum has its problems. It assumes any SS can be a very 1B which is not always correct. Although starters, usually only play 1 position you find a lot of utility guys so I am ok with position ratings being a determined by fewer skills along the spectrum, eg. SS need the most and best skills to get good ratings while 1B needs very little. Also there are plently of 1B who aren't converted they don't have the ratings to get a position rating anywhere else.

2. I do think there still is a problem with undervaluing D especially with SS, C, and CF. These are three spots where you have to have very good D or you get moved to another position. The AI does seem to overvalue hitting. So it sometimes goes with a crappy D SS who can hit over a slick fielding SS. Then again in real life that sometimes happens. I could be wrong but there just seems to be an overall selection process rather position specific meaning that the SS starter seems to be evaluated the same as the 1B starter when D should play a much bigger role.

3. The game is better at OF who can play first but still few players have IF and OF ratings. Granted IF range is more about first step while OF range is more about speed and there are differences in IF and OF arm because IF looks more for quick throws than long throws. However, there are too many players that have no potential in the IF or no potential ability in the OF. An IF should have potential at both. The other thing that is strange is speed is in way tied to OF ability. It should be major for a CF. It is just weird to see a guy with 1 speed have a 20 OF range! For IF that is entirely possible if the guy is quick. OF range should be some function of speed and something random since quickness does matter too. Essentially OFs should be speedy guys who can catch but may not have the quickness or the quick throw of an IF.

I don't think we want to go with FM with 20 or 30 ratings that go into making up ability but maybe a bit more might not be bad. Adding quickness or reaction time and using that as part of the determination of the IF range might be good as well as using speed and quickness to determine OF range.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by EvilGenius

Of the ones that can be used interchangably, they typically need all of spring training to adapt to their new position. This is usually true of players who perhaps played the infield in college, but outfield the majority of their professional career. They need to re-adapt to their former positions.

Yet there is the utility man who is expected to fill in two or more positions from the bench. The current system does well in the minors as well. The exp and ratings combo makes it realistic of what it takes to convert a college or HS 2B to OF. So this should not apply to every player. Sure say for instance Carlos Lee or Brett Wallace who were 3B at points in the minors need a ST to convert to 1B after playing OF and 3B respectively for some time but there are guys who get practice and game time at more than position and can covert easily.

I think the main problem goes back to no rust factor for a position once a player learns a rating he always has it. The rust system could be applied to position ratings. Each day you don't play that position you gain rust and that affects your performance. So many games at the position and rust is off. So guys coming back from injury or in ST would be getting batting or pitching rust off as well as position rust.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by EvilGenius

I'm not saying players shouldn't have any ability in other positions, I just don't think it should be quite so generous. Personally, if I have a RF with an overall value of 88 at that position, I think his LF ability should be half that or less. Not zero, but not equal either. Enough to discourage just shifting players all over the field at whim.

Maybe if a quickness rating was added it could be split up with quickness to the left and quickness to the right. So that to the right would be more heavily rated in position rating for 3B and LF while to the left would be more heavily rated in 1B and RF. So like I proposed before a OF's rating would be a function of range, speed, quickness, arm, and error or range would be a function of speed. While a IF would be quickness, range, arm, TD, and error. 2B, CF, and SS would use both quickness ratings more equally while RF, LF, 1B, and 3B would have more weight on one quickness.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by EvilGenius

And having nearly every infielder able to play 1B is unrealistic. I believe trivializes the natural players at that position. I found myself turning down trades and draft picks for 5 star first basemen. Why would I go out and get a dedicated 1B when I could get a 3B or SS instead who could also play 1B? And nearly all the utility infielders in the game have a higher 1B rating than the natural first basemen.

This is 1 reason why I love my EBL league where 75% of the players are self created (will be 100%) i dont run into this problem, granted I do have a super utility player that plays all 8 positions 10 at 1B 2 at SS & C. (AI creation)
I am having issues of using my backup 2B as my starting 3B 11 errors in 51 games. but it makes it more fun being forced to sit him after the 7th. he leads the AL in SB.