Positions

[PSUColonel]

I suggest no more MR or CL or RF, LF etc...

Players should be a P or OF, or IF...from there, the player's skills should determine which position they play. Less speedy players, with less range would play RF, or LF. A slick fielding IF who doesn't have a great arm might play 2B.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I suggest no more MR or CL or RF, LF etc...

Players should be a P or OF, or IF...from there, the player's skills should determine which position they play. Less speedy players, with less range would play RF, or LF. A slick fielding IF who doesn't have a great arm might play 2B.

PSU I respect that you have a ton of ideas, but i wonder why 90% of them are garbage...and I dont mean any disrespect when I say this, but most of your ideas have no merit in baseball. I like having my backup LF say LF even though he has some ratings at CF & RF. 1. it makes things easier when trying to find a player for a particular position and 2 it looks better. There have been CF even recent 1's with no range in CF and SS with terrible range and arms (Jeter).

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

PSU I respect that you have a ton of ideas, but i wonder why 90% of them are garbage...and I dont mean any disrespect when I say this, but most of your ideas have no merit in baseball. I like having my backup LF say LF even though he has some ratings at CF & RF. 1. it makes things easier when trying to find a player for a particular position and 2 it looks better. There have been CF even recent 1's with no range in CF and SS with terrible range and arms (Jeter).

Because in actual baseball...particularly with prospects, players are listed a an OF, or a P. When a team drafts a pitcher, do you really think they think of pitchers in terms of SP, MR, CL? No, they take the best pitcher they feel is available...young pitchers often start in the pen, and then work their way into the rotation. This is what is not modeled in OOTP.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

young pitchers often start in the pen, and then work their way into the rotation. This is what is not modeled in OOTP.

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.

[PSUColonel]

Yes, actually you are correct, but that is not modeled either.

[thehef]

I can't see how this suggestion would fly with historical simming.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by thehef

I can't see how this suggestion would fly with historical simming.

That's a good point. I don't know if many people would be happy if Joe Dimaggio ended up playing shortstop or Randy Johnson developed into a late-inning closer.

It's an interesting idea that might work in a fictional universe, but I wonder if people would be willing to invest that much effort into choosing positions for minor leaguers -- 80% of whom never make it to the big leagues anyway. I tend to agree, though, that the game creates way too many relievers, and that the natural evolution is for a pitcher to begin as a starter and then move to the bullpen, usually (but not always) when that pitcher is progressing through the minors. Still, it saves some time if you know up front that a pitcher will never amount to anything as a starter and that his best bet to make the majors is as a reliever.

[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.

Having said all that in the modern game, say the last 8 years, 1B is undergoing a transformation into a more athletic position. It is also becoming a right handed position as the athleticism makes up for the RH disadvantage at 1B. This is more evidence that 1B should be considered a standalone position and not tied to the infield for player creation and for 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. Since 2B/SS are typically good all round athletes, they should have a better position learning gene. It should not kick in when they are 17 though. Learning other positions should be tied into reduced skills at their primary position. 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.

OF are more interchangeable. I think all OF should have basic ratings for all 3 positions but that one should always become dominant. If an OF player switches position his neglected position should lose skill somewhat in proportion to his increased skill at the new position. 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.

[Erik]

I agree, there are way too many fictional players being created who have top notch fielding ratings at either all OF positions or all IF positions. They also have tons and tons of speed it seems.

For me, I play historical leagues but allow fictional players in my league as well. Often time the fictional players are way better than the historical players and my league turns into a fictional league with a few historical players sprinkled in. This is because the fictional players created are far superior fielders and have great speed and I think the AI evaluates them at a higher level so they get more playing time and they push the historical players out of the picture.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

That's a good point. I don't know if many people would be happy if Joe Dimaggio ended up playing shortstop or Randy Johnson developed into a late-inning closer.

It's an interesting idea that might work in a fictional universe, but I wonder if people would be willing to invest that much effort into choosing positions for minor leaguers -- 80% of whom never make it to the big leagues anyway. I tend to agree, though, that the game creates way too many relievers, and that the natural evolution is for a pitcher to begin as a starter and then move to the bullpen, usually (but not always) when that pitcher is progressing through the minors. Still, it saves some time if you know up front that a pitcher will never amount to anything as a starter and that his best bet to make the majors is as a reliever.

I would be willing...that's why I suggested it. Anyone who wants to simulate being an actual GM would also. I think one of the big problems (divides) OOTP has amongst it's customers is that half want to be General Managers in a fictional world, and the other half want historical accuracy...in the end because OOTP attempts to be all things to all people, we all lose. I've been saying this for years. I just think Markus needs to make a decision about which direction he wants to take OOTP, and where he wants to put the majority of his time and resources.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I would be willing...that's why I suggested it. Anyone who wants to simulate being an actual GM would also.

You may be in the minority on that one. I liked the old scouting system, but that got scrapped because (as I understand it) most people just didn't like the extra effort that it required. I think your idea is very intriguing, but I get the impression that the arc of OOTP history bends toward less labor-intensive modifications rather than more labor-intensive ones.

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I think one of the big problems (divides) OOTP has amongst it's customers is that half want to be General Managers in a fictional world, and the other half want historical accuracy...in the end because OOTP attempts to be all things to all people, we all lose. I've been saying this for years. I just think Markus needs to make a decision about which direction he wants to take OOTP, and where he wants to put the majority of his time and resources.

Here I would have to disagree strongly. I only play fictional -- I have no interest in historical replays. But I may be the one in the minority there, and I suspect a strictly fictional-only OOTP probably wouldn't be commercially viable. As it is, I don't see how OOTP catering to both the historical and fictional gamers shortchanges either one. The way I figure it, the more the designers know about the historical game, the more they know how to craft the fictional game.

[PSUColonel]

Perhaps, but it just seems a realistic "GM Experience" is not something historical players are all that interested in.

[SandMan]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Perhaps, but it just seems a realistic "GM Experience" is not something historical players are all that interested in.

Why do you feel this way???

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by SandMan

Why do you feel this way???

I don't know...it just seems like the majority of players (i guess historical & fictional as well) are more interested in plowing through season as fast as possible rather than carefully and methodically going through a season the way a GM would, making decisions on a day to day basis about players and personnel.

[Chicagofan76]

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.

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.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

Here I would have to disagree strongly. I only play fictional -- I have no interest in historical replays. But I may be the one in the minority there, and I suspect a strictly fictional-only OOTP probably wouldn't be commercially viable. As it is, I don't see how OOTP catering to both the historical and fictional gamers shortchanges either one. The way I figure it, the more the designers know about the historical game, the more they know how to craft the fictional game.

In my current league I play a mix of historical MLB 1999 mixed in with fictional CBF, NPB, ABL and my mixed league of EBL which I have created players that i have had on other games, HH, Hardball, TLR, mixed in with game created players to fill in gaps.
While i dont completely agree with PSU, I cant help but lean towards agreeing. i have 2 players on my current team that seem to know how to play every position. Jerrie Balero is rated min 4 at every position (I taught him to play C) rated 8 at 3B,LF, RF, 10 at 1B Claudio Torrez is rated 6 or above at all 4 IF and 4 in CF and 2 in LF (taught him that over 45 games)
My self created players such as myself I am 6 in RF and 2 at 1B/C my 5th OF has better OF ratings then anyone not named Luke Skywalker. I cant seem to get good results when creating my own players.

[PSUColonel]

That's been exactly my point..I feel OOTP simplifies way too many things for the average baseball fan...rather than focusing on reality, and the real types of decisions a GM would be making.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don't know...it just seems like the majority of players (i guess historical & fictional as well) are more interested in plowing through season as fast as possible rather than carefully and methodically going through a season the way a GM would, making decisions on a day to day basis about players and personnel.

Not true for me....while i will sim when up 10 games or more. i look at the waiver wire daily and get news for my entire league which covers currently 4 leagues but will eventually have 12 total. I do wish like you that trade block and shop player was better so i could get rid of players from my minors more often...i also wish it was easier to package players for shopping. The longest it took me to play a 154 game schedule was 5 months...shortest with min. simming was 3 weeks 5-6 weeks is average for me playing 5-10 games a day.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don't know...it just seems like the majority of players (i guess historical & fictional as well) are more interested in plowing through season as fast as possible rather than carefully and methodically going through a season the way a GM would, making decisions on a day to day basis about players and personnel.

How do you know what we do?

More importantly, why does it matter? I play the game in very different ways depending on my mood.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

While i dont completely agree with PSU, I cant help but lean towards agreeing. i have 2 players on my current team that seem to know how to play every position. Jerrie Balero is rated min 4 at every position (I taught him to play C) rated 8 at 3B,LF, RF, 10 at 1B Claudio Torrez is rated 6 or above at all 4 IF and 4 in CF and 2 in LF (taught him that over 45 games)

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.