Position changes are an important part of player development

[sportomatic75]

Re: Position changes are an important part of player development

I wish they could figure out a way to make the defensive ratings fluctuate. If I have a centerfielder that is normally 99 overall fielding, but I move him to LF his defensive rating should lower a little. I guess that is expanding on what the OP wants to see.

[BlueJays09]

Re: Position changes are an important part of player development

In my last franchise I had Josh Hamilton on the Blue Jays. I moved him to first base so I changed his secondary position to 1B and then sent him to AAA to play 1B for a month. Then brought him up and eased him into 1B late in games and what not. Then next year he took over as my primary 1B. I made him play it all ST then regular season I edited his position from LF to 1B and his secondary position became 1B. I also lowered all fielding ratings by 5 points to make it more realistic. Just the way I try and do things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KBLover]

Re: Position changes are an important part of player development

I wish they could figure out a way to make the defensive ratings fluctuate. If I have a centerfielder that is normally 99 overall fielding, but I move him to LF his defensive rating should lower a little. I guess that is expanding on what the OP wants to see.

Eh, a CF with elite range and arm won't be worse at LF/RF imo.

I don't think the skills should fluctuate, per se. A guy's abilities are what they are. If he has quick feet, good reads, and a solid arm - that's what he has no matter where he stands on the diamond.

His skills should "play up" or "play down" depending on how they relate to a position's needs.

So if you had a guy that was a good defender in his skills, where he fits might depend on other things. A good defender with Yadier Molina's speed probably won't do well in CF if only because might not can cover the field well. He might not be good in OF period...except maybe Fenway's LF, where he might be brilliant at defending with/against the Monster and the condensed LF size.

However, at 3B, which is more a reactive position than covering ground (and infield positioning can help cover the rest), he might be just fine. SS, though, getting to some balls might be a problem with his lower speed. He might be a "eats up what he gets to but might not get to as much as you'd wish" type player. That might have enough value, depending on your organization, your defensive philosophy, etc.

The only other thing would be maybe split IF/OF (catchers already have unique-to-them ratings) since the fielding requirements are different enough to maybe warrant different ratings.

[Bunselpower32]

Re: Position changes are an important part of player development

MLB 2k did this perfectly. Guys had their ratings for fielding and all that. Then they had a second ratings section that was just a 0 to 100 rating of every position. That was how comfortable a guy was there (individual ratings not withstanding). So it said nothing about how good he was, just that that would basically scale his ratings according to that positional rating.

The best part though, was converting a guy. All you did was put him in at that position, minors or majors, and he would gain rating points based on how much action he saw at that position. Usually between a point a game or maybe three points every four.

Also, first base was easier to learn that shortstop. Partially because it’s an easier position, but also because first base has way more interaction than the other positions. Made for amazing depth. Those games were so deep.

You don’t care where I sent this from.

[KBLover]

Re: Position changes are an important part of player development

MLB 2k did this perfectly. Guys had their ratings for fielding and all that. Then they had a second ratings section that was just a 0 to 100 rating of every position. That was how comfortable a guy was there (individual ratings not withstanding). So it said nothing about how good he was, just that that would basically scale his ratings according to that positional rating.

The best part though, was converting a guy. All you did was put him in at that position, minors or majors, and he would gain rating points based on how much action he saw at that position. Usually between a point a game or maybe three points every four.

Also, first base was easier to learn that shortstop. Partially because it’s an easier position, but also because first base has way more interaction than the other positions. Made for amazing depth. Those games were so deep.

That sounds like the modern way OOTP does it. It has an "experience" rating which serves the same purpose.

That game combines the skills vs positional requirements and then experience at the position. It impacts how good he is, until he learns the position well enough. After a while, it then becomes more subtle and then goes back mostly to skills at max experience.

The older OOTP model had players learn positions by playing players out of position. Based on the ability of the primary position and where he was going, it took more/less time and the new rating might be close to or much lower than the prior rating...if he learned the position at all. This model probably used a system/abstraction like the defensive spectrum.

Either system would be a nice addition to The Show.