Does playing players at their secondary position cause an attribute deduction?

[Madden's Jowels]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

You missed the entire point of my post, then.

I got your point, and didn't agree with that either, but decided to just move on rather than commenting on it. But I'll go ahead...

You say you don't want a numerical representation of the hit that fielders take by playing out of position in the game... well, it already is in the game. It's 20% for secondary position or 40% for out of position, reduced fielding ratings. That's a hard and fast numerical law written into the code. So all this other guy was asking is that instead of making us whip out our calculators... "78 fielding... times .6... 46.8 fielding. OK on to arm strength... 82 arm strength, times .6..." instead of that, they might as well just put the damn numbers on the screen for us. But as for not wanting fielding struggles represented numerically, that's something that's already there I'm afraid.

[Bobhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madden's Jowels

I got your point, and didn't agree with that either, but decided to just move on rather than commenting on it. But I'll go ahead... You say you don't want a numerical representation of the hit that fielders take by playing out of position in the game... well, it already is in the game. It's 20% for secondary position or 40% for out of position, reduced fielding ratings. That's a hard and fast numerical law written into the code. So all this other guy was asking is that instead of making us whip out our calculators... "78 fielding... times .6... 46.8 fielding. OK on to arm strength... 82 arm strength, times .6..." instead of that, they might as well just put the damn numbers on the screen for us. But as for not wanting fielding struggles represented numerically, that's something that's already there I'm afraid.

But in its current state, I can easily ignore all that. I don't think those 20%/40% numbers are explicitly listed IN the game (I haven't looked, so maybe I'm wrong). All I have to do is not think about them (and I'm a man, so I'm pretty good at not thinking about something), and I will never ever see them. I have the luxury of maintaining my preference,which is to not know exactly to what degree decision X affects player Y. It takes away from the illusion of reality and variability that should come with a simulation of a real-life sport.

If we were given a straight-up attribute that showed "current" fielding abilities, based on circumstances like position, it would completely remove this dynamic I describe, and turn a fascinating element of managerial analysis into a simple 2nd grade math problem.

[Madden's Jowels]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

But in its current state, I can easily ignore all that. I don't think those 20%/40% numbers are explicitly listed IN the game (I haven't looked, so maybe I'm wrong). All I have to do is not think about them (and I'm a man, so I'm pretty good at not thinking about something), and I will never ever see them. I have the luxury of maintaining my preference,which is to not know exactly to what degree decision X affects player Y. It takes away from the illusion of reality and variability that should come with a simulation of a real-life sport. If we were given a straight-up attribute that showed "current" fielding abilities, based on circumstances like position, it would completely remove this dynamic I describe, and turn a fascinating element of managerial analysis into a simple 2nd grade math problem.

I'm half with you.

I think it would be cool if the Fielding, Reaction, Arm Strength and Arm Accuracy ratings stood on their own wherever you put a player. That's most of the strategy when it comes to deciding where a player plays in the field anyway. Really strong arm, gets good jump on the ball and field fly balls well, but not great top-end speed? Put him in right field. Great reaction, instincts and glove, but weak arm? Second base. I think an arbitrary reduction is ridiculous. Should there be an adjustment period or something? Sure, but it should be 10% at the most and only last for a certain period. Other than that, let the ratings you gave the players mean something.

BUT, if they're going to make this arbitrary 20% or 40% reduction part of the game, just show me the number.

[seafoamgreen]

I'm also curious about how this is calculated, specifically as it applies to OF positions. Putting an RF in LF shouldn't have a 20% impact IMO though I understand that the punishment is probably to curb people getting to field an Andre Dawson and an Al Kaline with no consequences.

[beantownbruins]

There should be some sort of bonus for being a utility player tho. A guy like Brock Holt can move to any position on the diamond and still be a great fielder. Certain guys like that, although it is a small number of people, should not be penalized for playing "secondary" positions. Although I have no idea how that would be implemented into the game...

[seafoamgreen]

Quote: Originally Posted by beantownbruins

There should be some sort of bonus for being a utility player tho. A guy like Brock Holt can move to any position on the diamond and still be a great fielder. Certain guys like that, although it is a small number of people, should not be penalized for playing "secondary" positions. Although I have no idea how that would be implemented into the game...

MVP used to have a position value called UTIL (I remember Jose Macias had that tag, which was accurate). That would be interesting- especially if OF-UTIL and IF-UTIL and SUPER-UTIL were all options for players like Emilio Bonifacio. A blanket nerfing doesn't appropriately address the value of players like that.

[Moonripple]

High Heat had the option to "train" a player. Stick a guy at a new position long enough and it eventually becomes a secondary or even primary position. I'd like to see something like that in this game, but it shouldn't be an automatic success. Will Yasmany Tomas be success at 3B, for example? I think the jury is still out.

[StevenSD]

I didn't know of this penalty... which makes me glad that Cameron Maybin didn't have to field any ground balls at second base when my starter needed a rest...