2B and CF Topic

kadpcmdcsb
Posts: 53 (0)
Hall of Famer
17 13 6 71
Prospect
I've always been bothered by the way defensive ratings work in relation to 2B and CF. The current system basically suggests that any average CF would make for a gold glove-caliber 2B (permitting he throws RH), which is, of course, a bit absurd.

My .02 on what the suggested defensive ratings should be in regards to Range/Glove:

2B -- 75/85

CF -- 85/75

This way, you have 2 clearly different sets of ratings and the two positions aren't as interchangeable. Of  course, this would need to pertain to how players are created from this point forward, and would also undoubtedly make a complete mess of the current system for the  foreseeable future, so I don't ever see a  change of this magnitude happening. Still... tossing it out there for the hell of it.



7/28/2010 2:41 PM (edited)
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect
A valid point (a good LF shouldn't be a 2B option).... but sadly, the cows are very much out of the barn.
7/28/2010 12:00 AM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
You could add a defensive rating (or 2) that rated their outfield ability and their infield ability.  A player with 85 range and 80 glove, but poor outfield ability and above average infield ability would then have to play 2nd rather than being available in CF.
7/28/2010 9:38 AM
kadpcmdcsb
Posts: 53 (0)
Hall of Famer
17 13 6 71
Prospect
Posted by mhulshult on 7/28/2010 9:38:00 AM (view original):
You could add a defensive rating (or 2) that rated their outfield ability and their infield ability.  A player with 85 range and 80 glove, but poor outfield ability and above average infield ability would then have to play 2nd rather than being available in CF.
A fine idea indeed! This would also stop crappy corner OF's from being automatically awesome at 1B and crappy 3B from becoming GG corner OF's. Simple, elegant and effective. Let's make it happen!
7/28/2010 2:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Except a lot of owners have signed the slugging LF to 5 years deals knowing he'll be fine as a 1B is the 4th-5th years of the deal.    Or, in my case, that aging 3B because he'll do well in LF in the last year of his deal. 

That said, I wouldn't find it objectionable at all if WifS said "This is happening in 2011.  Plan for it." 
7/28/2010 2:51 PM
kadpcmdcsb
Posts: 53 (0)
Hall of Famer
17 13 6 71
Prospect
I don't necessarily think that a player designated as an OF should automatically be horrid at 1B, but he should be penalized. In other words, a 55-55-50-50 (average LF) should be treated as an average-at-best 1B rather than an automatic GG candidate. Likewise, an average 3B would equate to something like an average to slightly below average RF rather than an automatic defensive star.

If you want to simplify the whole concept, smack an automatic -15/-10/-10/-10 for being "out of prefered position". (I chose -15 for Range due to the suggested rating differences of certain common positional shifts, i.e. LF to 1B, CF to 2B, 3B to COF).

7/28/2010 3:15 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Again, it's a pretty drastic change that will leave more than a few owners with some really bad fielding.   Which will result in some horrid pitching.  Which will result in fatigued pitching.  Which will result in more offense.  Which will result in more homers.   And we know what happens when WifS decides to change the homer engine.   A "small" change on paper has a lot of undesired effects. 

If WifS butchers anything, it's how they handle engine changes in a DYNASTY game.   Right now, I can sign a player who will be with me until November 2011.  Turning him into an albatross isn't good for retention.

7/28/2010 4:04 PM
kadpcmdcsb
Posts: 53 (0)
Hall of Famer
17 13 6 71
Prospect
Yes such tweaks are always tricky in a dynasty game. Furthermore I don't see the OF/IF thing happening for the reason that every single player would need to be manually evaluated to figure out what he is. I don't think there's any inherent programing designating the players "natural" position, and if there in fact is, that could be an even bigger disaster. If the program automatically evaluated based on the suggested position at time of draft, all those "second basemen" who were really cut out for nothing more than LF would suddenly become a lot less useful overnight.
7/28/2010 8:34 PM
mitchrapp
Posts: 807 (0)
Hall of Famer
106 20 14 109
Prospect
If they did something like this, then the 3B or LF who goes over to first should have an opportunity to improve. In MLB, it happens when a player changes positions. How much and/or if they get worse, I don't know. But it should be a possibility.
8/2/2010 5:47 AM
toddcommish
Posts: 5101 (0)
Hall of Famer
520 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/28/2010 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Except a lot of owners have signed the slugging LF to 5 years deals knowing he'll be fine as a 1B is the 4th-5th years of the deal.    Or, in my case, that aging 3B because he'll do well in LF in the last year of his deal. 

That said, I wouldn't find it objectionable at all if WifS said "This is happening in 2011.  Plan for it." 
Realistically, this is how ALL of the HBD changes should be implemented.  This "let's do it now and see what we can screw up" mentality of installing "fixes" and "enhancements" is poor customer service at best, and irresponsible business practice at worst.  This would also give WIS the opportunity to, oh, TEST some of the proposed fixes and find out the end results before releasing their various programming abominations onto the general population.
8/3/2010 6:38 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm pretty sure WifS does TEST their changes.  Unfortunately, the tests are probably ran on teams that are designed the way they intended.  There are no teams capable of winning/losing 120.   None of them have AA pitchers getting 35 BL starts.   The SS aren't strong armed rightfielders.    So the tests work in the "lab" but, when put on the "street", they're a nightmare.
8/3/2010 6:55 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5101 (0)
Hall of Famer
520 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
IF they had any brains, their testing would be done on a cross-section of leagues (not just tailor-made, cookie cutter teams) and simulated over a full season. 

Then they compare the stats in the test league (if they're really smart, they'd show the test stats to league owners to gauge their "countermeasures") to see if the change achieved the targeted goal.
8/3/2010 7:13 PM
tschol
Posts: 10 (0)
Pro
9
Prospect
I've always thought that the AI should assign a primary position for every player and then deduct a little bit all around if the player isn't playing there primary position.  This way a SS could play any OF position, but wouldn't get the full benefit of his defensive skills.  This seems more authentic to real life and acknowledges that experience at a position gives a player nuanced skills that should count for something. 
8/4/2010 10:02 AM
2B and CF Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.