Quote:
Originally Posted by sprague
See this more of an issue in historical games. The game rates players only on positions played not possible like fictional.
So a cf who only played cf is 200 there but 0 for lf rf which is not accurate. A fictional outfielder likely has some experience there. So the ai only has raw numbers to look at.
Perhaps the fielding ratings in a 1 or 3 year recalc league should include a small percentage of career as well thus adding more possible position to each player.
|
Seems to me, the better solution is for OOTP to give defense its due and not simply stuff lineups full of the best offensive players available. In most of the OP's examples he makes it clear that there were often several available options with fielding ratings, yet the AI inserted a player with no ratings at the position. WHY? I wonder if the inserted player was a superior offensive choice? The fictional game has more options, but more options often means we get a good bat/horrible defense CF playing SS, over a good defense/poor to average bat SS. I think we all know Ozzie Smith could have played 2B,3B and more than likely all of the outfield positions. We also know he never did so. Personally, I don't see a massive amount of guys playing out of position when I play historical. I clearly don't see enough doing so, to want the game to imitate the fictional one. If that happens, I say we change the name of the game from baseball to Zobrist.