Quote:
Originally Posted by Garlon
With OOTP23 I started a 1947 season with fielding based on current season.
Virgil Stallcup ratings on the 100 scale:
Infield Range: 67
Infield Error: 59
Infield Arm: 59
Turn DP: 61
Position Ratings
Shortstop: 50
Experience at Shortstop: 200
This is exactly the way it is supposed to work.
In order to get a player to learn a new position in the infield, they need to have infield ratings and then need to gain experience at these other positions.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the fielding ratings.
Grady Hatton
Infield Range: 45
Infield Error: 40
Infield Arm: 62
Turn DP: 33
Third Base: 36
Experience at 3B: 200
In 1947, the Reds were the worst defensive team in the NL and the Dodgers were the best in terms of defensive efficiency.
Take a look at their starting position players:
C (Ability/Arm)
Ray Lamanno 53/41
Bruce Edwards 42/48
Infielders (Range/Error/Arm/Turn DP)
1B
Babe Young 27/27/25/24
Jackie Robinson 37/24/34/34
2B
Benny Zientara 54/56/41/57
Eddie Stanky 52/71/33/70
SS
Eddie Miller 64/69/55/53
Pee Wee Reese 72/61/63/75
3B
Grady Hatton 45/40/62/33
Spider Jorgensen 48/45/64/50
Outfield (Range/Error/Arm)
LF
Augie Galan 44/58/15
Pete Reser 66/55/50
CF
Bert Haas 70/49/50
Carl Furillo 94/56/66
RF
Frank Baumholtz 46/51/69
Dixie Walker 42/36/38
Defensively, the Reds have an edge at C and RF, but the Dodgers have an advantage at 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, and CF.
Reds bench with at least 100 innings at a position:
C: Ray Mueller 75/67
IF: Boby Adams 48/50/30/56
IF: Kermit Wahl 48/46/64/42
OF: Eddie Lukon 47/44/50
OF: Tommy Tatum 70/52/50
OF: Clyde Volmer 76/58/44
Dodgers bench with at least 100 innings at a position:
C: Gil Hodges 44/47
IF: Cookie Lavagetto 47/47/63/43
IF: Stan Rojek 66/60/57/62
OF: Arky Vaughan 47/45/50
OF: Duke Snider 68/57/46
OF: Al Gionfriddo 47/46/50
With real historical transactions and lineups, Stallcup (real 2 innings at SS) played 23.1 innings at SS and Hatton (real 1170 innings at 3B) played 1187 innings at 3B, but neither played any other position.
|
Not playing the game using real transactions and lineups. 5 year recalc, development off. 54/67 for hitters, 17/14 pitchers. I turned coaching off. Retire according to history was on, but I don't know why that would matter. Started league and watched a few games.
Look at my examples from the Brooklyn game. The idea that Brooklyn had zero options can be dismissed by simply realizing the two outfielders playing out of position Walker in LF and Reiser in RF could just swap positions and be playing positions they are rated to play. Vaughn gets played at 1B without a rating for the position, but has ratings to play LF and 3b. Jackie Robinson was not tired and had 1B ratings. So, it's not a matter of the Dodgers not having options when they played these guys out of position. It's the game trying to be too cute, by teaching the world to sing in the form of everyone should be able to play every position.
I love the fact that the game doesn't freeze up and say start over if the team doesn't have an option at a position. I would much rather it jam a non qualified player into the position. But, that's not what's happening here. I'm seeing guys playing out of position just for the sake of doing so. If ratings mean nothing and a red 1 is just as good as a green 60, then I guess this doesn't matter, but it sure has a video game feel to it.
As for your real transaction/real lineups example. Of course, Stallcup and Hatton didn't play out position. OOTP wasn't creating the lineups. My complaints above weren't that Stallcup or Hatton were being used at some point in a game and being inserted in positions they did not play.
My complaint is the game is starting guys sometimes on pretty regular basis at positions they never played and with horrible ratings. It's like the regular season is an extended version of spring training.
I reinstalled 22 the other night and it took me less than a handful of games to see players out of position. Maybe I need I should try 21