AI not caring about defense at all?

[DennisDenver]

I just got my save up and running one thing I am noticing is the AI doesn't seem to even remotely care about defense mostly in the outfield. I simmed 50 years into the future so I don't know if it is a fluke but.

Biggest example I got is Dodgers who have signed massive amount of talent. They can hit a ball but their main Right Fielder is playing position daily with defense ability in Right field is 3.

I could overlook this but also

Center field? 3
2nd base? 8
1st base? 5

I thought maybe it was just someone didn't care about all about defense and purely offense running team nope. Same thing with teams with money. Not as bad of a degree as Dodgers but seeing 3 to 8 in defense is common.

Also no one is injured. It was like this at opening of season with high end teams.

I never seen this before in OOTP. I've seen it in injuries but never just base standard season.

Edit: I turned 100% scouting on and used 1 to 20 scale. Every team that spends money is like this. St Louis (Who I beef up) I am currently playing has 4 players from 3 to 8 defense (5th is 9). Their entire starting roster is full of high offense players and they should all be DH/1st base but... The are in the outfield...

Again, teams who are lower market teams aren't at as bad. It's like AI is like "YES! 30 million a year for this 3 at defense center field for 6 years! Great idea!"

Any idea what is up here? I am using an EXPANSION team and looks like I am going to make it to play offs..

[Brad K]

I suggest the possibility that the player's defense declined after they were signed.

[SirMichaelJordan]

In the past, fielding ratings were often overrated. It was expected to find great defensive players who can also hit so that is why you didnt see it in the past. Player development has been tuned.

You’re going to see quite a few low rated SS & CF defensive ratings that are starting because these are the hardest positions.

Also, teams prioritize offense over defense, so they are unlikely to start a poor-hitting corner outfielder just for his defensive skills unless the fielding ability is the deciding factor and the hitters are somewhat equal.

Additionally, we usually observe that big money teams value offensive performance more than defensive capabilities.

[DennisDenver]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

In the past, fielding ratings were often overrated. It was expected to find great defensive players who can also hit so that is why you didnt see it in the past. Player development has been tuned.

Also, teams prioritize offense over defense, so they are unlikely to start a poor-hitting corner outfielder just for his defensive skills unless the fielding ability is the deciding factor and the hitters are somewhat equal.

Additionally, we usually observe that big money teams value offensive performance more than defensive capabilities.

Is there any way to reset this back to 2025 settings? All one has to do is focus on pitching/defense and you got winning team with bunch of people who hit 230-250. With my expansion team since I knew I was not going to pick up no offense players I went high on pitching and defense and I am ripping the entire division up with scrubs no one wanted.

I get they are focusing on offense but we got players who literally can't play their position. Treating every position as DH spot has made things way way too easy and not sure how to fix it to make it fun. Unless I decide to ignore who plays what position also

"Here first baseman who is going to hit .270 and 30 home runs but he can only play first base. Let's just put him in...Oh I dunno.. Centerfield"

That doesn't make sense. There are players who literally don't play the position at all and will never be able to play position due to they have zero skill in that position.

(Just woke up not attacking you btw I just don't get this design decision)

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by DennisDenver

Is there any way to reset this back to 2025 settings? All one has to do is focus on pitching/defense and you got winning team with bunch of people who hit 230-250.

It has made things...bit easy :/

You can play around with the fielding PCM’s

[Bobfather]

Can you try locking them into a position they have a better rating at?

[DennisDenver]

Originally Posted by Bobfather

Can you try locking them into a position they have a better rating at?

I'm sure you could but that's a lot of work to keep up with. Since seems to be game wide it would be something would have to stay vigilant on with injuries and such.

Reds fan here and as much as I loved Joey Votto I would have traded him before putting him in CF/RF/SS. The AI will have absolutely no problems doing so and will pay heavy cost for doing so.

With such focus on offense and almost none to defense to this degree the only thing stopping games from going 20,30, even 40 runs per game is league totals lock.

It's almost like giant season of home run derby.

I'm just going back to last years version. It's just way too unrealistic for me.

This change was huge step back hopefully they rethink it next years version. I believe it is too wide spread in the game to be patched.

But! Thanks everyone for help. Just not what I am looking for in baseball sim

If one plays historical though I am sure it would be fine.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by DennisDenver

I'm sure you could but that's a lot of work to keep up with. Since seems to be game wide it would be something would have to stay vigilant on with injuries and such.

Reds fan here and as much as I loved Joey Votto I would have traded him before putting him in CF/RF/SS. The AI will have absolutely no problems doing so and will pay heavy cost for doing so.

With such focus on offense and almost none to defense to this degree the only thing stopping games from going 20,30, even 40 runs per game is league totals lock.

It's almost like giant season of home run derby.

I'm just going back to last years version. It's just way too unrealistic for me.

This change was huge step back hopefully they rethink it next years version. I believe it is too wide spread in the game to be patched.

But! Thanks everyone for help. Just not what I am looking for in baseball sim

If one plays historical though I am sure it would be fine.

If you are seeing a Joey Votto type playing SS and CF then I suggest you report this as a bug. Being hyperbolic doesn’t help the game. Votto was a 1basemen and didn’t have much fielding ratings (which are different than defensive rating at a position). I can assure you that the 3 rated CF is probably the best OF on said team because he has great defensive ratings. It’s just it is not as common to see elite fielding players from majority of the player pool as in the past so you will see more average than elite.

[Bobfather]

What ratings scale are you using?

[DennisDenver]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

If you are seeing a Joey Votto type playing SS and CF then I suggest you report this as a bug. Being hyperbolic doesn’t help the game. Votto was a 1basemen and didn’t have much fielding ratings (which are different than defensive rating at a position). I can assure you that the 3 rated CF is probably the best OF on said team because he has great defensive ratings. It’s just it is not as common to see elite fielding players from majority of the player pool as in the past so you will see more average than elite.

I don't mean come across hyperbolic I legit didn't know if it was intended. The answers I got was it was readjusted this year and what I seen was intended then that lead me to what responded.

I am going to just grab a random larger market team (100% scouting on and going to use 1 to 20 system). This is a sim 25 years into the future so 2050.

I randomly grabbed Houston Astros since they are doing well in my simulation. I will put in capped if the defense can go no higher

Starting line up is.

1. 2nd base-Defense 10 (Can go to 11)
2. SS-Defense 8 (capped)
3. 1st base-Defense 15 (capped)
4. Catcher-Defense 7 (Capped)
5. 3rd base-Defense 8 (Capped)
6. RF-Defense 5 (Capped)
7. DH- Who has 10 in right field, 8 in Center, 13 in left... but is playing DH
8. LF-12 (capped)
9. CF-7 (capped)

It's like this for every single team. This is actually "good" which might be why they are winning. The DH I never noticed until now. He is 31 years old, normal injury proneness, and why they don't put him in a position instead DH i have no idea

Like said though Houston is one of the better ones. I just checked L.A. and they are 14 (Left field) , 0 (yes, zero at CF), 4, 3, 7, 9, 5, DH, 7, 17 (first base)


If it is a bug that's cool I am actually glad to hear it and will send them the save.

[highandoutside]

I just imported my fictional league, so I don’t have much to report, but the numbers from the OP are curious. I hope others who have advanced ahead in years with this version will chime in

[DennisDenver]

I did some toying around and I ran several simulations to see if I could reproduce the issue and every single time I was. Please, don't take this as complaining I want to see the game do well.

Anyway any of you can reproduce what I have found. Maybe it is somehow in my game.

Simply just start a standard game, set evolution off (that is only change I made other than 100% scouting and way positions skill being shown on a 1 to 20 scale for clarity), and sim every 5 years. About 15 years out look at your CF/RF/SS (these are most glaring though all positions are effected). At 15 years you will start to notice as real players retire they are replaced by players who simply cannot play their position. 15 years is around starting point.

Sim 5 more years (20 total) and then it clearly starts to happen. Sim 5 more years (25 combined) you should have exact same problem I am having.

If anyone wants to test it have at it.

My personal results constantly show that players are horrible at playing their position. We literally have people on opening day playing position whose skill at that position is "-" (zero) and can never ever get better at position.

Again, not complaining it just seems easy for others to reproduce if you would like.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by DennisDenver

I did some toying around and I ran several simulations to see if I could reproduce the issue and every single time I was. Please, don't take this as complaining I want to see the game do well.

Anyway any of you can reproduce what I have found. Maybe it is somehow in my game.

Simply just start a standard game, set evolution off (that is only change I made other than 100% scouting and way positions skill being shown on a 1 to 20 scale for clarity), and sim every 5 years. About 15 years out look at your CF/RF/SS (these are most glaring though all positions are effected). At 15 years you will start to notice as real players retire they are replaced by players who simply cannot play their position. 15 years is around starting point.

Sim 5 more years (20 total) and then it clearly starts to happen. Sim 5 more years (25 combined) you should have exact same problem I am having.

If anyone wants to test it have at it.

My personal results constantly show that players are horrible at playing their position. We literally have people on opening day playing position whose skill at that position is "-" (zero) and can never ever get better at position.

Again, not complaining it just seems easy for others to reproduce if you would like.

This is from the year 2470. This Dodger team is a rebuilding team with many mid-level players. The only player under a 10 DEF (1-20 scale) rating is an SS with a 40 OVR. This is opening day, by the way.

Have you reported it as a bug and uploaded a save?

[DennisDenver]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

This is from the year 2470. This Dodger team is a rebuilding team with many mid-level players. The only player under a 10 DEF (1-20 scale) rating is an SS with a 40 OVR. This is opening day, by the way.

Have you reported it as a bug and uploaded a save?

I am getting ready to upload several saves to them. I been toying with it all morning. I just ran a save and it actually did not happen. I have absolutely no idea why. It averaged out perfectly.

I got 6 saves that I would say is "flawed" but this last one was not. Again changed nothing. Not sure what is up.

Edit: Also thanks for running that! If you could take a look at the teams who are currently in win mode. Those are ones in the "flawed" saves where it really stands out. Some of rebuild teams are average (10 of 20) but that is generally because they have younger players from what I could observe. Again though last sim it didn't happen. Quite confusing. Maybe they can make sense of it.

Ok time to upload.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by DennisDenver

I am getting ready to upload several saves to them. I been toying with it all morning. I just ran a save and it actually did not happen. I have absolutely no idea why. It averaged out perfectly.

I got 6 saves that I would say is "flawed" but this last one was not. Again changed nothing. Not sure what is up.

Edit: Also thanks for running that! If you could take a look at the teams who are currently in win mode. Those are ones in the "flawed" saves where it really stands out. Some of rebuild teams are average (10 of 20) but that is generally because they have younger players from what I could observe. Again though last sim it didn't happen. Quite confusing. Maybe they can make sense of it.

Ok time to upload.

Here are the Mets in Win Now mode. The 7 DEF rated 3B is also a 70 OVR player.

[LansdowneSt]

Here are the fielding stats at CF with an added column of positional rating. I agree with the OP, that something is wrong. I also added the same list sorted by positional rating. There are ample good CFs not playing - but their hitting ratings are terrible. I'd look at player creation assumptions as maybe not enough (in the AI's determination) "credible" CFs with both decent hitting and playable defense are being created.

This was an MLB standard game, 100% scouting, no evolution. 1-100 rating scale. Simmed 21 years.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Here are the fielding stats at CF with an added column of positional rating. I agree with the OP, that something is wrong. I also added the same list sorted by positional rating. There are ample good CFs not playing - but their hitting ratings are terrible. I'd look at player creation assumptions as maybe not enough (in the AI's determination) "credible" CFs with both decent hitting and playable defense are being created.

This was an MLB standard game, 100% scouting, no evolution. 1-100 rating scale. Simmed 21 years.

Define playable defense.

There is a rarity of great-hitting CFs who also have an elite glove in real life. I was expecting a bunch of CFs with -20 ZR.

Average is not terrible.

Jeter was an average fielding SS....

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Define playable defense.

There is a rarity of great-hitting CFs who also have an elite glove in real life. I was expecting a bunch of CFs with -20 ZR.

Average is not terrible.

Jeter was an average fielding SS....

Average is terrible if the baseline is very, very low. Average is relative.

On 100% scouting, 1-100 scale, the 14, 19, 27, 1 (One!) should never have sniffed that many games in CF imo. Not with as many minor leagues as are in a Standard game.

fwiw, here at the end of the 2025 sim season is the same CF fielding stats sorted by IP and with positional rating shown for comparison to the out years. Same parameters. 100% scouting (set & rescouted at outset) and evolution off.

[DennisDenver]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Here are the fielding stats at CF with an added column of positional rating. I agree with the OP, that something is wrong. I also added the same list sorted by positional rating. There are ample good CFs not playing - but their hitting ratings are terrible. I'd look at player creation assumptions as maybe not enough (in the AI's determination) "credible" CFs with both decent hitting and playable defense are being created.

This was an MLB standard game, 100% scouting, no evolution. 1-100 rating scale. Simmed 21 years.

That's what I am running into perfectly. I notice the same thing will begin to happen in next 5 year period (Assuming started modern times 2045 into 2050). It begins with CF around 2040/2045, moves into RF as a problem in 2045/2050, 2050 that creeps into SS. Afterwards it can go anywhere (but flows down). Only decent fielding is lucky 3rd baseman who has good arm, 1st base (of course). Those generally stay solid.

Another thing notice I mentioned is AI has starting line of 9 players the AI puts them in positioning that doesn't make sense.

Example of this talked about with my DH having higher fielding skills than 3 of my position players though they are healthy, not injury prone. Instead of moving DH to say right field and making right fielder DH they just keep them in DH. I see this constantly. Another example shifting Left Fielder with higher skill than right fielder and the right fielder having equal skill to the left fielder in left field.

What can't figure out is why last simulation everything was fine as far as I can tell.

Also ran it with injuries on low to see if that helped and honestly it just made it worse since older players had lost their ability to field but could still hit. Then being put in fielding position.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Average is terrible if the baseline is very, very low. Average is relative.

On 100% scouting, 1-100 scale, the 14, 19, 27, 1 (One!) should never have sniffed that many games in CF imo. Not with as many minor leagues as are in a Standard game.

fwiw, here at the end of the 2025 sim season is the same CF fielding stats sorted by IP and with positional rating shown for comparison to the out years. Same parameters. 100% scouting (set & rescouted at outset) and evolution off.

Hand-created players and the game-generated players aren't a 1:1 comparison.

Also, the players in question don't have terrible fielding stats relative to their DEF ratings. The 1 only has a -11.9 ZR. The OP said players like him were holding the team back, and it's easy to score a lot of runs on AI teams because they can't field...

FWIW, I simmed to the break and adjusted to a 1-100 scale... I don't see there issue.

We can't argue that those players in question shouldn't have that many starts if we don't even know who else is available on the team.

What does the 1 DEF CF batting ratings look like? Plenty of real-life examples of teams sacrificing a -12 ZR CF in favor of him getting on base. Can the best defensive CF on the team hit at the MLB level?