 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Fix the defensive position of Draftees
tworoosters
Here are some examples from the upcoming BHL draft pool:
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726872]Cicotte[/url] a 23 year old 3B with a D- arm and D range. Yeah D- arm at 23 just screams out 3B doesn't it .
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726878]Steele[/url] a soon to be 22 year old SS with D range.
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726886]Johnson[/url] a 22 year old CF with a D- arm and C- range. Actually his bad arm doesn't really matter because with C- range in CF he won't get to many balls to make throwing errors anyway.
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726965]Flannery[/url] a SS candidate with D+ range to match his D- arm. I know when I played we always moved the slow guys with bad arms to SS so I guess this makes sense.
At least Flannery has a good bet to be a better SS than [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726897]Groh[/url] who is playing SS at age 20 with his D- range and D arm.
Exactly what level of baseball is a 20 year old who has that skill set playing shortstop ?
In the dinosaur days of SIM it didn't matter because there was no development penalty to move positions at the major league level but now I either give up improves or spend a year of minor league positional changes to move a player from somewhere he never should have been in the first place.
Honestly, I like a lot about the SIM, or I wouldn't still be paying money to do it, but this kind of stuff drives me crazy.
Either we need to just eliminate defense completely or do something to make it logical and relevant, and starting by not having 20 year old SS with D- range and D arms seems simple enough to me.
Fix the defensive position of Draftees
March 27, 2012 at 03:04AM View BBCode
We've talked about this stuff forever, we made a minimum arm requirement for catchers so why not expand it to other positions.Here are some examples from the upcoming BHL draft pool:
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726872]Cicotte[/url] a 23 year old 3B with a D- arm and D range. Yeah D- arm at 23 just screams out 3B doesn't it .
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726878]Steele[/url] a soon to be 22 year old SS with D range.
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726886]Johnson[/url] a 22 year old CF with a D- arm and C- range. Actually his bad arm doesn't really matter because with C- range in CF he won't get to many balls to make throwing errors anyway.
[url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726965]Flannery[/url] a SS candidate with D+ range to match his D- arm. I know when I played we always moved the slow guys with bad arms to SS so I guess this makes sense.
At least Flannery has a good bet to be a better SS than [url=http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?mode=player&playername=nobody&id=9726897]Groh[/url] who is playing SS at age 20 with his D- range and D arm.
Exactly what level of baseball is a 20 year old who has that skill set playing shortstop ?
In the dinosaur days of SIM it didn't matter because there was no development penalty to move positions at the major league level but now I either give up improves or spend a year of minor league positional changes to move a player from somewhere he never should have been in the first place.
Honestly, I like a lot about the SIM, or I wouldn't still be paying money to do it, but this kind of stuff drives me crazy.
Either we need to just eliminate defense completely or do something to make it logical and relevant, and starting by not having 20 year old SS with D- range and D arms seems simple enough to me.
dirtdevil
March 27, 2012 at 03:52AM View BBCode
i think the defence on draftees is broken in general, to be honest. i don't really see anyone with competent defensive skills in the drafts at all.
CaseyStengel
March 27, 2012 at 02:44PM View BBCode
Hear! Hear! The kind of defensive skills I see in the draft are worse than on my son's little league team... when he was 10 years old.
redcped
But I do wonder if there's a way to make a one-time switch with no penalty for draftees (aside from making them catchers).
If I draft a 3B with horrible defense, why can't I automatically make him into a LF right now?
That might be easier than trying to get their natural position to make sense all the time.
March 27, 2012 at 05:20PM View BBCode
Defense can improve like crazy with a teen prospect, so I'm not deeply concerned about the general talent level.But I do wonder if there's a way to make a one-time switch with no penalty for draftees (aside from making them catchers).
If I draft a 3B with horrible defense, why can't I automatically make him into a LF right now?
That might be easier than trying to get their natural position to make sense all the time.
paulcaraccio
There are "prospects" in every draft class that can't hit or run very well either...should we just make everyone good at everything?
March 27, 2012 at 06:02PM View BBCode
i like red's idea, if anything, but i dont see any problems here. I don't think everyone who plays the infield should automatically be an awesome defender.There are "prospects" in every draft class that can't hit or run very well either...should we just make everyone good at everything?
tworoosters
I don't think everyone should automatically be awesome anything I just defy you to find me a major college SS, ie: age 20, who projects as a 1st or 2nd round draft pick who has D level range and arm .
What about a 23 year old draftee, where is he coming from anyway, is he finishing up his masters degree before turning pro ?, at 3B who can't throw the ball across the infield.
The bottom line is guys with D level range and arm do not play SS or 2B or CF or any other key defensive position above American Legion level so why are they in the draft pool at those positions.
The guys I mentioned above will all go in the first 3 rounds of the BHL draft, they are not bottom of the barrel players who will never see the light of day and their skill sets don't come close to fitting their defensive positions.
March 27, 2012 at 06:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by paulcaraccio
i like red's idea, if anything, but i dont see any problems here. I don't think everyone who plays the infield should automatically be an awesome defender.
There are "prospects" in every draft class that can't hit or run very well either...should we just make everyone good at everything?
I don't think everyone should automatically be awesome anything I just defy you to find me a major college SS, ie: age 20, who projects as a 1st or 2nd round draft pick who has D level range and arm .
What about a 23 year old draftee, where is he coming from anyway, is he finishing up his masters degree before turning pro ?, at 3B who can't throw the ball across the infield.
The bottom line is guys with D level range and arm do not play SS or 2B or CF or any other key defensive position above American Legion level so why are they in the draft pool at those positions.
The guys I mentioned above will all go in the first 3 rounds of the BHL draft, they are not bottom of the barrel players who will never see the light of day and their skill sets don't come close to fitting their defensive positions.
jchoopz
He is coming from the Cuban pro leagues. And he is really 26, not 23.
In all seriousness I do agree. I think it somewhat ties into the whole power-speed-range relationship problem. You see a lot of things that you just don't see in real life.
For example, in SimD you see a ton of A+ range first baseman. Has anyone ever seen an A+ range 1B in real baseball? Keep in mind that's A+ range overall, carrying over to any other position, not just A+ range relative to other 1B. You don't, because 1B is a position where you can have a slow guy with a powerful bat without losing a ton in the field (plus it is an advantage to be tall at 1B, and there is an inverse correlation to height and speed).
That doesn't carry over to SimD though because there is 0 relationship between power, speed, and range. You can have BOTH a power bat and a great defender, so there often times is no need to sacrifice. It's kind of crazy that the same skillset is required for both CF and 1B, two drastically different positions.
March 28, 2012 at 05:20PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
What about a 23 year old draftee, where is he coming from anyway
He is coming from the Cuban pro leagues. And he is really 26, not 23.
In all seriousness I do agree. I think it somewhat ties into the whole power-speed-range relationship problem. You see a lot of things that you just don't see in real life.
For example, in SimD you see a ton of A+ range first baseman. Has anyone ever seen an A+ range 1B in real baseball? Keep in mind that's A+ range overall, carrying over to any other position, not just A+ range relative to other 1B. You don't, because 1B is a position where you can have a slow guy with a powerful bat without losing a ton in the field (plus it is an advantage to be tall at 1B, and there is an inverse correlation to height and speed).
That doesn't carry over to SimD though because there is 0 relationship between power, speed, and range. You can have BOTH a power bat and a great defender, so there often times is no need to sacrifice. It's kind of crazy that the same skillset is required for both CF and 1B, two drastically different positions.
dirtdevil
i have always thought that range and arm should be position dependent. that an A+ range 1B is just that, an A+ range 1B. he should be something like D+ range at SS.
March 28, 2012 at 05:35PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jchoopz
For example, in SimD you see a ton of A+ range first baseman. Has anyone ever seen an A+ range 1B in real baseball? Keep in mind that's A+ range overall, carrying over to any other position, not just A+ range relative to other 1B. You don't, because 1B is a position where you can have a slow guy with a powerful bat without losing a ton in the field (plus it is an advantage to be tall at 1B, and there is an inverse correlation to height and speed).
i have always thought that range and arm should be position dependent. that an A+ range 1B is just that, an A+ range 1B. he should be something like D+ range at SS.
jchoopz
I would be fine with this. I think it could create problems in unique situations, but overall it is much better. For example, what range do you give a great defensive utility IF? If he is, lets say A- range at shortstop, and is versatile enough to play any IF position, what happens when he plays at 1B? Shouldn't he be better than an A+ range 1B? But how does that get coded in? I don't think I'm being very clear, but hopefully you understand what I mean
March 28, 2012 at 05:43PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by jchoopz
For example, in SimD you see a ton of A+ range first baseman. Has anyone ever seen an A+ range 1B in real baseball? Keep in mind that's A+ range overall, carrying over to any other position, not just A+ range relative to other 1B. You don't, because 1B is a position where you can have a slow guy with a powerful bat without losing a ton in the field (plus it is an advantage to be tall at 1B, and there is an inverse correlation to height and speed).
i have always thought that range and arm should be position dependent. that an A+ range 1B is just that, an A+ range 1B. he should be something like D+ range at SS.
I would be fine with this. I think it could create problems in unique situations, but overall it is much better. For example, what range do you give a great defensive utility IF? If he is, lets say A- range at shortstop, and is versatile enough to play any IF position, what happens when he plays at 1B? Shouldn't he be better than an A+ range 1B? But how does that get coded in? I don't think I'm being very clear, but hopefully you understand what I mean
dirtdevil
he shouldn't really, no. utility players don't really code well in general but to me a utility IF should be solid at first defensively but not among the best to play the position. don't forget that in SD "range" means more than it does when we use the term in real life. here it's about everything related to catching the ball defensively- actual range in the field, positioning, skill with the glove, the ability to dig a ball out of the dirt on a bad throw, leaping ability, relfelxes on the corner on a line drive, etc. a truly top defensive 1B (or 3B or 2B) should be better at their position that a utility guy who plays several positions well but none full-time.
March 28, 2012 at 06:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jchoopz
If he is, lets say A- range at shortstop, and is versatile enough to play any IF position, what happens when he plays at 1B? Shouldn't he be better than an A+ range 1B? But how does that get coded in? I don't think I'm being very clear, but hopefully you understand what I mean
he shouldn't really, no. utility players don't really code well in general but to me a utility IF should be solid at first defensively but not among the best to play the position. don't forget that in SD "range" means more than it does when we use the term in real life. here it's about everything related to catching the ball defensively- actual range in the field, positioning, skill with the glove, the ability to dig a ball out of the dirt on a bad throw, leaping ability, relfelxes on the corner on a line drive, etc. a truly top defensive 1B (or 3B or 2B) should be better at their position that a utility guy who plays several positions well but none full-time.
redcped
So a guy with B range makes a fine 1B but a mediocre SS.
This would mean that an A+ guy used at 1B would just be overkill, as he will get to only a few more balls than a B+ guy would.
March 28, 2012 at 06:05PM View BBCode
It makes more sense to me that range is absolute.So a guy with B range makes a fine 1B but a mediocre SS.
This would mean that an A+ guy used at 1B would just be overkill, as he will get to only a few more balls than a B+ guy would.
dirtdevil
March 28, 2012 at 06:11PM View BBCode
red, i can absolutely see why someone would feel that way. i guess it's just another way of saying the same thing. my main issue with doing it that way though is that is leads to some silly position switches. an A+ range catcher should just not be able to play SS or CF with the same level of skill and right now, he can. having the defensive ablities position dependent removes that issue. it may well creat other ones, maybe.
redcped
Any improvement that can eliminate the silly switches and give the grade a real meaning would be welcome.
March 28, 2012 at 07:38PM View BBCode
Without knowing how the creation code works (or, really, the range code), I can just say I agree with the concerns.Any improvement that can eliminate the silly switches and give the grade a real meaning would be welcome.
jchoopz
Well that is kind of where the percentages at certain positions should come into play (if you fix the problem originally mentioned of players being assigned stupid positions, then you can make learning other positions much more strict). But anyways, utility guys who are good at lots of positions but great at none wasn't really my point. I'll use a different example, and extreme one, to kind of make the point I intended.
Let's say you are set long term with perennial all-stars at SS, 2B, and 3B. You have an aging veteran at 1B and project a hole there is a couple of years, so you decide to train you A+ range SS prospect to play 1B and dedicate 3 years to that, so the guy really understands how to play the position. If you were to do this in real life, the guy would put up the best defensive 1B statistics you have ever seen. He would be significantly better than what you would set in the code as a max for a 1B. As redcped, this would be overkill, and the benefits you see defensively would not outweigh having some weak powered SS replacing a power 1B, but you could theoretically do it. Again, this is extreme, but there are more realistic examples as well, such as a SS or 2B moving to 3B.
This is kind of what I agree with, mainly because it makes things easier when you allow guys to change positions. I would have no problem with just capping guys at max when changing to an easier position, so I'm not at all trying to say I'm against individual position grades (it's still a huge upgrade), I just think absolute ones are better.
[Edited on 3-28-2012 by jchoopz]
March 28, 2012 at 08:14PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by jchoopz
If he is, lets say A- range at shortstop, and is versatile enough to play any IF position, what happens when he plays at 1B? Shouldn't he be better than an A+ range 1B? But how does that get coded in? I don't think I'm being very clear, but hopefully you understand what I mean
he shouldn't really, no. utility players don't really code well in general but to me a utility IF should be solid at first defensively but not among the best to play the position. don't forget that in SD "range" means more than it does when we use the term in real life. here it's about everything related to catching the ball defensively- actual range in the field, positioning, skill with the glove, the ability to dig a ball out of the dirt on a bad throw, leaping ability, relfelxes on the corner on a line drive, etc. a truly top defensive 1B (or 3B or 2B) should be better at their position that a utility guy who plays several positions well but none full-time.
Well that is kind of where the percentages at certain positions should come into play (if you fix the problem originally mentioned of players being assigned stupid positions, then you can make learning other positions much more strict). But anyways, utility guys who are good at lots of positions but great at none wasn't really my point. I'll use a different example, and extreme one, to kind of make the point I intended.
Let's say you are set long term with perennial all-stars at SS, 2B, and 3B. You have an aging veteran at 1B and project a hole there is a couple of years, so you decide to train you A+ range SS prospect to play 1B and dedicate 3 years to that, so the guy really understands how to play the position. If you were to do this in real life, the guy would put up the best defensive 1B statistics you have ever seen. He would be significantly better than what you would set in the code as a max for a 1B. As redcped, this would be overkill, and the benefits you see defensively would not outweigh having some weak powered SS replacing a power 1B, but you could theoretically do it. Again, this is extreme, but there are more realistic examples as well, such as a SS or 2B moving to 3B.
Originally posted by redcped
It makes more sense to me that range is absolute.
So a guy with B range makes a fine 1B but a mediocre SS.
This is kind of what I agree with, mainly because it makes things easier when you allow guys to change positions. I would have no problem with just capping guys at max when changing to an easier position, so I'm not at all trying to say I'm against individual position grades (it's still a huge upgrade), I just think absolute ones are better.
[Edited on 3-28-2012 by jchoopz]
tm4559
what does it mean, "just not be able to play SS or CF with the same level of skill and right now, he can."?
does it mean it has the same reduction in skill applied, so, its 10% or whatever of a regular ss or cf? it is still horrible. if you use it at ss, it is more damaging than in cf because it attempts more defensive plays.
(also, i assume the logic applies to catchers, or players of whatever stripe, at any point on the range spectrum).
also, a shortstop, say, with A+ range but a zero rating at 1b will not be as good as the 1b with A+ range will it? there are out of position penalties applied. the A+ range first baseman would make more plus plays and less errors in a full season, than, say, a theoretical A+ range shortstop that never gained any rating at 1b, just say it couldn't, for whatever reason, or imagine 162 games played at 1b by 162 different shorstops that played one game each, and each one had a zero rating at 1b. is this not true?
[Edited on 3-28-2012 by tm4559]
March 28, 2012 at 08:15PM View BBCode
can i see this A+ range catcher? because i have never seen one, unless it was converted from some other position.what does it mean, "just not be able to play SS or CF with the same level of skill and right now, he can."?
does it mean it has the same reduction in skill applied, so, its 10% or whatever of a regular ss or cf? it is still horrible. if you use it at ss, it is more damaging than in cf because it attempts more defensive plays.
(also, i assume the logic applies to catchers, or players of whatever stripe, at any point on the range spectrum).
also, a shortstop, say, with A+ range but a zero rating at 1b will not be as good as the 1b with A+ range will it? there are out of position penalties applied. the A+ range first baseman would make more plus plays and less errors in a full season, than, say, a theoretical A+ range shortstop that never gained any rating at 1b, just say it couldn't, for whatever reason, or imagine 162 games played at 1b by 162 different shorstops that played one game each, and each one had a zero rating at 1b. is this not true?
[Edited on 3-28-2012 by tm4559]
tm4559
March 28, 2012 at 08:19PM View BBCode
(also, B range first baseman suck. it isn't overkill, at all, to steer A+ range to first base, because they make a ton of plus plays. these are hits turned into outs. a lot of players come along with big range and bad arm. they make excellent first basemen. much better than anything that carries a B.)
tm4559
here is an A+ first baseman
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=8998147&statsorimps=fielding
before the range declined on that, it was just plain awesome over there.
now, here is one that has played a bunch of games with something less than a- range, i would assume your ss with A+ range, playing out of position, would have to hit the same numeric defensive value at 1b as this has at some point in there. it has to, right? or numbers don't make sense.
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=9311898&statsorimps=pos
now, if you're telling me, that a shorstop with A+ range, with zero skill at 1b, is as good as the first one there, i don't believe it. i just don't. you will have to prove it.
March 28, 2012 at 08:29PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
(i mean, maybe it seems to you that the ss who goes over there and plays at first is just as good, because they gain skill so fast going to that position, they gain it faster than they shuck it back off when they play ss. it takes no time flat for them to be a rated.)
here is an A+ first baseman
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=8998147&statsorimps=fielding
before the range declined on that, it was just plain awesome over there.
now, here is one that has played a bunch of games with something less than a- range, i would assume your ss with A+ range, playing out of position, would have to hit the same numeric defensive value at 1b as this has at some point in there. it has to, right? or numbers don't make sense.
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=9311898&statsorimps=pos
now, if you're telling me, that a shorstop with A+ range, with zero skill at 1b, is as good as the first one there, i don't believe it. i just don't. you will have to prove it.
jchoopz
I think redcped meant if things were changed so B was very good range at 1B (when I referenced it that is what I was assuming) So, to use a real life example, teaching Alexei Ramirez to play 1B would be complete overkill defensively at 1B.
March 28, 2012 at 08:30PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
(also, B range first baseman suck. it isn't overkill, at all, to steer A+ range to first base, because they make a ton of plus plays. these are hits turned into outs. a lot of players come along with big range and bad arm. they make excellent first basemen. much better than anything that carries a B.)
I think redcped meant if things were changed so B was very good range at 1B (when I referenced it that is what I was assuming) So, to use a real life example, teaching Alexei Ramirez to play 1B would be complete overkill defensively at 1B.
jchoopz
I'm a little confused. Who said this? If you are talking about me, I'm saying if you trained the SS to play 1B, so he would be 100%. So if you took the top SSs (or even the bad ones really) and trained them to play 1B they would be so much better than your best 1B (edit: talking about real life and how I would prefer SimD to be, not how it actually is now).
[Edited on 3-28-2012 by jchoopz]
March 28, 2012 at 08:33PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
now, if you're telling me, that a shorstop with A+ range, with zero skill at 1b, is as good as the first one there, i don't believe it. i just don't. you will have to prove it.
I'm a little confused. Who said this? If you are talking about me, I'm saying if you trained the SS to play 1B, so he would be 100%. So if you took the top SSs (or even the bad ones really) and trained them to play 1B they would be so much better than your best 1B (edit: talking about real life and how I would prefer SimD to be, not how it actually is now).
[Edited on 3-28-2012 by jchoopz]
tm4559
March 28, 2012 at 08:35PM View BBCode
that makes sense yes. if he could not throw the ball to first base from ss, 3b, or even second, then 1b would be a good place for him. if he could in fact hit. i don't really recall if he is tall enough to play first base.
tm4559
no, i am not talking about you, but derek. the way i read it, it implies that a ss, with whatever range, is just as good, with no rating at 1b, as a rated first baseman with the same range. he may not be implying that at all, but it sounds like that to me. that is why i asked. because i am curious.
March 28, 2012 at 08:38PM View BBCode
Originally posted by jchoopz
Originally posted by tm4559
now, if you're telling me, that a shorstop with A+ range, with zero skill at 1b, is as good as the first one there, i don't believe it. i just don't. you will have to prove it.
I'm a little confused. Who said this? If you are talking about me, I'm saying if you trained the SS to play 1B, so he would be 100%. So if you took the top SSs (or even the bad ones really) and trained them to play 1B they would be so much better than your best 1B (edit: talking about real life and how I would prefer SimD to be, not how it actually is now).
[Edited on 3-28-2012 by jchoopz]
no, i am not talking about you, but derek. the way i read it, it implies that a ss, with whatever range, is just as good, with no rating at 1b, as a rated first baseman with the same range. he may not be implying that at all, but it sounds like that to me. that is why i asked. because i am curious.
tm4559
March 28, 2012 at 08:56PM View BBCode
(i don't disagree at all with the original content that began this thread btw. as far as the other stuff goes, the game play end, i am certain it isn't perfect, but we have kind of learned to make the best of it).
dirtdevil
i don't think i said that. if i did it certainly wasn't intentional.
March 28, 2012 at 09:39PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
Originally posted by jchoopz
Originally posted by tm4559
now, if you're telling me, that a shorstop with A+ range, with zero skill at 1b, is as good as the first one there, i don't believe it. i just don't. you will have to prove it.
I'm a little confused. Who said this? If you are talking about me, I'm saying if you trained the SS to play 1B, so he would be 100%. So if you took the top SSs (or even the bad ones really) and trained them to play 1B they would be so much better than your best 1B (edit: talking about real life and how I would prefer SimD to be, not how it actually is now).
[Edited on 3-28-2012 by jchoopz]
no, i am not talking about you, but derek. the way i read it, it implies that a ss, with whatever range, is just as good, with no rating at 1b, as a rated first baseman with the same range. he may not be implying that at all, but it sounds like that to me. that is why i asked. because i am curious.
i don't think i said that. if i did it certainly wasn't intentional.
dirtdevil
ah, i see. no i meant when the position conversion was completed. right now the code allows you to take a catcher and convert him to CF or SS with the same defensive skills that he has now. in essence, it allows you to take, say, pudge rodriguez and make him a gold glove player in CF. what i'm saying is that is not a realistic thing to have happen. real life position switched tend to happen towards "easier" positions. arod and ripken move from SS to 3B, for instance. you don't generally see teams take someone like kevin youkilis and play him at SS.
(C to CF would be a long a torurous process, i'll admit, but the point is valid as it applies to other positions switches as well.)
March 28, 2012 at 09:45PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
what does it mean, "just not be able to play SS or CF with the same level of skill and right now, he can."?
does it mean it has the same reduction in skill applied, so, its 10% or whatever of a regular ss or cf? it is still horrible. if you use it at ss, it is more damaging than in cf because it attempts more defensive plays.
(also, i assume the logic applies to catchers, or players of whatever stripe, at any point on the range spectrum).
ah, i see. no i meant when the position conversion was completed. right now the code allows you to take a catcher and convert him to CF or SS with the same defensive skills that he has now. in essence, it allows you to take, say, pudge rodriguez and make him a gold glove player in CF. what i'm saying is that is not a realistic thing to have happen. real life position switched tend to happen towards "easier" positions. arod and ripken move from SS to 3B, for instance. you don't generally see teams take someone like kevin youkilis and play him at SS.
(C to CF would be a long a torurous process, i'll admit, but the point is valid as it applies to other positions switches as well.)
tm4559
(the same could be said really when you convert an outfielder with a big arm to catcher. it is a long and torturous process also, but when it finally converts, the big arm is the big arm, although throwing well from the outfield and throwing well to second base are two entirely different things.)
March 28, 2012 at 09:48PM View BBCode
ah, sorry. i should have known.(the same could be said really when you convert an outfielder with a big arm to catcher. it is a long and torturous process also, but when it finally converts, the big arm is the big arm, although throwing well from the outfield and throwing well to second base are two entirely different things.)
Pages: 1 2