NOT ALLOWED: Omaha spends PP to make A. Stephens...LF

[agrudez]

I'd like to spend the 20 PP to perform the 'position specialization' reward on Allen Stephens. As I read it, here it seems that 50 points on the 1-250 scale (2.5 points on the 1-10 scale) equals 10 points on the 1-250 scale (.5 point on the 1-10 scale). and I can't go below a 1 on the 1-10 scale in the detracting position, yes?

So, I'll need some help here. currently, Stephens is a '5' in RF (so he has somewhere between 100-119 points on the 1-250 scale in RF) and a '6' in LF (so he has somewhere between 120-139 points on the 1-250 scale in LF). I'd like to subtract the maximum from RF (so his current value [100-119]-20) on the 1-250 scale and add it to LF. So, he should end up receiving anywhere from 16-19.8 on the 1-250 scale in LF (8-9.9 on the 1-10 scale). So, hopefully, that is enough to make him a '7' in LF and '1' in RF on the 1-10 scale.

God I'm long-winded...

[trmmilwwi]

he'll still suck in LF:)

[agrudez]

he'll still suck in LF:)

Yeah, maybe not as bad though. He DID inexplicably get a bump in his arm rating (6 to 7), so maybe there is hope! Essentially, I just don't want to HAVE to waste a DH slot on him, so if this brings his average ZR in LF to -8 from -10 in a season or something then I consider it 'worth it'.

[Al-Hoot]

Only available for players with no MBBA experience.

[agrudez]

Hm, not sure how I missed that - fair enough, though.

However, I do find it odd... this PP reward seems much more in line with the RP specialization in that it is best used in a way to transition older, declining players at prime positions into less prime positions (like an older SS moving to 3B - using his points to the left of the spectrum to increase his ability there). Ah, well, he was still going to stuck anyway, haha.

Can someone lock the thread (and not subtract the PP )?

[Al-Hoot]

I wish this award were available for veteran (older) players with MBBA/EBA experience.

But even given that, Stephens himself doesn't fit that category...

--

I wish we could eliminate ratings at non-desired positions. For example, why force us to keep a rf rating of 1 or 2, which is an extreme defensive liability, when the seeming purpose of the award is to "convert" a player to another position? (this may seem realistic, in that the player "used to know how" to play that position, but leaving him with a 1 or 2 rating leads to undesired game-engine use of him at that lowly rated position.)

Plus the opposite is true: I've seen players, current or former, whose scattered 1 or 2 ratings, say, rf or 2b, are useless. In addition, these ratings came about by the *game engine* using a player at a position he was not originally rated at, say sticking a 1b in lf or rf in the deep innings of an extra-inning fame.

I'd like an award (or just an option) to erase or transfer ratings of 1 or 2.

[agrudez]

Plus the opposite is true: I've seen players, current or former, whose scattered 1 or 2 ratings, say, rf or 2b, are useless. In addition, these ratings came about by the *game engine* using a player at a position he was not originally rated at, say sticking a 1b in lf or rf in the deep innings of an extra-inning fame.

I'd like an award (or just an option) to erase or transfer ratings of 1 or 2.

Can't you go to the player strategy and use the 'force position' option to eliminate that possibility?

I do agree about questioning why a player has to keep a '1' rating in the position he is eliminating, though. Seems like an arbitrary way to limit (even though it is only what, 4 points on the 1-250 scale for that can't be transferred [20 points from the old position on the 1-250 scale]?) how much you can transfer to the new position.

[Al-Hoot]

Kyle, as recte44 has explained to me, this is, unfortunately, not what the function of the Force play/start option is for.

Apparently, this is only used when a GM asks the computer to generate lineups and/or depth charts.

It has not (naught) to do with substitutions by the computer as far as a game in play. And, anyway, that this is so, has been verified by observation.

[agrudez]

Kyle, as recte44 has explained to me, this is, unfortunately, not what the function of the Force play/start option is for.

Apparently, this is only used when a GM asks the computer to generate lineups and/or depth charts.

It has not (naught) to do with substitutions by the computer as far as a game in play. And, anyway, that this is so, has been verified by observation.

Ah, gotcha - that is a shame.

Is there some empirical precedent you've seen that having a 0 (or a '-') in a specific position will keep a player from ever getting subbed into that position? After all, you yourself mentioned that some of these weird ratings were brought about by unexpected substiutions to begin with. If so, I'd completely agree with the reward to get rid of unwanted positions from a player.

[Al-Hoot]

I've no idea how the game determines in-game substitutions, except that it sucks at it. For instance, I've seen it stick an OFer with a 1 at RF instead of sticking him in LF, where he has a 7 rating, and moving the LFer to Rf, where he also happens to be highly - rated. I guess this common sense switch is not programmed into the game.

And, no, I have no way of eliminating the game from using a 0 or 1 at a particular position. Except, in a strategy that still doesn't work all the time, of checking the "never pinch hit for" a great-fielding player. Of course, this can backfire in later innings, when I really would like the guy pinch hit for, except that if the score is tied, then the computer will make uneducated substitutions as outlined in the first paragraph of this over long post.

[recte44]

So again, this reward is not allowed as Stephens doesn't fit the specific criteria of being under 28 years old and with NO MBBA experience.