Playing OLB out of position

[famatu]

I'm sure this is another thread about this somewhere but I just couldn't find it. If someone could direct me to it or answer my question I would be very thankful!

I have the two best SLB's in my league. When I move one of them to WLB he goes from a 78 to a 58/76 with drastic reductions in zone defense and play diagnosis. He was a 1st team all pro last season so I don't wan to ruin him. The drop in the other guy is even worse.

My question is this...how bad would it be to leave them both as SLB's and just play one at WLB? Would his play suck really bad? Would I be better off moving one to WLB and getting a mentor for him and hoping for the best? I would just "try it out" but it's an MP league and I don't want to screw up the season with a bonehead move.

Thanks guys!

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by famatu

I'm sure this is another thread about this somewhere but I just couldn't find it. If someone could direct me to it or answer my question I would be very thankful!

I have the two best SLB's in my league. When I move one of them to WLB he goes from a 78 to a 58/76 with drastic reductions in zone defense and play diagnosis. He was a 1st team all pro last season so I don't wan to ruin him. The drop in the other guy is even worse.

My question is this...how bad would it be to leave them both as SLB's and just play one at WLB? Would his play suck really bad? Would I be better off moving one to WLB and getting a mentor for him and hoping for the best? I would just "try it out" but it's an MP league and I don't want to screw up the season with a bonehead move.

Thanks guys!

Its my understanding that a guy plays as well out of position as he would if you permantley change him, so he's gonna be what he's gonna be.

[jbmagic]

if you move them out of position in the depth chart they will still get a hidden rating decline too and not develop good either.

only good to do if its a few games only

for long term, best to change his position then move them out of position in the depth chart.

[Chief Rum]

I was going to say 1B, but then I realized you weren't talking about Erstad.

[Pyser]

also, new studies show mentors only affect players in their 3rd year or younger, so a mentor probably wouldnt help here.

[QuikSand]

Does anyone have any evidence that players slotted out of position suffer a meaningful decline in their performance?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Does anyone have any evidence that players slotted out of position suffer a meaningful decline in their performance?

Jeffrey Boggs was an ILB the year that he won DPOY playing OLB. He did, however, switch to OLB next season without a significant ratings hit, so that really does not tell us much.

I've never seen your question answered.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Does anyone have any evidence that players slotted out of position suffer a meaningful decline in their performance?

i think it the same rating decline % as if you did it position change. it just hidden if you play them out of position on the depth chart.

also it hurts there development too, if you play them out of position in the depth chart.

it wont make no sense for Jim, not to give any rating decline if you play them out of position on the depth chart. if that was the case why use change position on a player than?

[QuikSand]

I have my own thoughts about how the game might work, too, and how the game would work if I were designing it.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

any evidence?

But this is what i'm asking for.

There are an awful lot of cases of players playing out of position, even substantially out of position (S playing CB, LB playing DE, RB playing WR) where the player performs at a very high level. Enough so that I think this intuition, and any arguments based on it, are at least subject to some skepticism.

[CraigSca]

It's my opinion, based solely on an inconclusive study I did not perform, that players suffer from grade degradation of some sort over some period of time when playing a position outside of their regular scope of work.

You can bet on it.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Does anyone have any evidence that players slotted out of position suffer a meaningful decline in their performance?

I don't think we ever got a conclusive answer to this specific question, but I know that you were a participant in a thread that asked a very similar question. As I recall, Celeval did some file manipulation and basically showed that players playing out of position perform based on the ratings for their current position. The one thing that wasn't answered was if a player playing out of position performed worse than if that was their natural position. Based on the info Celeval found, my guess is that if there is a decline in performance, it is very slight.

I'm suprised you don't remember this, or perhaps you do and are just asking for proof of the followup question that arose from Celeval's testing.

Anyway....

[Kodos]

So if Celeval is right, then you should basically never change a player's position if it says he may suffer a ratings hit, but instead just play him out of position to keep his current good ratings?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

I'm suprised you don't remember this, or perhaps you do and are just asking for proof of the followup question that arose from Celeval's testing.

I do remember the discussion, but don't remember anything too firm coming from it.

I know that with the teams I value most (currently my MP teams) I make rather liberal use of my players out of position, frequently with very good results. But that is based more on hunches and anecdotes than anything solid.


My invitation is sincere... if anyone has evidence to support this claim that players playing out of position perform at that clearly reduced level, I'd be very interested. Maybe I'm naive, but perhaps one of these days, I'm going to ask this sort of question, and someone wil actually have something and be willing to share it. Who can say?


And, if people who choose to answer these questions in a definitive tone with their own conjecture, I would at least hope to make that fairly obvious to a less informed player who might also be reading.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by Kodos

So if Celeval is right, then you should basically never change a player's position if it says he may suffer a ratings hit, but instead just play him out of position to keep his current good ratings?

Possibly. That is what Celeval's test indicated, but there are other factors that might make it a wise choice to change a player's position. Roster requirements are the most obvious, but there are others such as a yound player with not much current, but a lot of potential rating. Also, if there is an indication that ratings might increase.

In addition, there could be other factors that might make playing a player out of position a poor choice. As indicated above, we don't know for sure what, if any, ratings hit a player takes for playing out of position. Celeval showed that the game uses the current ratings, but his tests didn't show if those current ratings incur some sort of penalty for a player playing out of position. I think that is what QS is specifically questioning.

Also, there have been suggestions that playing a player out of position leads to an increased chance of injury. I don't know of any testing that has been done in that area, but gut feel is that there might be something to that.

[judicial clerk]

So if Celeval is right, then you should basically never change a player's position if it says he may suffer a ratings hit, but instead just play him out of position to keep his current good ratings?

This is what I do, I play them out of position and don't switch their positions. They seem to perform well andyou never know when one of the players at the overloaded position is going to suffer a career-ending injury.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I do remember the discussion, but don't remember anything too firm coming from it.

I know that with the teams I value most (currently my MP teams) I make rather liberal use of my players out of position, frequently with very good results. But that is based more on hunches and anecdotes than anything solid.


My invitation is sincere... if anyone has evidence to support this claim that players playing out of position perform at that clearly reduced level, I'd be very interested. Maybe I'm naive, but perhaps one of these days, I'm going to ask this sort of question, and someone wil actually have something and be willing to share it. Who can say?


And, if people who choose to answer these questions in a definitive tone with their own conjecture, I would at least hope to make that fairly obvious to a less informed player who might also be reading.

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=29183

Post #32 was pretty firm, I believe. Although it doesn't specifically address a performance hit for playing out of position, it does indicate that the game uses the players ratings for their current position. The only question that remained was if the game 'reduced' those ratings because a player wasn't in their primary position (which is basically what you are asking).

So, no proof or anything firm, but a pretty decent empirical hint.

[jbmagic]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

This is what I do, I play them out of position and don't switch their positions. They seem to perform well andyou never know when one of the players at the overloaded position is going to suffer a career-ending injury.

but do the player develop his rating playing out of position?

[jbmagic]

another way to check.

is check the league Jim is playing, does he change his player position or plays them out of position?

if you can play players out of position with no rating and develop decline, why would Jim have change position Feature in the game?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Possibly. That is what Celeval's test indicated, but there are other factors that might make it a wise choice to change a player's position. Roster requirements are the most obvious, but there are others such as a yound player with not much current, but a lot of potential rating. Also, if there is an indication that ratings might increase.

In addition, there could be other factors that might make playing a player out of position a poor choice. As indicated above, we don't know for sure what, if any, ratings hit a player takes for playing out of position. Celeval showed that the game uses the current ratings, but his tests didn't show if those current ratings incur some sort of penalty for a player playing out of position. I think that is what QS is specifically questioning.

Also, there have been suggestions that playing a player out of position leads to an increased chance of injury. I don't know of any testing that has been done in that area, but gut feel is that there might be something to that.

In the case I'm thinking about, I have a good WILB who is crappy in pass coverage. I've thought about moving him to WLB so that he is rarely on the field in pass situations, but it says there'll be a significant hit, so I opted not to change the position. From this thread, it sounds like I could just play him at another LB position and not worry too much about it.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

The only question that remained was if the game 'reduced' those ratings because a player wasn't in their primary position (which is basically what you are asking).

That is, essentially, what I'm still after. I believe Jim/Solecismic has more or less publicly stated that this effect is fairly small, with the exception of the LT position, where other OL wil have some trouble playing there.

I'm not trying to engage in a battle with anyone here, I'm just trying to let the conversation fairly reflect what we think we know about the game. And if anyone has some evidence to suggest something in particular, I'd be very interested to see it.



My general attitude about out-or-position and position switching is basically this:

-For rookies who are at a good weight and should switch easily to the desired position, I switch them permanently

-For linebackers who can switch within the LB class, I basically switch them all as rookies, unless there's a strong reason not to

-For young, fairly undeveloped players who should switch easily, I will consider switching them if there's a compelling long term need at the new position

-For developed players, I much prefer to let them play out of position, and rarely if ever make a permanent switch


I don't claim that this is the unassailably right approach -- but this seems to be generally supported by the evidence that we have available.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Kodos

From this thread, it sounds like I could just play him at another LB position and not worry too much about it.

That's what I'd do.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by jbmagic

if you can play players out of position with no rating and develop decline, why would Jim have change position Feature in the game?

Roster requirements. Ratings INCREASES. NFL players change position.

Also, it still hasn't been proven that the players do or don't have a reduce level of performance. The ONLY thing that has been shown is that the game uses a player's ratings for his current position as the BASIS for calculations. We still don't know if there is any penalty to those current ratings.


As QS said, it is generally held that any penalty for playing out of position is fairly small, save the LT exception. However, no one has ever presented any concrete evidence to support this.

However, as has been mentioned above, there might be other areas that are impacted by playing a player out of position such as injuries and development. So far there doesn't SEEM to be much risk, but we don't know for sure.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by Kodos

From this thread, it sounds like I could just play him at another LB position and not worry too much about it.

Absolutely not. You should make him inactive and bring up that scrub for development purposes. Well, when you are playing Vicksburg that is.

[Kodos]

Thanks for the sound advice, Buzzbee. I will keep that in mind.

[Pyser]

this thread makes me wish the game had players listed as G/T. theyd be infinitely more valuable than a regular backup guard. oh well.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

No testing, but I have tried playing stud safeties at the CB position without much success. Anybody seen this? I think there is a reduction (admittedly conjecture), but not big, if just switching right to left, etc. (except LT), but bigger for like G to T or S to CB. I follow exactly as QS does although I will switch R to L positions for older guys if it says roughly same experience will result.

[QuikSand]

I have heard that older players with a lot of startig experience will make relatively small position switches seamlessly... but I confess I have not tested this much at all. So - perhaps there needs to be an addendum to the above -- indicating that a 10th year veteran LG can easily switch to RG, that sort of thing. (I am told that it's around the 10th or 11th year where this becomes a painless switch for them)

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Also, there have been suggestions that playing a player out of position leads to an increased chance of injury. I don't know of any testing that has been done in that area, but gut feel is that there might be something to that.

I know we've spoken about this once, I think there is some evidence to support this. The 2008 Syracuse Mohawks (IHOF) have been hammered with out-of-position injuries this year... probably the best anecdotal evidence i've seen yet actually.