I have Al Orth, a pitcher, who played lots of outfield as well. How do I get him to be able to play outfield on a off day. He is not listed as a substitute that I can put in the batting order.

Thanks for your help.

You can't. He can only pitch.

Part of me would like this to change so we can use those old-timers as P or OF. But part of me thinks that someone will work out some kind of loophole to take advantage of that, and we don't need any more loopholes.

It would be great to have both options avialable. You could have Orth the P for 1 price, Orth the OF for another price, and Orth the P/OF for the price of both and be able to use him as both.

I dream of this for 1918 and 1919 Ruth.

Quote: Originally Posted By mattedesa on 3/07/2010Part of me would like this to change so we can use those old-timers as P or OF. But part of me thinks that someone will work out some kind of loophole to take advantage of that, and we don't need any more loopholes

There is a loophole....

Pitchers fatigue by IP, hitters fatigue by PA. So if he was listed as a P (primary position), he would never fatigue as a hitter. If he was listed as a hitter (primary position) then he could pitch nearly every game without fatigue.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Oh man, if I could do that, 1910 Doc White has an A/A+ outfield rating. It would be nice to have him play center field when he wasn't pitching.

I don't see any reason why combined pitcher/fielders don't have two seperate player seasons, one exclusively as a pitcher and one exclusively as a fielder. Doesn't seem like it would be hard to do. Those extra season could come in very handy for progressive and theme leagues.

While I don't work for WIS, I am a skilled IT analyst... And my guess is that they would have to re-do their database structure to provide that. They use player-ID as an unique identifier, and having that would create a duplicate key situation in the DB. (Yes, I know partial years, combined seasons, etc... it might be possible to create a new type like that).

All in all, it would be significant work. And not used all that much on the site. It's one of those low-benefit/high cost changes.