OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

ms2002 · 07-28-2007, 05:15 PM

Suggestion
Make the player evaluation more realistic, or at least more customizable. Differentiate managers/GM's as being either "Sabremetric-based" or "Traditional." Sabremetric GM/Managers will seek out and prefer players based on their VORP and other secondary statistics, while the Traditional GM/Managers will prefer players with experience, raw numbers, and just plain luck.

Reason
It's much more realistic. The main gripe I have with OOTP2007 is that there is an extreme over-emphasis on VORP. It's good for statheads, but in real life, very few GMs actually follow this model. Teams like Oakland and Toronto are more sabremetric-based, while teams like Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago are much more traditional. This should definitely play a factor in the game. Also, there should be far more GMs following the traditional model than the sabremetrics. Although, it'd be nice if this was customizable.

An example would be the many cases I've seen in OOTP2007 where a 40hr, .270 hitting 1B is rated 1 star and disregarded by the AI just because his VORP is not high. As we know, 1B is an extremely offensive position and they should be penalized for this. They should get high-paying contracts as well (this does not happen in the current version). A change in the way the players are evaluated would fix this.

Priority
Very high. What good is a perfect player development model when the AI evaluation is flawed? I would love to see this being a top priority for OOTP2008. I'd be more than happy to clarify anything as well.

07-28-2007, 05:15 PM	#11 (permalink)
ms2002 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 234	Suggestion Make the player evaluation more realistic, or at least more customizable. Differentiate managers/GM's as being either "Sabremetric-based" or "Traditional." Sabremetric GM/Managers will seek out and prefer players based on their VORP and other secondary statistics, while the Traditional GM/Managers will prefer players with experience, raw numbers, and just plain luck. Reason It's much more realistic. The main gripe I have with OOTP2007 is that there is an extreme over-emphasis on VORP. It's good for statheads, but in real life, very few GMs actually follow this model. Teams like Oakland and Toronto are more sabremetric-based, while teams like Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago are much more traditional. This should definitely play a factor in the game. Also, there should be far more GMs following the traditional model than the sabremetrics. Although, it'd be nice if this was customizable. An example would be the many cases I've seen in OOTP2007 where a 40hr, .270 hitting 1B is rated 1 star and disregarded by the AI just because his VORP is not high. As we know, 1B is an extremely offensive position and they should be penalized for this. They should get high-paying contracts as well (this does not happen in the current version). A change in the way the players are evaluated would fix this. Priority Very high. What good is a perfect player development model when the AI evaluation is flawed? I would love to see this being a top priority for OOTP2008. I'd be more than happy to clarify anything as well. Last edited by ms2002 : 09-28-2007 at 09:12 PM.