OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Does OOTP Player Development Needs to Be Fixed?

teak88 · 04-15-2008, 03:53 PM

I'm not an insider, like some, who understands the architecture of the OOTP model, but it strikes me that it should reflect two different things:

1. The Development Model. At age 18 (or 20) when a fellow starts his professional career, he has a defined level, "a", of ability accross 5-6 charactoristics: eye-hand coordination, bat speed (power), foot speed, arm, etc; (which for 99.9% of players is insufficient to allow them to play at the ML level). He also has a maximum upside, "b", on each abilities (HR power, speed, contact, etc). Said a bit differently, Sluggo is a top high school talent w/ the body type and eye/hand coordination to be a big power guy...maybe. Wimpy is a top HS talent w/ the speed and eye/hand coordination to be a mediocre batter...maybe. Only four things, I think, will cause a change from "a" to "b" for any player:
- physiological time: bodies mature causing changes in strength, etc. Some things, eg strength, are more likely to change over time than others like speed, e-h coordination. Reverses over time
- experience: getting 200 ABs in A ball, then 300 in AA ball allows the player to slowly make adjustments and develop improved motor skills and muscle memory, improving current ability ("a")
- the player makes a conscious adjustment; eg changes his stance; changes his delivery; stops switch-hitting
- the player is coached to make such a change.

All of these can be modelled; the last should be an element of the game

2. Scouting Model: For each player, someone must make an evaluation of what "a" is today and what "b" could be tomorrow. In my experience around amateur baseball (via my son) I've talked to lots of scouts and coaches (I'm no expert, though) and there is very little variability in "a" among them. Three scouts w/ a radar gun watching a 17 yr old pitch, all see pretty much the same thing and will come to the same conclusion so far as what his "a" is. These are knowledgable "experts" after all.
It's their judgement on "b" that differentiates the good scouts from the average. (There are no "poor" scouts in professional baseball...at least for very long). But, once again, the amount of variability around "b" among scouts is not great; mosty a matter of degree.

So OOTP needs to have "a" in the algorithm, but this must never be visible to the gamer; it is just the "truth" in the background. The gamer should only be able to see a player's "a" (today's ability) and "b" (upside) as interpreted through the eyes of a human, a scout or coach (who also should have a pov on current players).

BTW, I don't think there is a lot of actual variability in ML scouts' assesment of "a" or "b" in real players. When role players become stars or big prospects end up mediocre, it is probably because the four things, mentioned above, that cause "a" to develop to "b" didn't work as they were expected to.

also btw, I suspect that Piazza was more a consequence of not being scouted much, rather than of the scouts missing badly. I don't know what his hs stats were, but thousands of kids bat .425 in hs and never get scouted; something has to happen to cause the scouts to come. (Case in point, my kid and a team-mate both batted over .400 for a couple of years in an upper income suburban school known for lacrosse and ice hockey not baseball; in a conference w/poor reputation for athletes; hardly a look, even w/ summer leagues etc; probably the right decision by scouts, however)

04-15-2008, 03:53 PM	#29 (permalink)
teak88 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 108	Two different things... I'm not an insider, like some, who understands the architecture of the OOTP model, but it strikes me that it should reflect two different things: 1. The Development Model. At age 18 (or 20) when a fellow starts his professional career, he has a defined level, "a", of ability accross 5-6 charactoristics: eye-hand coordination, bat speed (power), foot speed, arm, etc; (which for 99.9% of players is insufficient to allow them to play at the ML level). He also has a maximum upside, "b", on each abilities (HR power, speed, contact, etc). Said a bit differently, Sluggo is a top high school talent w/ the body type and eye/hand coordination to be a big power guy...maybe. Wimpy is a top HS talent w/ the speed and eye/hand coordination to be a mediocre batter...maybe. Only four things, I think, will cause a change from "a" to "b" for any player: - physiological time: bodies mature causing changes in strength, etc. Some things, eg strength, are more likely to change over time than others like speed, e-h coordination. Reverses over time - experience: getting 200 ABs in A ball, then 300 in AA ball allows the player to slowly make adjustments and develop improved motor skills and muscle memory, improving current ability ("a") - the player makes a conscious adjustment; eg changes his stance; changes his delivery; stops switch-hitting - the player is coached to make such a change. All of these can be modelled; the last should be an element of the game 2. Scouting Model: For each player, someone must make an evaluation of what "a" is today and what "b" could be tomorrow. In my experience around amateur baseball (via my son) I've talked to lots of scouts and coaches (I'm no expert, though) and there is very little variability in "a" among them. Three scouts w/ a radar gun watching a 17 yr old pitch, all see pretty much the same thing and will come to the same conclusion so far as what his "a" is. These are knowledgable "experts" after all. It's their judgement on "b" that differentiates the good scouts from the average. (There are no "poor" scouts in professional baseball...at least for very long). But, once again, the amount of variability around "b" among scouts is not great; mosty a matter of degree. So OOTP needs to have "a" in the algorithm, but this must never be visible to the gamer; it is just the "truth" in the background. The gamer should only be able to see a player's "a" (today's ability) and "b" (upside) as interpreted through the eyes of a human, a scout or coach (who also should have a pov on current players). BTW, I don't think there is a lot of actual variability in ML scouts' assesment of "a" or "b" in real players. When role players become stars or big prospects end up mediocre, it is probably because the four things, mentioned above, that cause "a" to develop to "b" didn't work as they were expected to. also btw, I suspect that Piazza was more a consequence of not being scouted much, rather than of the scouts missing badly. I don't know what his hs stats were, but thousands of kids bat .425 in hs and never get scouted; something has to happen to cause the scouts to come. (Case in point, my kid and a team-mate both batted over .400 for a couple of years in an upper income suburban school known for lacrosse and ice hockey not baseball; in a conference w/poor reputation for athletes; hardly a look, even w/ summer leagues etc; probably the right decision by scouts, however)