I preordered.. but this better not happen in OOTP9

[Syd Thrift]

Seriously? You're complaining because a decent but not great pitcher you have was unlucky for 3 starts? I mean, even in his 14 IPs, he's struck out 12 batters. And his BABIP isn't that high. It just looks like hitters have been able to bunch their hits more than one would expect.

Jose Lima and Dontrelle Willis aside, I don't see an issue here.

[Matter2003]

Not seeing where this guy was so great----he allowed more hits than innings pitched in all of his seasons playing. Yeah he had an OK ERA, but he still allowed lots of baserunners....

Perhaps the scouts finally realized that his overall abilities weren't as good as they are projecting, and are making him where he should be...

[Cardinal Rule]

Paging Allan Anderson - Mr. Anderson, please pick up the white courtesy phone...

Allan Anderson Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com

[RchW]

Billy Koch, a classic flame out. Was it juice that got him there in the first place?

Billy Koch Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com

[blackrussian]

Originally Posted by RchW

Billy Koch, a classic flame out. Was it juice that got him there in the first place?

Billy Koch Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com

ill never forget 2002, when koch singlehandedly prevented the a's from going to the ALCS, giving up 3 runs in the 9th inning of game 5 against the twins. capped by a 2 run shot to aj pierzynski no less. thanks billy.

[rem]

Ismael Valdes.

[PotatoPeeler]

Steve Avery
Eric Hanson
Jose Guzman
Larry Sorensen
Rich Dotson
Ramon Martinez
Jaime Navarro
Larry Christensen

[RonCo]

The development engine needs work, this much is obviously true (as it has been true in every issue of OOTP). That said, I beginning to think that OOTP ownerss will not ever be very happy with truly realistic results. We want our cake and eat it too.

Matter talked about scouts -- this is always part of the problem. OOTP development is not about scouts.

When you turn scouts off (or, actually, anytime), development is about ratings movement. We OOTP owners keep viewing the potential rating as if it is a true cap, a valuable value in itself. But this is wrong. Potential cap shouldn't be viewed as "true." Instead, the gap between rating and potential cap should be viewed more like a "speed of expected development." So a guy with 40 rating and 120 potential should be viewed as "40 and growing rapidly," whereas a guy with 40 rating and 50 potential should be viewed as "40 and not growing much at all."

In this light, scouts _should_ be there to project future peak ratings rather than discern current potential cap. But please don't bring scouts into the actual act of development. In the world of cause and effect, a scout should not have any ability to directly change a player's ratings--which is what the potential rating eventually does.

blah, blah, blah...

[endgame]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Potential cap shouldn't be viewed as "true." Instead, the gap between rating and potential cap should be viewed more like a "speed of expected development." So a guy with 40 rating and 120 potential should be viewed as "40 and growing rapidly," whereas a guy with 40 rating and 50 potential should be viewed as "40 and not growing much at all."

Always good to hear your take on things, RonCo. Although the number of incidents have been reduced, OOTP still has - I think - players arising in league creation (and others from various sources, but I think this one has been the culprit) who are older and possess a wide gap. I'm pretty sure you and I have discussed this before. An at-peak or older player, 28-35 with a 28/78 kind of range. Coupled with age, regardless of when the player is evaluated, you can't really call this guy a "rapidly growing" any longer, can you? In fact, he's likely stalled out, particularly at later ages, and will only see that potential realized in spotty performances and single games; the latter more rationalization than data-driven, but you get my point.

[waltwa]

I haven't seen in my numerous solo and online leagues great drop offs on my SP's. However i do recall reading an article by Bill James a few years ago that dealt with pitchers who threw a lot of innings in the Bigs and were under the age of 25. Almost every one of them fell on hard times sooner than expected.

I don't know if the game is set up in this way but at least it was noted by James a few years ago. Being a SF Giants fan i am holding my breath on both Lincecum and Cain - IN REAL LIFE.

[blackrussian]

Originally Posted by waltwa

I haven't seen in my numerous solo and online leagues great drop offs on my SP's. However i do recall reading an article by Bill James a few years ago that dealt with pitchers who threw a lot of innings in the Bigs and were under the age of 25. Almost every one of them fell on hard times sooner than expected.

I don't know if the game is set up in this way but at least it was noted by James a few years ago. Being a SF Giants fan i am holding my breath on both Lincecum and Cain - IN REAL LIFE.

i also recall James discussing power vs finesse pitchers in this respect. Finesse, or non-power pitchers would often have a shorter career than power pitchers (as defined by the W-K ratio). Greg Hibbard is a good example. Had 5 solid season with around 55 W and 80-90 K a season and just totally dropped off at 29 yo (his last year in the majors). I think he also predicted that if Mark Fydrich had not blown out his shoulder, he likely would have had a similar career path (53 B, 97 K his rookie year).

im just not sure if OOTP takes this into account though, it'd be interesting to see...

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by endgame

Always good to hear your take on things, RonCo. Although the number of incidents have been reduced, OOTP still has - I think - players arising in league creation (and others from various sources, but I think this one has been the culprit) who are older and possess a wide gap. I'm pretty sure you and I have discussed this before. An at-peak or older player, 28-35 with a 28/78 kind of range. Coupled with age, regardless of when the player is evaluated, you can't really call this guy a "rapidly growing" any longer, can you? In fact, he's likely stalled out, particularly at later ages, and will only see that potential realized in spotty performances and single games; the latter more rationalization than data-driven, but you get my point.

After peak, the potential cap can be viewed in reverse. If the cap is high as ratings fall off, the player will tend to lose ratings more slowly. I did a really rugged study of this at one point. Guys who age but retain high potential caps will have their ratings fall more slowly than those who age with their caps lower. Consider the gap to be a gravity well that is either aiding or impeding growth that should normally be happening.

There are exceptions, though.

Bottom line, OOTP's development methodology has always been pretty weird. It passes muster at the highest levels of abstraction today better than it ever has, but it's individual player model is much more volitile than it was back in the v5 days. It will be interesting to see what the reaction is to the v9 engine.

[mrbill]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Bottom line, OOTP's development methodology has always been pretty weird. It passes muster at the highest levels of abstraction today better than it ever has, but it's individual player model is much more volitile than it was back in the v5 days. It will be interesting to see what the reaction is to the v9 engine.

That's all I'm getting at. Yes, lots of players dropped off. Steve Avery had an injury that basically ended his career. Hanson dropped off at 31. Jose Guzman was injury-ridden. Sorensen was mostly mediocre (one great short season in 81) and retired at 33 without much decline.

Koch was a reliever who never showed much control and really didn't "decline" so much as lost the last of his control at age 30. Allan Anderson? He struck out like 1 guy a season, he probably just never had the stuff to fool people for long.

Originally Posted by Matter2003

Not seeing where this guy was so great----he allowed more hits than innings pitched in all of his seasons playing. Yeah he had an OK ERA, but he still allowed lots of baserunners....

Perhaps the scouts finally realized that his overall abilities weren't as good as they are projecting, and are making him where he should be...

Uhh... he had over a 3-1 K-BB ratio for 3 seasons, top 10 all 3 seasons he pitched and he finished top 10 in K/9 once too. His HR rate was pretty standard, about 1 per 9 IP, a little lower in a pitcher's park. His BABIP was overly high in 2024, but his VORP was still almost 40 a season. He's 50th in the league in VORP over the last 4 seasons, while only pitching 3 of them, if he had another average season, he'd be the 27th best starter in the league, and his BABIP is higher than the NL average over that time too.

The "scouts" were not adjusting their realization on him, he just had a mysterious falling apart. And no, right now his stats are fine, its just that we all know once his ratings drop a little more, he's not going to be worth having around. I'm "pre-angry" at not having him in my rotation down the road.

[mrbill]

My personal take on pitchers is that "being 100%" is a reality that's rarely true in real-life, but often true in OOTP. Injuries large and small always have lingering effects on pitchers who otherwise have the same "ratings".

I don't think OOTP takes that into account so well right now. It may make their likelihood of injury greater if they have past injuries, but there's no "Ratings modifier" for lingering injuries, except the very short-lived day-to-day injuries currently in the game.

Why does a pitcher in OOTP come off the DL with full endurance? There's no potential/realized potential/injury modifier system that probably would mimic real life better than what we have now.

In a case like JC, there's still no explanation, but maybe more subtle injuries could be a part of the game that could explain what happened. We can "make it up" to try and make sense of the more volatile development engine, but that's not as fun for me. Random prospect talent changes are annoying enough.

[tb62388]

ankiel lost all pitching ability extremely quickly...even if it was mental.

I actually like the randomness of ootp, i think its realistic...the problem is we don't see "ratings" in real life...we just see the numbers.

Maybe it happens a little too much and if you feel that way, just simply adjust it to a level you like (talent change modifier).

There have been so many guys that rise or die quickly. Maybe because ive grown up in a steroids era, but I could go on forever listing guys that all of the sudden get better or worse and out of the league.

if you look at baseball prospectus at all, their projection system has a % assigned to guys of the chances they will breakout or collapse. Using common sense a young guy shouldn't have a high collapse %, but surprisingly, its never really that low at all. Often young guys have a 10% chance of seeing a dramatic decrease in performance. And they get this % by comparing players to those in years past with similar career numbers, thus its not abnormal for 1 out of 10 youngsters any given year to just get crushed in terms of performance.

thats why i think ootp is actually realistic and i don't think it needs too much modification.

[blackrussian]

Originally Posted by mrbill

Why does a pitcher in OOTP come off the DL with full endurance? There's no potential/realized potential/injury modifier system that probably would mimic real life better than what we have now.

there was a thread not too long ago regarding the injury system and i commented on this very issue. the system still lacks some sophistication. the example i used before was a broken arm (or leg, whatever). normally, one would expect a healing process, lets say 8 weeks. the person heals over this amount of time until the bones mend and the arm is usable. in OOTP, the game would injure the player for 8 wks but there is no in between process of healing. one is either completely injured or completely healed immediately after the injury time is up (100%).

SI's football manager builds the process of regaining one's health and fitness into the recovery time. so initially, the player's health may be at 30%. week 2, 40%, week 3, 50% and so on until the player reaches complete health. at some point you can indeed risk playing someone that has not mended yet a the risk of re-injury.

so what im saying is that a players recovery from injury should be incremental. there should be a threshold at which the player simply is not allowed/able to take the field (let's say 60%) and once above this threshold you can risk putting him back out there with an increased potential for injury and hopefully some reduction in ratings proportional to the current health.

theres a similar problem w/CEI's that i keep hammering at. when a player receives a CEI right now, he immediately retires. that never happens IRL. i ended changing my injury file to remove all but fractured skull as a CEI. there should be a similar process in which the player receives a severe reduction to health & ratings for a CEI type injury. the player may retire b/c no one will sign him anymore or he may never play in the majors again b/c he took a significant enough ratings hit that he can only play at minor league levels (q.v., mark fydrich).

anyway, rant over

[Cardinal Rule]

Originally Posted by blackrussian

there was a thread not too long ago regarding the injury system and i commented on this very issue. the system still lacks some sophistication. the example i used before was a broken arm (or leg, whatever). normally, one would expect a healing process, lets say 8 weeks. the person heals over this amount of time until the bones mend and the arm is usable. in OOTP, the game would injure the player for 8 wks but there is no in between process of healing. one is either completely injured or completely healed immediately after the injury time is up (100%).

I would like to see minor league rehab assignments. I think it's been brought up before, but it's rare anymore that a player doesn't at least take a few days on a minor league rehab assignment. With the variety of minor league options available in OOTP now it would be a nice addition. Also fun if you're managing a minor league team and all of a sudden you have a rehabbing star for a few games...

[blackrussian]

Originally Posted by Cardinal Rule

I would like to see minor league rehab assignments. I think it's been brought up before, but it's rare anymore that a player doesn't at least take a few days on a minor league rehab assignment. With the variety of minor league options available in OOTP now it would be a nice addition. Also fun if you're managing a minor league team and all of a sudden you have a rehabbing star for a few games...

and what i suggested would lend itself well to this sort of thing. again, i have to cite FM; when a player is healing from his injury you need to play him in your reserve team to get him back to full fitness. in baseball terms, rehab assignment

[statfreak]

RonCo - I agree 100%, OOTPers will never be happy with realistic development

mrbill - turn down talent randomness or talk to your comissioner and have him do it. I'm in an online league that didn't even know you could lower talent randomness to lessen the massive ratings hits. I always set mine at 35 in solo leagues and have been happy with the results. I've seen others dialing it down to 25 or lower. I would definitely suggest using less than 50 to keep the "enjoyment" of playing OOTP alive and well.

[mrbill]

Originally Posted by statfreak

RonCo - I agree 100%, OOTPers will never be happy with realistic development

mrbill - turn down talent randomness or talk to your comissioner and have him do it. I'm in an online league that didn't even know you could lower talent randomness to lessen the massive ratings hits. I always set mine at 35 in solo leagues and have been happy with the results. I've seen others dialing it down to 25 or lower. I would definitely suggest using less than 50 to keep the "enjoyment" of playing OOTP alive and well.

Yeah. OOTP 5 couldn't have realistic development because the minors were always a bit too thin to support it. The % of guys who look promising in A-ball that don't make the show would make the game pretty sad to play, when there's only one level of A-ball.

I think we might want to consider that tweak in our league, but then again, we've just added more minor leagues and everyone's valued prospects accordingly. We'll probably just wait out OOTP 9's evaluation and switch, so everyone realizes there's a potential development change with the new version.