Bad Stats Still = Bad Development?

[RonCo]

Is it still safe to say that bad stats lead to talent hits, or has that finally been "fixed?"

[Curtis]

According to Markus, it's safe to say that bad stats persisting for a month or more are a good indication that the player has been promoted to too high a level for his current state of development, and that being promoted too quickly can lead to loss of potential.

I'd call that a 'yes'.

[RonCo]

Ok. So all those 17-yo draftees are going to get pegged if you don't have rookie ball or short-season leagues since their ratings will be far under-developed when playing against 20-21 year-old A-ball players.

[RonCo]

Time to go post in the "fundamental flaws" thread again.

[RchW]

What if you don't draft 17 year old players?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by RchW

What if you don't draft 17 year old players?

I don't understand your question. If you don't change the defaults, the player creation algorithm creates a ton of 17 and 18 year old players. If bad stats cause talent hits, then it seems to me that you need to design your league environment so that you have a minor league level below A-ball in order to ensure they don't get talent hits merely because they're playing above their level--even though that's the lowest level in your universe.

My issue is a game design problem, not a problem with personal drafting strategy.

[f.montoya]

I have a solo league with AAA and nothing lower(I simply don't like to manage multiple levels of minor leagues), and I draft from college and high school feeder leagues(lots of 17 year olds). Everything else is default. I see a lot of sustained decent stats and good development. I see some fall in ratings but nothing at an alarming rate.

What is the tell-tale sign that something is wrong? I'm not sure that I see anything yet.

[RonCo]

The whole "bad stats cause talent drops" is a poor design, though, regardless. When you're a kid--at least when I was a kid--you're taught that among the best ways to get better at any sport is to play with guys who are older and better than you. If you go _too_ far, of course, you may not actually get any better...example: most elementary players can't compete well enough to learn anything from getting beat by college players. But as a general rule, playing against guys in classes above you will make you more prepared to play against guys at your level rather than visa versa.

The idea that a guy would have been great, but we rushed him through the system and broke him is essentially an old wives tale. Those guys are generally just as good as they were--but the problem is that they weren't good enough. The main purpose of the multiple levels of minors are (1) to judge how good the player is at any one time (his performance against an established baseline lets you project how he would perform against the majors...and (2) to hold onto the rights to a player while he physically matures long enough to see if he's ever going to be a major league contributor.

[Afino]

IME, I've had to create extra minor leagues when I didn't want to because I realized this problem.

I didn't want my new draftees playing with 5-year minor league vets right out of the gate.

[Curtis]

Granted, my personal experiences have been with ping pong and chess. In my experience, I get better when I play people at my own level or just a little above… or a little below, if they have a different style than I'm accustomed to. I get sloppy when I have a steady diet of players noticably worse than I am, and I get frustrated against players who are noticably better.

For years now I've been looking for a computer chess program to play against, because I'm a 900 on a really good day, and the variable programs available for the Mac bottom out at 1200. The Chessmaster series, which I played briefly when I had access to a friend's PC, went all the way down to 500, and it was really ideal. I could really only keep focused in a relatively tight band between 800 and 900. Ping pong was similar (except that my rating would be considerably higher).

To maybe more support RonCo's point, I've read that most people who play chess alot can be competitive (and, I assume, learn things from playing) in a 400 point band, rather than my 100. (That would be 200 points above and below their actual rating.)

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Granted, my personal experiences have been with ping pong and chess. In my experience, I get better when I play people at my own level or just a little above… or a little below, if they have a different style than I'm accustomed to. I get sloppy when I have a steady diet of players noticably worse than I am, and I get frustrated against players who are noticably better.

For years now I've been looking for a computer chess program to play against, because I'm a 900 on a really good day, and the variable programs available for the Mac bottom out at 1200. The Chessmaster series, which I played briefly when I had access to a friend's PC, went all the way down to 500, and it was really ideal. I could really only keep focused in a relatively tight band between 800 and 900. Ping pong was similar (except that my rating would be considerably higher).

To maybe more support RonCo's point, I've read that most people who play chess alot can be competitive (and, I assume, learn things from playing) in a 400 point band, rather than my 100. (That would be 200 points above and below their actual rating.)

In general, it's probably fair to say that when you play very far above your level, you may get so frustrated that you don't progress...but that won't make you a worse player or make your fundamental capability worse (though the truth is that you're probably getting better, even if you're getting so frustrated that you may not be having any fun). This is my main point. Playing above your level should not in itself cause talent hits.

Second, the idea behind the game needs to be that skills drive performance, not the other way. If I have an unlucky streak and go 0-21 (like Willie Mays did upon entering the majors...or was it 0-22?), I'm not going to lose my ability. Similarly, if I go 12-22 in one really hot week, I'm not going to become suddenly better.

If I _get_ better (my ratings improve), I'll be more likely to go 10-22 in a span...or if I _become_ worse, I'm more likely to go 0-22. Not the other way around.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by RonCo

In general, it's probably fair to say that when you play very far above your level, you may get so frustrated that you don't progress...but that won't make you a worse player or make your fundamental capability worse (though the truth is that you're probably getting better, even if you're getting so frustrated that you may not be having any fun). This is my main point. Playing above your level should not in itself cause talent hits.

Second, the idea behind the game needs to be that skills drive performance, not the other way. If I have an unlucky streak and go 0-21 (like Willie Mays did upon entering the majors...or was it 0-22?), I'm not going to lose my ability. Similarly, if I go 12-22 in one really hot week, I'm not going to become suddenly better.

If I _get_ better (my ratings improve), I'll be more likely to go 10-22 in a span...or if I _become_ worse, I'm more likely to go 0-22. Not the other way around.

"Mays began his career with zero hits in his first twelve at bats. On his thirteenth at bat, he hit a homer over the left field fence of the Polo Grounds off Warren Spahn"

It was something like that - I remember Mays himself BEGGED to be sent back down to the minors because he was struggling so badly, and the Giants refused to do so.

He still won the 1951 ROY.

[RonCo]

Don't confuse getting frustrated with getting better.

If high school basketball players play against college competition all summer, they are probably goign to be frustrated as heck most of the summer. But when they go back to class in the fall and play against high school competition, they will (in general) have progressed furhter and will suddenly start having a whole lot more fun. Every high school basketball coach I know, and I know a few, wants his or her players to go to summer camps and parks where they can play against better competition specifically so they will grow further.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Every high school basketball coach I know, and I know a few, wants his or her players to go to summer camps and parks where they can play against better competition specifically so they will grow further.

At least in this area, they don't send the whole team, though — just the best players. That's also the idea behind the 'travelling squad' in Little League; it's an all star team, playing against other all star teams.

{I think I've gotten us sidetracked again. This could quickly devolve into an arguement about whether the number of players sent to summer camp is based on talent or economics. Let's dump that part of the thread.}

I agree that as a general rule, and especially in regards to players at the Major/International level, having a slump should not affect your potential. I can see cases, especially in the minors, where it could affect your current ratings.

If a player gets promoted to High A and spends the next six weeks below the Mendoza line (where IS the Mendoza line, anyway?), I could see him getting frustrated (that word again) and start to mess with his stance, his swing, his stride, how he holds the bat, whether he pumps his right elbow like a chicken wing, and so forth. He might get anxious and start swinging early, swing at pitches in the dirt or over his head…

He might mess himself up to the point where it would take a specialist 'swing doctor' to straighten him out again. I think the game should reflect that as a drop in current contact (eye, etc.) that he might only recover from if he starts to work with a better hitting coach. But, it should not affect his potential.

So, yes, I agree at least partially with RonCo. Playing 'out of your league' could keep you from getting better, but it shouldn't prevent you from EVER getting better, which is what potential represents.

Having said that, I'm now wondering whether the same applies to pitching as it does to hitting. Is pitching more psychological than hitting? Certainly at their root they're both mechanically based. Orel Herschiser's authorized biography dwells on the mechanical aspect of pitching, but he also says that without Tommy Lasorda's psychological intervention he could never have succeeded at the major league level.

If a pitcher gets sent up to High A and gets shelled in his next six outings, would that damage him permanently? Could he get the idea that he just can't get these guys out, and never get past it? Or would the minor league staff recognize the problem and send him back down before it got that far? Or, are professional athletes just more mentally resilient than that? I dunno.

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Don't confuse getting frustrated with getting better.

If high school basketball players play against college competition all summer, they are probably goign to be frustrated as heck most of the summer. But when they go back to class in the fall and play against high school competition, they will (in general) have progressed furhter and will suddenly start having a whole lot more fun. Every high school basketball coach I know, and I know a few, wants his or her players to go to summer camps and parks where they can play against better competition specifically so they will grow further.

Ronco, you are absolutely dead on about this. Playing up does not hurt your talent level. In fact, it can make you better.

When I was in high school we had a team that played in the city rec basketball league in the afternoon and the local YMCA league at night during the week and on the weekend we would travel to other cities to play in YMCA tourneys. The out-of-town team were 10-15 points better than us as we were a short team, most of us were 5'10"- 6'...our tallest was 6'2". There were about 20 teams involved. We would usually get to the semi-finals and lose by 10 points or so. We never got frustrated. We knew that these teams were better than us.

As the season progressed, we got a little better and better talent-wise. Playing up made us better. By mid-year we would breeze through the local rec league and YMCA leagues. We were unbeaten in both leagues.

Our high school junior varsity went unbeaten that year, too... all of us tried out for the high school junior varsity as sophs... but none of us made the team. The JV coach just kept his freshmen players. We did not attend the high school as freshmen. The junior highs in town were 8-9 grades except for the high school.

As fate would have it, the high school JV cockily entered our city rec league tournament. Our team played them in the finals and we won 77-44. We showed that coach that he missed 4-5 good players that could have helped his team. We never got the chance until this game. What a satisfying victory!

Sorry to ramble and relive my life, but I love to tell that story.

[PineTar]

Pretty big impact in FOBL*. Here's the breakdown of our most recent draft class...



* FOBL operates on a 1-10 scale for both current and potential ratings.

[Isura]

I use 2 single A and 2 Rookie teams for a total of 6 minor league teams (I don't use short A). That works pretty well for development and has the benefit of less player turnover (makes the AI better )

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by PineTar

Pretty big impact in FOBL*. Here's the breakdown of our most recent draft class...



* FOBL operates on a 1-10 scale for both current and potential ratings.

Yes, I think I've changed my opinion on adding another level (or maybe even two) to the league. I doubt any hard-coded driver of development tied to a league level, but I can buy totally the unintended consequence of this design decision. The numbers I posted on the FOBL site earlier are equally damning of the performance of very young players in single-A ball.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by Isura

I use 2 single A and 2 Rookie teams for a total of 6 minor league teams (I don't use short A). That works pretty well for development and has the benefit of less player turnover (makes the AI better )

I've thought about doing that too.

But I just get afraid of the "tweener" players - 17 year olds that aren't ready for A but are too good for R.

[Curtis]

I know, I know. Off topic again:

Originally Posted by Afino

"Mays began his career with zero hits in his first twelve at bats. On his thirteenth at bat, he hit a homer over the left field fence of the Polo Grounds off Warren Spahn."

It was something like that - I remember Mays himself BEGGED to be sent back down to the minors because he was struggling so badly, and the Giants refused to do so.

He still won the 1951 ROY.

From "Nice Guys Finish Last" by Leo Durocher and Ed Linn *—

He went 0 for 12 in Philadelphia, and 24 straight times at bat without a hit in all. …
I put my arm around his shoulder and asked, "What's the matter, son?" …
He said, "Mis-a-Leo, I can't help you. I can't even get a hit. I know I can't play up here, and you're gonna send me back to Minneapolis. That's where I belong. I don't belong up here. I can't play up here."
I just patted him on the back and said, "Look, son, I brought you up here to do one thing. That's to play center field. You're the best centerfielder I've ever looked at. As long as I'm here, Willie, you're going to play center field. Tomorrow, next week, next month. … Forget it. Go home and get a good night's sleep. Tomorrow is another day."
The next day he hit the first ball Warren Spahn threw to him clear over the lights.