Stats vs Ratings

[Spracks]

Hello all,

I'm a long time player of OOTP and there is one thing that has always bothered me. In a game with scouting off, say you have a batter with high ratings who should by all measures be a stud. The problem is, you are 60 games into the year, and this guy is hitting .200 and playing like he doesn't belong in the majors. His ratings (contact, power, eye) remain high with no downward movement but he continues to perform at a sub-par level. In real life, this guy would be sent down/traded/DFA'd, but in the world of OOTP is there any reason to believe that this player will not regress back to the mean? Do the game mechanics allow a player to be "cursed" and continually perform below his ratings or will the law of averages eventually kick in and have this guy start playing better? (this is all assuming his ratings stay the same the whole time)

Thanks in advance for any help.

-Spracks

[soxfan34]

Originally Posted by Spracks

Hello all,

I'm a long time player of OOTP and there is one thing that has always bothered me. In a game with scouting off, say you have a batter with high ratings who should by all measures be a stud. The problem is, you are 60 games into the year, and this guy is hitting .200 and playing like he doesn't belong in the majors. His ratings (contact, power, eye) remain high with no downward movement but he continues to perform at a sub-par level. In real life, this guy would be sent down/traded/DFA'd, but in the world of OOTP is there any reason to believe that this player will not regress back to the mean? Do the game mechanics allow a player to be "cursed" and continually perform below his ratings or will the law of averages eventually kick in and have this guy start playing better? (this is all assuming his ratings stay the same the whole time)

Thanks in advance for any help.

-Spracks

I can't really speak for 'game mechanics' but this does paralell (sp?) real life in that players who have the EXPECTATION to contribute huge numbers, whether based on projections or past performance, do not meet that. The game sees this and assigns them a star rating--based on what they should be. If every player performed based on their ratings, the game would be boring as hell because you'd know exactly what you're getting. Like real life, you don't know what you're going to get. By the ratings NOT dropping, there is still a chance the player can bounce back and regain his old form. After awhile though, you should see the ratings start to drop if the player is not performing. Also keep in mind, other factors go into star rating such as fielding ability. A decent hitter with stellar fielding ability may be a higher star rating than someone like a Miguel Cabrera who's defense is so-so but can tear the cover off the ball. Just my 2 cents...

[snepp]

60 games is a pretty small sample, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

[EvilGenius]

Originally Posted by Spracks

Hello all,

I'm a long time player of OOTP and there is one thing that has always bothered me. In a game with scouting off, say you have a batter with high ratings who should by all measures be a stud. The problem is, you are 60 games into the year, and this guy is hitting .200 and playing like he doesn't belong in the majors. His ratings (contact, power, eye) remain high with no downward movement but he continues to perform at a sub-par level. In real life, this guy would be sent down/traded/DFA'd, but in the world of OOTP is there any reason to believe that this player will not regress back to the mean? Do the game mechanics allow a player to be "cursed" and continually perform below his ratings or will the law of averages eventually kick in and have this guy start playing better? (this is all assuming his ratings stay the same the whole time)

Thanks in advance for any help.

-Spracks

I hate to have to admit this, but here's where I start gaming the system (don't judge me, I'm a weak man).

When you are working trades, are other teams constantly asking for this guy? If so, he'll probably continue to develop and his stats will eventually reflect that. If his name never comes up in trades, you have to ask what the AI knows that you don't.

Actually, the more I think about it, is this really any different than real life? Am I really gaming the system that much?

Personally, I'm not a sabermetrics guy. I believe in Batting Average -- particularly with Runners in Scoring Position. At the end of the day, there is just no substitute for getting wood on the ball. When my team gets owned by a below average pitcher, the last thing that will placate me is "But we drew a lot of walks". I'll even trade away a fair amount of power for BA. As such, I only tolerate slumps or down years for so long. On my teams, a player hits the ball or he gets traded.

[Spracks]

60 games is a pretty small sample, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

60 games was just my example, I realize it's a small sample. Say this guy stinks for 2 years in a row, but his contact, gap, power, eye, and K ratings are all still really good and reflect a high quality player. The question is: in terms of OOTP game play, is it wise to get rid of this guy? Is there any reason to believe that his poor play is the result of more than just bad luck? If I stick with this guy, is it reasonable for me to expect his stats to eventually reflect his talent?

-Spracks

[hfield007]

Just think of this scary but real thought...

Adam Dunn still has a starting job in the MLB.

[jmount78]

I have found that I have had players like that and what I do is look at their vs. left and vs. right and modify where they bat in the lineup. Something that simple has really produced positive results not only for the player, but for my record!

For example, Cal Ripken Jr. was terrible for the first two months of the season. I flip flopped him in the lineup from sixth to ninth and he started to catch fire for the rest of the season. Hope this helps a little.

[Spracks]

My question has to do more with how the game uses a player's actual ratings. As far as I understand it, when the game is simulating play, a player's chance of success depends on some hidden calculation that uses his skill ratings to determine the eventual outcome. With this in mind, it would seem that the higher a player's ratings, the higher his probability of success.

Since the chance of success is based on probability, what reason does a manager have to replace a poorly performing player who has high skill ratings? Can a player in OOTP be "cursed" and, against all odds, continually perform below what his ratings would suggest? If not, what motive does an OOTP manager have to replace players who should be good by all measures of the game? The laws of probability say that this player will eventually start performing in line with his skill, unless there is something hidden in the game mechanics that would prevent it.

I understand that these things happen in real life, very talented players underperform all the time, but I am interested in how the game interprets a player's ratings, not how this situation compares to real life.

-Spracks

[Jamie]

This topic is most frustrating when your guy supposed to be a stud on other teams but turns into a dud on yours and vise versa. It takes away from the realism no doubt. You should expect some close results. Then to kick it off other teams see high value in your guy and willing to trade for same ratings.

[damientheomen3]

Jamie, I've seen you make a few posts on this subject, and I feel bad for you, because this never really happens to me. I'm not sure if this has been gone into before, but does your team play in a pitchers' ballpark? If you go into the park editor to change it, also make sure to go into the weather tab to see the wind direction and strength, as that can have an effect as well. But otherwise, it's just about dumb luck sometimes. I've had one guy hit .180 with 5 home runs for me at the midway point but finish overall at about .240 with almost 25 homers. At the same time, I had another guy go straight to the majors after I drafted him second overall and hit .220 for me in 2 seasons before I sent him down. I traded him for chump change, and this past year he's hitting .290 for his new team. Sometimes you just gotta take the lumps the sim gives you because, to put it simply, that's baseball.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Spracks

My question has to do more with how the game uses a player's actual ratings. As far as I understand it, when the game is simulating play, a player's chance of success depends on some hidden calculation that uses his skill ratings to determine the eventual outcome. With this in mind, it would seem that the higher a player's ratings, the higher his probability of success.

Since the chance of success is based on probability, what reason does a manager have to replace a poorly performing player who has high skill ratings? Can a player in OOTP be "cursed" and, against all odds, continually perform below what his ratings would suggest? If not, what motive does an OOTP manager have to replace players who should be good by all measures of the game? The laws of probability say that this player will eventually start performing in line with his skill, unless there is something hidden in the game mechanics that would prevent it.

I understand that these things happen in real life, very talented players underperform all the time, but I am interested in how the game interprets a player's ratings, not how this situation compares to real life.

-Spracks

To answer your question, keep playing the guy. If his actual rating are good, then he's just having some bad luck.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Spracks

Hello all,

I'm a long time player of OOTP and there is one thing that has always bothered me. In a game with scouting off, say you have a batter with high ratings who should by all measures be a stud. The problem is, you are 60 games into the year, and this guy is hitting .200 and playing like he doesn't belong in the majors. His ratings (contact, power, eye) remain high with no downward movement but he continues to perform at a sub-par level. In real life, this guy would be sent down/traded/DFA'd, but in the world of OOTP is there any reason to believe that this player will not regress back to the mean? Do the game mechanics allow a player to be "cursed" and continually perform below his ratings or will the law of averages eventually kick in and have this guy start playing better? (this is all assuming his ratings stay the same the whole time)

Thanks in advance for any help.

-Spracks

Ratings are a guide to what they player should average out to over 1000's of simulations, one season can be a slump or greatness. A player can slump and stay in that slump all year long and that in turn affects them reaching thier potential. The law of averages will kick in for him at some point but if the team still slumps then he can't average out ethier then. It all depends on the player really, if it's someone with very limted time in the show then sending them back down is the better idea but if they have a few years or so service time i'd ethier sit em or let them play through it till i decided i had to trade them.
And yes in the OOTP world if i have a player slump the year that will affect him it all depends on how much you have it set it.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Ratings are a guide to what they player should average out to over 1000's of simulations, one season can be a slump or greatness. A player can slump and stay in that slump all year long and that in turn affects them reaching thier potential. The law of averages will kick in for him at some point but if the team still slumps then he can't average out ethier then. It all depends on the player really, if it's someone with very limted time in the show then sending them back down is the better idea but if they have a few years or so service time i'd ethier sit em or let them play through it till i decided i had to trade them.
And yes in the OOTP world if i have a player slump the year that will affect him it all depends on how much you have it set it.

Ratings are the source of the stats in OOTP. If the ratings are high, the player will eventually play well. I'm talking actual ratings here not potential. Potential is another ballgame. Playing the players with the highest ratings gives your team the best chance to win. If players are over or under performing based on ratings, then it's because of luck and it won't last.

[Ambermonk]

Originally Posted by Spracks

Do the game mechanics allow a player to be "cursed" and continually perform below his ratings or will the law of averages eventually kick in and have this guy start playing better? (this is all assuming his ratings stay the same the whole time)

I think your problem may be a combination of things; some that you're probably not aware of and some that you may not have considered.

One thing that affects batting averages is the opposing team, especially the pitcher. Teams with good fielders (especially shortstop & center field) can take hits away from batters. Good pitchers can minimize hits or turn them into outs.

Another thing to pay attention to is a players 'intangibles,' especially hard work and intelligence. Players who don't work hard tend to under-perform - especially in the majors. Intelligent players tend to 'over-perform' beyond what you would expect.

Speaking of expectations, have you paid much attention to what your player's expectations are? Maybe he wants a different place in the batting order, or perhaps play a different position, or perhaps his morale is low due to team losses, or maybe he just isn't getting enough money (or playing time).

Now for the most likely, and most misunderstood, part of the whole equation...

BATTING RESULTS ARE NOT JUST BASED ON A PLAYER'S RATINGS!

Several years ago, I believe, Dave revealed that individual player performance is also base on 'big picture' considerations. Results are tempered by 'game considerations,' 'team considerations,' and even 'season considerations.'

For example, if you put the 9 best hitters onto the same team (along with the best 5 pitchers) would that team win every game 20+ to nothing? No they wouldn't. There are mechanics in OOTP that keep game scores more or less reasonable, that keep winning percentages more or less reasonable, and season stats more or less reasonable.

Another example: if you trade your player to a weak hitting team, there is a good chance that his hitting will improve because there are less players on the weak team to carry the 'averaged' hitting load. I have a lot of good hitters on my team but they largely under-perform because there are so many of them that they can't all go 4 for 5 in every game. Often when I trade a player, he shines on the new team (and haunts me for years).

Season results are another example. I believe that it is impossible, regardless of how hard you try to rig it, for you to create a league where one team goes undefeated for the season. OOTPs 'averaging' algorithms will prevent this. Maybe some 'simmers' out there would like to give it a try. Other considerations are 'year-averaging.' Hitters will usually have at least one 'off-year' where their stats drop considerably, but they will come back the following year. Another is 'age.' Older players tend to have more off-years than younger players.

Another thing you can do is to pay attention to a player's 'streaks.' play him when he's hot and rest him when he's cold. OOTP will display icons to show you. Also pay attention to the effect that the player has on the rest of the team. Some players are bad locker room players who bring down the whole team. I have a player on my Single-A team who has great numbers who is so intelligent that his teammates consider him arrogant and don't like playing with him. I'm monitoring his performance very closely.

Hope this helps.

[Craig Scarborough]

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

Now for the most likely, and most misunderstood, part of the whole equation...

BATTING RESULTS ARE NOT JUST BASED ON A PLAYER'S RATINGS!

Several years ago, I believe, Dave revealed that individual player performance is also base on 'big picture' considerations. Results are tempered by 'game considerations,' 'team considerations,' and even 'season considerations.'

For example, if you put the 9 best hitters onto the same team (along with the best 5 pitchers) would that team win every game 20+ to nothing? No they wouldn't. There are mechanics in OOTP that keep game scores more or less reasonable, that keep winning percentages more or less reasonable, and season stats more or less reasonable.

Another example: if you trade your player to a weak hitting team, there is a good chance that his hitting will improve because there are less players on the weak team to carry the 'averaged' hitting load. I have a lot of good hitters on my team but they largely under-perform because there are so many of them that they can't all go 4 for 5 in every game. Often when I trade a player, he shines on the new team (and haunts me for years).

Season results are another example. I believe that it is impossible, regardless of how hard you try to rig it, for you to create a league where one team goes undefeated for the season. OOTPs 'averaging' algorithms will prevent this. Maybe some 'simmers' out there would like to give it a try. Other considerations are 'year-averaging.' Hitters will usually have at least one 'off-year' where their stats drop considerably, but they will come back the following year. Another is 'age.' Older players tend to have more off-years than younger players.

Another thing you can do is to pay attention to a player's 'streaks.' play him when he's hot and rest him when he's cold. OOTP will display icons to show you. Also pay attention to the effect that the player has on the rest of the team. Some players are bad locker room players who bring down the whole team. I have a player on my Single-A team who has great numbers who is so intelligent that his teammates consider him arrogant and don't like playing with him. I'm monitoring his performance very closely.

Hope this helps.

OOTP has "averaging" algorithms beyond mere chance/probability? If this is true, I just vomited in my mouth a little.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

I think your problem may be a combination of things; some that you're probably not aware of and some that you may not have considered.

One thing that affects batting averages is the opposing team, especially the pitcher. Teams with good fielders (especially shortstop & center field) can take hits away from batters. Good pitchers can minimize hits or turn them into outs.

Another thing to pay attention to is a players 'intangibles,' especially hard work and intelligence. Players who don't work hard tend to under-perform - especially in the majors. Intelligent players tend to 'over-perform' beyond what you would expect.

Speaking of expectations, have you paid much attention to what your player's expectations are? Maybe he wants a different place in the batting order, or perhaps play a different position, or perhaps his morale is low due to team losses, or maybe he just isn't getting enough money (or playing time).

Now for the most likely, and most misunderstood, part of the whole equation...

BATTING RESULTS ARE NOT JUST BASED ON A PLAYER'S RATINGS!

Several years ago, I believe, Dave revealed that individual player performance is also base on 'big picture' considerations. Results are tempered by 'game considerations,' 'team considerations,' and even 'season considerations.'

For example, if you put the 9 best hitters onto the same team (along with the best 5 pitchers) would that team win every game 20+ to nothing? No they wouldn't. There are mechanics in OOTP that keep game scores more or less reasonable, that keep winning percentages more or less reasonable, and season stats more or less reasonable.

Another example: if you trade your player to a weak hitting team, there is a good chance that his hitting will improve because there are less players on the weak team to carry the 'averaged' hitting load. I have a lot of good hitters on my team but they largely under-perform because there are so many of them that they can't all go 4 for 5 in every game. Often when I trade a player, he shines on the new team (and haunts me for years).

Season results are another example. I believe that it is impossible, regardless of how hard you try to rig it, for you to create a league where one team goes undefeated for the season. OOTPs 'averaging' algorithms will prevent this. Maybe some 'simmers' out there would like to give it a try. Other considerations are 'year-averaging.' Hitters will usually have at least one 'off-year' where their stats drop considerably, but they will come back the following year. Another is 'age.' Older players tend to have more off-years than younger players.

Another thing you can do is to pay attention to a player's 'streaks.' play him when he's hot and rest him when he's cold. OOTP will display icons to show you. Also pay attention to the effect that the player has on the rest of the team. Some players are bad locker room players who bring down the whole team. I have a player on my Single-A team who has great numbers who is so intelligent that his teammates consider him arrogant and don't like playing with him. I'm monitoring his performance very closely.

Hope this helps.

For the purpose of this discussion ratings control stats. Yes, there are adjustments based on league totals and what not but a player with a 90 contact will always, on average hit better than a player with a 70 contact.

[Nunyer]

Originally Posted by EvilGenius

I hate to have to admit this, but here's where I start gaming the system (don't judge me, I'm a weak man).

When you are working trades, are other teams constantly asking for this guy? If so, he'll probably continue to develop and his stats will eventually reflect that. If his name never comes up in trades, you have to ask what the AI knows that you don't.

Actually, the more I think about it, is this really any different than real life? Am I really gaming the system that much?

Yea, it's hard not to notice when every time you click the "make this trade work" button and the CPU always asks for the same 3-4 prospects. I try my best to avoid using that button anymore just for that reason. Not so much because I feel like I'm gaming the CPU, but because I don't want to over value prospects just because the CPU sees a truer picture of their "real" ratings. Heck, even guys the CPU will clamor for don't always develop to their full potential anyways... so I'd rather just not know... Altho I too am weak and that "make it work" button is convenient when you just want to find a veteran rental for the pennant chase....

But I had a 5 POT center field prospect that EVERYBODY wanted his entire time in the minors... Problem was he never really performed in the minors... .241, .229, .264.. those were the types of seasons he was putting up during his development despite the potential ratings telling me he was the next Willie Mays and his actual ratings telling me he should have been murdering Double A pitching... But I held him to the bitter end, just because the CPU loved him and I knew he was going to make a huge splash... Well, after three full years at the ML level... he finally peaked as a 2.5 star player... 4th OF... pinch runner... defensive replacement... maybe a starter on a crummy team. I should have believed the stats and let the CPU have him for the ransom they were willing to give. Of course, he likely would have blown up for a HoF lock of a career for another team.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Craig Scarborough

OOTP has "averaging" algorithms beyond mere chance/probability? If this is true, I just vomited in my mouth a little.

No such thing exists AFAIK.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

For the purpose of this discussion ratings control stats. Yes, there are adjustments based on league totals and what not but a player with a 90 contact will always, on average hit better than a player with a 70 contact.

No adjustment are made. League totals are produced from the rate of an occurrence that exists via the raw numbers entered and any modifier that is different than 1. If you have 9000 doubles in 160,000 AB and use a 1.05 modifier you will have 9000 X 1.05 = 9450 doubles +- 5% or so.

Player ratings control the result. The rate of doubles is going to be 9450/160,000. The game does not suppress or boost that rate. If player ratings get altered away from the development curve, league totals can be affected.

[DanP68]

Originally Posted by snepp

60 games is a pretty small sample, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

I agree with this obviously.

But I have also observed that many new players, no matter how high their ratings are, struggle in their initial MLB season and need to "adjust to the competition." This is certainly observed in real life. It's not that the skills aren't there. It's more like the player needs to adjust to the increase in speed, and the low threshold for mistakes.

Whether this is something Markus internally programmed, or just something I think I am seeing, who knows.

Also consider that Morale exists in the game. How much of an effect it has on performance we can only guess. But if I have a guy at AAA who isn't playing well for an extended period, I move him down to AA and let them start to put up good numbers again before bringing him back to AAA. Basically I'm trying to manage his "confidence level" if it exists in any form in OOTP. It sure seems to.