Does OOTP Player Development Needs to Be Fixed?

[Who Killed Kenny?]

Can't you turn off rating fluctuations (or decrease them)? So if you don't want your prospects flaming out then they won't. Of course you are unlikely to find a gem in the later round because you'll know who's going to be good. If you don't want to know you're player's ratings then turn them off. You can also make player evaluation based only on stats.

IMHO, the model works very well on a grand scale. It can be made better, but I am not at all displeased with the way it works now. Not all prospects pan out and is is dishearting to see it, but I am not mad at the game for it.

Would I like to see it improved? Yes. Is at the top of my list? Not really, but then again I play in cheater, God mode where if I don't like something I change it. I realize that not all of you play my way. But not everyone plays your way either. Poor Markus has to cater to all of us and he has to prioritze in some way.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Who Killed Kenny?

Can't you turn off rating fluctuations (or decrease them)? So if you don't want your prospects flaming out then they won't. Of course you are unlikely to find a gem in the later round because you'll know who's going to be good. If you don't want to know you're player's ratings then turn them off. You can also make player evaluation based only on stats.

IMHO, the model works very well on a grand scale. It can be made better, but I am not at all displeased with the way it works now. Not all prospects pan out and is is dishearting to see it, but I am not mad at the game for it.

Would I like to see it improved? Yes. Is at the top of my list? Not really, but then again I play in cheater, God mode where if I don't like something I change it. I realize that not all of you play my way. But not everyone plays your way either. Poor Markus has to cater to all of us and he has to prioritze in some way.

The results aren't really the issue here, its how we get there. If how we get there isn't correct, its hard to say the game feels like baseball. In general, 22 year old players don't gain skill then lose that skill. Instead they never had it. OOTP gives them that skill, then removes it. By adjusting the model, the game will feel more realistic while at the same time producing more realistic results.

[Ambermonk]

Originally Posted by Who Killed Kenny?

Can't you turn off rating fluctuations (or decrease them)? So if you don't want your prospects flaming out then they won't. Of course you are unlikely to find a gem in the later round because you'll know who's going to be good.

Yes you can turn off (or decrease) fluctuations, but that is not the point. For fictional leagues, one of the most enjoyable aspects is player development. You want to be able to watch your players increase their skills.

What I'd like to see is something like this: A player's intelligence & work ethic would affect his development (it may already do this), but if these are generally average then the following scale (annually) might be close...

20% chance for improvement,
5% chance for dropping,
75% chance to stay the same.

[conception]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

That type of thing happens in RL you are right, but the way that should be implemented without scouts IMO is that the player never reaches his potential, then one day does. In OOTP that player suddenly gets a talent boost. Its the development engine's job to develop the players, its the scouting engines job to mask the true development engine.

The problem is that these guys who suddenly emerge aren't seen as having untapped potential, at least anymore than the others around them. To properly account for these players, you would have to essentially have every player have a potential rating that very few would actually reach. This is actually kind of realistic in a way but is going beyond just refining the development model.

There would have to be some way to separate the genuine prospects from those guys who have a slim chance to reach their potential. Even if this idea were implemented, there would be a lot of upset that their prospects aren't panning out and such. So while it could work, it brings a whole new set of potential issues.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

That type of thing happens in RL you are right, but the way that should be implemented without scouts IMO is that the player never reaches his potential, then one day does. In OOTP that player suddenly gets a talent boost. Its the development engine's job to develop the players, its the scouting engines job to mask the true development engine.

I have to disagree with this. I think someone's potential changes over time depending on changes they make to their approach. I don't think we should view potential as some kind of raw potential numbers. I don't think that would be particularly useful anyway. I think we should see it as "this is the guy's potential if he continues to play as he does and improves."

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

What I'd like to see is something like this: A player's intelligence & work ethic would affect his development (it may already do this), but if these are generally average then the following scale (annually) might be close...

20% chance for improvement,
5% chance for dropping,
75% chance to stay the same.

This is actually kind of a cool idea. And the current model could stay in place. To make it realistic though, you would actually set it at 100% stay the same (for talent only... obviously ratings are going to change).

The problem with keeping it at 100% the same is that you might end up with far too many good players, so the player creation engine would need to be tweaked. Also, with scouting off, there's no chance of finding a gem in the 20th round. You know exactly what the player's talent is already.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by conception

The problem is that these guys who suddenly emerge aren't seen as having untapped potential, at least anymore than the others around them. To properly account for these players, you would have to essentially have every player have a potential rating that very few would actually reach. This is actually kind of realistic in a way but is going beyond just refining the development model.

There would have to be some way to separate the genuine prospects from those guys who have a slim chance to reach their potential. Even if this idea were implemented, there would be a lot of upset that their prospects aren't panning out and such. So while it could work, it brings a whole new set of potential issues.

That's because we are human and don't actually know his true untapped potential. We are misled because the scouts didn't see him as having untapped potential. Don't confuse the scouting system with the development model.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I have to disagree with this. I think someone's potential changes over time depending on changes they make to their approach. I don't think we should view potential as some kind of raw potential numbers. I don't think that would be particularly useful anyway. I think we should see it as "this is the guy's potential if he continues to play as he does and improves."

There are two potentials in RL. A player's actual potential that none of us know about (god given ability), and the potential that scouts give a player in RL based on whatever a scout uses to judge that stuff. You're talking about the potential a scout assigns the player vs what his god given ability is.

[teak88]

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)

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by teak88

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:
....

Interesting. I like where you're headed with that.

But how would this fit in with no scouting? Would you just know "a" and "b" already? That would, again, eliminate any hopes of having a 20th round HOFer.

[teak88]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Interesting. I like where you're headed with that.

But how would this fit in with no scouting? Would you just know "a" and "b" already? That would, again, eliminate any hopes of having a 20th round HOFer.

You would have to have scouting, otherwise it would be like evaluating talent with a blind man.

I know that some people play w/ Scouts 'Off'; don't fully understand the reason, but believe it's something around dis-satisfaction w/ the issue being discussed in this thread. Solve the issue and they would play w/ Scouts 'On'

[johnnybourbon]

Originally Posted by teak88

You would have to have scouting, otherwise it would be like evaluating talent with a blind man.

I know that some people play w/ Scouts 'Off'; don't fully understand the reason, but believe it's something around dis-satisfaction w/ the issue being discussed in this thread. Solve the issue and they would play w/ Scouts 'On'

nah, i play with scouts off not b/c of player development problems, just because i dont want to have to deal with signing & tasking scouts.

[Treches]

There are more issues than those, for example:

10 March: Joe Smith pitching potential INCREASES.
12 May: Joe Smith pitching potential DROPS.

Roughly two months with no injuries involved.
Apart from too volatile, there doesn't seem to be any coherence.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by teak88

You would have to have scouting, otherwise it would be like evaluating talent with a blind man.

I know that some people play w/ Scouts 'Off'; don't fully understand the reason, but believe it's something around dis-satisfaction w/ the issue being discussed in this thread. Solve the issue and they would play w/ Scouts 'On'

I don't think that's the case. Some people like to know exactly how good their players are. Like playing Age of Empires with the whole map revealed rather than with the fog of war.

Though I guess not finding a 20th round HOFer is the price you pay if you want to know everything. That is a scouting issue, after all, not a development issue. So, no scouts = no 20th round HOFers.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Neags23

I don't think that's the case. Some people like to know exactly how good their players are. Like playing Age of Empires with the whole map revealed rather than with the fog of war.

The ironic thing about this is that the way OOTP currently works, even with scouts off you don't know what their true potential is so its like playing with scouts off for current ratings and scouts on for potential.

[teak88]

Originally Posted by Neags23

I don't think that's the case. Some people like to know exactly how good their players are. Like playing Age of Empires with the whole map revealed rather than with the fog of war.

Though I guess not finding a 20th round HOFer is the price you pay if you want to know everything. That is a scouting issue, after all, not a development issue. So, no scouts = no 20th round HOFers.

If there are gamers that want to "play" w/ perfect information...that's fine. What I'm suggesting, I guess, could be toggled on/off. But in it's purest sense, the idea is to make a game that replicates, as closely as possible, real life. IRL, talent is always judged through the eyes/brain of imperfect humans

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

The ironic thing about this is that the way OOTP currently works, even with scouts off you don't know what their true potential...

That pretty much sums up the problem.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Who Killed Kenny?

Didn't someone do a study on this last spring and found that the current player development was actually on par with real player development?

Originally Posted by jarmenia

That was RonCo and the results are on par with real player development but the way it gets there is WAY off.

I think he might be referring to Elendil's work:

How OOTP 2007 Models Real Baseball

[injury log]

Just looked at the poll- not sure those answer choices would get Gallup's approval!

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by injury log

Just looked at the poll- not sure those answer choices would get Gallup's approval!

Its rather clear that the community thinks there's an issue with development. Markus can no longer say the minority are the only ones that think there's a problem with development.