OOTP10 Suggestions: Game Engine / Player Modeling and Development

[battists]

This suggestion thread is designed to collect suggestions for the next version of OOTP, on the following topic:

Game Engine / Player Modeling and Development

Includes
- Suggestions related to the game engine, including the pitching model, how the game simulates the real world, the rating system, player development etc.

Excludes
- Non-game engine stuff

Instructions
We will use this thread to collect suggestions on the above topic. Later on, we hope to present this information back to the community in a way that would allow you to vote and prioritize certain features.

If you would like to participate, here are the rules!

1. Only 1 suggestion per post.
2. Suggestions must be on-topic for the thread.
3. Constructive, non-inflammatory suggestions only.
4. No comments on others' suggestions are necessary. That means, we don't need 15 posts in the thread saying "Great idea!" or "I agree!"
5. Please don't link to other forum threads as your way of making suggestions. ("My suggestion can be found HERE.") If it's important enough to you that you want it in this thread, then it should be important enough to put it in the format I've asked for here!
6. You can certainly post suggestions that conflict with or build upon earlier suggestions.
7. Mockups are welcomed, they really help Markus see what you're interested in accomplishing.

Format for Suggestions

Suggestion
What is your suggestion? Be as specific as possible; include the screen you're talking about, if applicable.

Reason
Why do you think this is important? If this is to correct what you perceive as a problem in OOTP 2007, what is that problem? Be as specific as possible.

Priority
In your opinion, how important is this suggestion?
High (MUST have), Medium (should have), Low (nice to have))


Handy Cut-and-Paste Suggestion Form:

Suggestion


Reason


Priority


Thanks for participating!

Steve

[Cryomaniac]

Suggestion
Allow switch pitching (Or allow us to edit players during a game as a work around.)

Reason
I'm tempted to annotate this solely with the words "Pat Venditte" lol. Anyway, I don't see any reason at all why this can't be done, the AI is pretty similar to switch hitters. Also let us choose what happens when a switch pitcher faces a switch hitter (i.e, who declares first)

Priority
Medium, I really can't justify it being high.

[Tony M]

Suggestion

Allow a double steal with runners on 1st and 3rd.

Reason

The runner on first breaks and as soon as the ball is committed to be thrown to second the runner on third breaks for home. Has been used a fair few times in real life baseball

Priority

Medium

[robc]

Suggestion
Have real lefty / righty split ratings for batters and pitchers in historical leagues.

Reason
To me, players should match their characteristics as closely has possibly. Right now there isn't a compelling reason to platoon players. It would open up more strategic choices. Also, you would have to decide if it was worth a roster spot to keep that great hitter vs lefties who wasn't too good against righties.

Priority
Medium -I am inclined to say high, but this isn't a game breaker. It would make the game much better in my opinion though.

[robc]

Suggestion
Make speed rating a little more influential.

Reason
To me it seems too too many slow players get too many triples, infield hits, and extra bases.

Priority
High - When I see slow players getting so many of the above things it does not seem realistic. Since I play using historical leagues, it takes a lot of fun out of it and makes me question the results as a whole.

[RedSoxFaithful]

Suggestion
Add a "Chance to Achieve Potential" rating for players, based on a percentage.

Reason
There should be a difference between prospects. Obviously, some prospects are more "sure bets" than others, and the game should be able to distinguish between low-ceiling, low-risk guys, and high-ceiling, high-risk guys. Think, Julio Teheran vs. Chase Wright. This would also factor into college vs. high school draft picks.

Priority
Fairly high- this is a glaring weakness in the current version, and definitely affects prospect development.

[RedSoxFaithful]

Suggestion
Change player ratings to more accurately influence minor league stats!

Reason
It is almost impossible in the current version for minor league batters to have success as they move through an organization, while literally any minor league pitcher can dominate no matter the level or talent. I'm not sure what the problem is here (I tried making the league totals accurate, which took hours and fixed nothing), but it needs a solution.

Priority
Extremely high. I want minor leaguers to be able to hit the ball!

[phillosopherp]

suggestion:

Allow for more defensive and offensive moves. These should include horseshoe shifts, outfield right/left shifts, infield double play depth. Offensive hit to right side of field, divide bunt strategy into bunt 3b/1b as well as sac and squeeze, and sac fly attempts. Also allow for fake steals i.e. a break to the bag and then hold up.

Reason: These are all actual plays in baseball. They play a great deal into the strategies that managers use in order to try and either take away a precieved advantage of the hitter, or to create pressure on the defense. It would also have the ability to make the game much more interesting to play instead of sim.

Priority: I would say high for those of us that want to play an indepth single player experience, maybe not so much for those that only sim or only play online.

[StyxNCa]

Suggestion

Make it possible to type in stats to come up with ratings in the player editor the way it was in 6.5 and earlier.

Reason

It's way too tedious the way it is now. I also like to create real life lefty/right stats for players when they are available.

Priority

For me, it's really the only thing I would like to see changed. Top priority.

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by RedSoxFaithful

Suggestion
Add a "Chance to Achieve Potential" rating for players, based on a percentage.

Reason
There should be a difference between prospects. Obviously, some prospects are more "sure bets" than others, and the game should be able to distinguish between low-ceiling, low-risk guys, and high-ceiling, high-risk guys. Think, Julio Teheran vs. Chase Wright. This would also factor into college vs. high school draft picks.

Priority
Fairly high- this is a glaring weakness in the current version, and definitely affects prospect development.

I believe that the work ethic and intelligence stats more or less already encompass this. A player with low work ethic and intelligence but high potential ratings would represent a high risk, high reward prospect. Moreso if he began with lower actual ratings.

[Syd Thrift]

Suggestion: Get rid of the Season Ending Injury boolean.

Reason: It serves no real purpose outside of perhaps making news stories easier to code, and it gets in the way of those of us who want to make customized injury files.

Priority: It wouldn't be a game-breaker, but this would certainly enhance the game for me. Since I don't think there are really any actual game breakers out there right now, I'm going to rate this Medium to High.

[atlbrave1]

Suggestion
Change the pitching model

The main issue I am trying to address is how the game creates SP and RP in what seems to be an equal ratio (if not even unequal -- creating more RP).

In real life, a majority of the pitchers who are drafted are SP, it's what happens thereafter that decides if they are a starter or reliever.

1) When creating a draft pool (Not the initial pool -- that should probably stay similar to what it is now in terms of more defined roles) approximately 85% of the pitchers created should have enough endurance to start a game. Without doing a lot of research, I am sure that number is actually low in regards to how many starting pitchers are actually drafted.

2) Tie endurance development to the role the pitcher is in. Pitchers should be created w/ a maximum endurance rating, which could be considered an endurance "potential". The pitchers "current" potential should be very close to his potential endurance at the time of the draft. If a pitcher is drafted and put in the starting rotation, his "potential" endurance should not fluctuate much, although there should be cases in which endurance "potential" increases or decreases significantly. Example: Joe Rookie is drafted w/ endurance "potential" of 70 out of 100 and placed in Rookie league Starting Rotation. Assuming he stays in the rotation, his endurance should remain fairly level -- 65 to 75 w/ the chance of quicker improvement or reduction, perhaps w/ a message from a scout saying "Joe doesn't seem to have the stamina we originally thought, he's tiring earlier than expected" or "Joe's turning out to be a real horse out there, he could throw all day" with a corresponding "Potential" decrease to 55 or increase to 85. If a pitcher is placed in the bullpen, his "Current" endurance should decrease, but "Potential" endurance should should be dependent on the time spent in the bullpen. The 1st year in the bullpen should not effect "potential" endurance that much, but longer stretches should reduce endurance quicker. The longer a pitcher spends in the bullpen the longer it should take to regain the endurance to become a starter.

3) Keep the current Stuff, Movement, Control rating (or a similar rating system) but change the way they are calculated based on pitch types. Instead of having pitchers created w/ 3 ratings, instead have pitchers created w/ specific rating for each pitch they throw. Example: Joe Rookie is in the draft pool and has 3 pitches, a Fastball (w/ 70 Stuff, 60 Movement, 70 Control "Potential"), a Curve (w/ 60 Stuff, 50 Movement, 50 Control) and a Changeup (w/ 30 Stuff, 40 Movement and 30 Control). Pitchers would be created w/ repertoires depending on their experience level...college pitcher would typically be able to throw more types of pitches (3-5) than high school pitchers (2-3). The reason for this type of rating system ties into the next idea.

4) Weight overall Stuff, Movement and Control ratings differently based on a pitchers role. I think a pitcher's rating should be based on a weighted average of his individual pitches and the weights should be different based on whether a pitcher is a SP or RP. Here are the weights for SP:
5 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd - 4th Pitches 2, 5th Pitch 1)
4 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd - 3rd Pitches 2, 5th Pitch 1)
3 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd - 3rd Pitches 2)
2 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd Pitch 2)
NOTE: Best Pitch would be the pitch with the highest sum of Stuff, Movement, and Control.
So in the example above Joe Rookie would have the following "potential" attributes.
Stuff: (70*3+60*2+30*2)/7 = 56
Movement: (60*3+50*2+40*2)/7 = 52
Control: (70*3+50*2+30*2)/7 = 53

For Relief pitchers, the weights change:
5 pitches (Best Pitch 3, 2nd - 4th Pitches 1, 5th Pitch not counted)
4 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd - 3rd Pitches 1, 4th Pitch not counted)
3 pitches (Best Pitch 3, 2nd Pitch 1, 3rd Pitch 1)
2 pitches (Best Pitch 3, 2nd Pitch 1)
So in the example above Joe Rookie would have the following "potential" attributes.
Stuff: (70*3+60*1+30*1)/5 = 60
Movement: (60*3+50*1+40*1)/5 = 54
Control: (70*3+50*1+30*1)/5 = 58

Also, the ability to throw more than 3 pitches should get a starting pitcher a slight boost (5% per pitch) to simulate the idea that a hitter has a harder time "sitting" on a pitch, and starting pitchers who throw only 2 pitches should get a reduction (20% to stuff and movement) to simulate the idea that a pitcher with a limited repertoire would get hit around more.

5) Pitchers will have the ability to "learn" pitches. At some point in a pitchers development, depending on factors such as intelligence and/or work ethic, a pitcher will learn a new pith (or pitches). This will be more likely w/ pitcher with 2-3 pitches than pitchers with 4 pitches. You would get a message from a scout saying, "Joe has been working hard on a new slider grip and has starting using it in games." The player card would then show the new pitch in his repertoire. On the other hand, a pitcher may not develop any more pitches and you may get a message saying, "Joe has been working on a slider in the bullpen, but he doesn't seem to have the feel for the pitch." As far as role impacts development, I think that a pitcher pitching in the bullpen should have the development of his "worst" pitch develop at a lesser rate than his "better" pitches, while a starter will have more even pitch development (to reflect the idea of a SP using more of his repertoire, while a RP uses only his best pitches).

Reason

Creating a more realistic model of how pitchers develop

Priority
Medium

[paulmat4]

Suggestion
In the player game strategy change the steal slider or add something about the frequency of stealing third base versus second base

Reason
right now it seems that if the slider is set all the way to the right, too many times the player tries to steal third. Everytime my base stealer gets on first, I love for him to be intent on stealing second. However, just like in real life, third base is hardly every tried...though it doea happen on occasion.

Priority
Medium

[Buane]

Suggestion

"Contact" rating should no longer be an amalgamation of Avoiding Strikeouts, Homerun Power, and BABIP ratings, but rather just a straight representation of the BABIP rating.


Reason

It makes more sense than the current system. I understand the thought process behind the way it is set up now, but it seems unnecessarily redundant. Currently, a player's Contact rating is made up of a hidden BABIP rating, the player's Avoid Strikeouts rating, and the player's Homerun Power rating. In other words, the game is predicting how the player will be affected by balls in play rather than just telling us straight up.

I know that's worded kind of strangely, so I'll make a longer example to try and make my point. Let's take a fictional player, Bob Jones. Bob Jones' potential talent ratings are 7/7/7/6/10 (C/GP/HR/BB/K format). Now in the current system, Bob Jones' Contact rating looks passable at 7. But if you know how the Contact rating works currently, Bob Jones' Contact rating is actually his weakness, because his other stats say it should be higher. Because his Homerun Power and Avoid Strikeouts ratings are so good, we can assume that his hidden BABIP rating is quite low.

But instead of giving us this hidden rating, the game predicts how Bob Jones is going to perform. It deceives us into thinking Jones is better than he is - yes, he's almost never going to strikeout and he has decent power, but he also has trouble hitting the ball squarely. I understand the need to have a BABIP rating - some players are just better line drive hitters than others - but I don't think the player rating system is entirely straightforward in these instances. If you change the system to one where Contact simply is the displayed BABIP rating, then Bob Jones ratings would look like this: 5/7/7/6/10. From this, it would be much easier to identify the kind of hitter Mr. Jones is going to be one day - a player who's almost never going to strikeout, a player with decent power when he gets ahold of one, but a player who also has a lot of trouble hitting the ball squarely.

You might argue that this kind of system sells Mr. Jones short. Who's going to want a player with a 5 in Contact? Well, under a new ratings display system, it would be our talent evaluating that would have to change.
Yes, Bob Jones' Contact is very low. That means he's likely going to have a lower than average BABIP for his career. But he'll be helped out by the fact that 1) he does have some homerun power so he can produce without having to worry about the ball in play, and 2) he has an extremely high avoid strikeouts rating, so his actual batting average will be helped out by the fact that despite his low BABIP compared to the league, he'll be putting more balls in play than the league (not striking out) and so in the long run he has a good chance to amass just as many hits as a player with a better BABIP rating but whom also strikeout more than Mr. Jones.

I imagine there are quite a few people out there who don't even understand how Contact is calculated. They probably know nothing about the BABIP stat, or why players who look like they should be doing very well are struggling to post a .260 average.

You also have to consider the different league totals that are out there. In a league where homeruns are scarce, Player A, with ratings of 8/7/4/7/5 will likely outperform or equal the performance of Player B, with ratings of 7/7/9/7/7. The system I'm arguing in favor of wouldn't change the results of a league, or the statistics of any player. In the new system, Player A would have ratings closer to 10/7/4/7/5, and Player B 5/7/9/7/7. Both players actual on-field production wouldn't change, just the way their talents are displayed. Now people would be able to accurately judge the relative performances of these two players better.

So to summarize, the current system takes liberties with the Contact rating that are confusing and sometimes misleading. The hidden BABIP rating is already there, and it should be shown to us. The players, the managers out there should have it left to themselves to make their own evaluations instead of the game making its own arbitrary ones. Honestly, if you're going to have a player's rating based on his other ratings, why doesn't having a high Eye/Discipline cause the rest of the player's ratings to go up? Having a good eye would help you make better contact, hit more homeruns, and strikeout less since you'd be swinging at the most hittable pitches. In the end, I think the simplest display would be best, and that's letting us see the player's true ratings and making our own assessments.

Thanks for reading.


Priority

Quite high for me!

[Mattymo]

Originally Posted by atlbrave1

Suggestion
Change the pitching model

The main issue I am trying to address is how the game creates SP and RP in what seems to be an equal ratio (if not even unequal -- creating more RP).

In real life, a majority of the pitchers who are drafted are SP, it's what happens thereafter that decides if they are a starter or reliever.

1) When creating a draft pool (Not the initial pool -- that should probably stay similar to what it is now in terms of more defined roles) approximately 85% of the pitchers created should have enough endurance to start a game. Without doing a lot of research, I am sure that number is actually low in regards to how many starting pitchers are actually drafted.

2) Tie endurance development to the role the pitcher is in. Pitchers should be created w/ a maximum endurance rating, which could be considered an endurance "potential". The pitchers "current" potential should be very close to his potential endurance at the time of the draft. If a pitcher is drafted and put in the starting rotation, his "potential" endurance should not fluctuate much, although there should be cases in which endurance "potential" increases or decreases significantly. Example: Joe Rookie is drafted w/ endurance "potential" of 70 out of 100 and placed in Rookie league Starting Rotation. Assuming he stays in the rotation, his endurance should remain fairly level -- 65 to 75 w/ the chance of quicker improvement or reduction, perhaps w/ a message from a scout saying "Joe doesn't seem to have the stamina we originally thought, he's tiring earlier than expected" or "Joe's turning out to be a real horse out there, he could throw all day" with a corresponding "Potential" decrease to 55 or increase to 85. If a pitcher is placed in the bullpen, his "Current" endurance should decrease, but "Potential" endurance should should be dependent on the time spent in the bullpen. The 1st year in the bullpen should not effect "potential" endurance that much, but longer stretches should reduce endurance quicker. The longer a pitcher spends in the bullpen the longer it should take to regain the endurance to become a starter.

3) Keep the current Stuff, Movement, Control rating (or a similar rating system) but change the way they are calculated based on pitch types. Instead of having pitchers created w/ 3 ratings, instead have pitchers created w/ specific rating for each pitch they throw. Example: Joe Rookie is in the draft pool and has 3 pitches, a Fastball (w/ 70 Stuff, 60 Movement, 70 Control "Potential"), a Curve (w/ 60 Stuff, 50 Movement, 50 Control) and a Changeup (w/ 30 Stuff, 40 Movement and 30 Control). Pitchers would be created w/ repertoires depending on their experience level...college pitcher would typically be able to throw more types of pitches (3-5) than high school pitchers (2-3). The reason for this type of rating system ties into the next idea.

4) Weight overall Stuff, Movement and Control ratings differently based on a pitchers role. I think a pitcher's rating should be based on a weighted average of his individual pitches and the weights should be different based on whether a pitcher is a SP or RP. Here are the weights for SP:
5 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd - 4th Pitches 2, 5th Pitch 1)
4 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd - 3rd Pitches 2, 5th Pitch 1)
3 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd - 3rd Pitches 2)
2 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd Pitch 2)
NOTE: Best Pitch would be the pitch with the highest sum of Stuff, Movement, and Control.
So in the example above Joe Rookie would have the following "potential" attributes.
Stuff: (70*3+60*2+30*2)/7 = 56
Movement: (60*3+50*2+40*2)/7 = 52
Control: (70*3+50*2+30*2)/7 = 53

For Relief pitchers, the weights change:
5 pitches (Best Pitch 3, 2nd - 4th Pitches 1, 5th Pitch not counted)
4 pitches (Best pitch 3, 2nd - 3rd Pitches 1, 4th Pitch not counted)
3 pitches (Best Pitch 3, 2nd Pitch 1, 3rd Pitch 1)
2 pitches (Best Pitch 3, 2nd Pitch 1)
So in the example above Joe Rookie would have the following "potential" attributes.
Stuff: (70*3+60*1+30*1)/5 = 60
Movement: (60*3+50*1+40*1)/5 = 54
Control: (70*3+50*1+30*1)/5 = 58

Also, the ability to throw more than 3 pitches should get a starting pitcher a slight boost (5% per pitch) to simulate the idea that a hitter has a harder time "sitting" on a pitch, and starting pitchers who throw only 2 pitches should get a reduction (20% to stuff and movement) to simulate the idea that a pitcher with a limited repertoire would get hit around more.

5) Pitchers will have the ability to "learn" pitches. At some point in a pitchers development, depending on factors such as intelligence and/or work ethic, a pitcher will learn a new pith (or pitches). This will be more likely w/ pitcher with 2-3 pitches than pitchers with 4 pitches. You would get a message from a scout saying, "Joe has been working hard on a new slider grip and has starting using it in games." The player card would then show the new pitch in his repertoire. On the other hand, a pitcher may not develop any more pitches and you may get a message saying, "Joe has been working on a slider in the bullpen, but he doesn't seem to have the feel for the pitch." As far as role impacts development, I think that a pitcher pitching in the bullpen should have the development of his "worst" pitch develop at a lesser rate than his "better" pitches, while a starter will have more even pitch development (to reflect the idea of a SP using more of his repertoire, while a RP uses only his best pitches).

Reason

Creating a more realistic model of how pitchers develop

Priority
Medium

What he said.

And I'd like to add: Allow team pitching coaches another rating for "teaching pitches".

[Russ]

Suggestion

Tweak player aging so the average of players' peak years are between the ages of 26-28 to more accurately depict real-life.


Reason
Sure, there are outliers, but Bill James, BPro, and others have studied this issue and have found that on average a player peaks between 26-28 years of age. This should be implemented. But there should still be outliers.

Priority

High if you want realism. Low if you want to crack jokes about it.


...or what RonCo said.

[Syd Thrift]

I don't want to start de-brainstorming ideas, but RonCo's studies had one fatal flaw: he looked at ratings rather than the stats the ratings produced. There is probably a pretty good correlation between the two but there may be statistical synergies created that just looking at ratings wouldn't accomplish. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be looked at; far from it, I think that a big part of the beta testing this year should be re-doing a lot of the stuff that RonCo did. I just also think that this isn't *necessarily* as large an issue as he made it out to be.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I don't want to start de-brainstorming ideas, but RonCo's studies had one fatal flaw: he looked at ratings rather than the stats the ratings produced. There is probably a pretty good correlation between the two but there may be statistical synergies created that just looking at ratings wouldn't accomplish. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be looked at; far from it, I think that a big part of the beta testing this year should be re-doing a lot of the stuff that RonCo did. I just also think that this isn't *necessarily* as large an issue as he made it out to be.

I hope you're right. I would like to see the development and aging system looked at in depth and improved, however.

[injury log]

Suggestion

Get defensive aging right.

Reason

In real life, you often read about a prospect that 'he will outgrow shortstop as he fills out.' This never happens in OOTP; instead, OOTP players gradually improve their fielding skills until they get old. There are some interesting opportunities here with text-based scouting -- a text-based scouting report could indicate whether an 18 year old will likely stay at his current position. In addition, this could lead to more realistic draft pools; OOTP makes too many second basemen now, for example, and not enough shortstops.

Priority

Medium

[injury log]

Suggestion

Two-way players.

Reason

There are a couple of problems with OOTP as it stands:

Now, because pitchers never develop batting skills, pitchers need to be created with fully developed batting skills. So an 18 year old pitcher in the draft pool is invariably a better hitter than an 18 year old right fielder. This doesn't make much sense.

Further, one of the more interesting draft day decisions in real life is where to play some of the two way players who are available. Some guys in real life might develop as batters or as hitters - John Vanbenschoten, Nick Markakis, Adam Jones, Ethan Martin, etc, etc - and it would be good if OOTP could capture this.

Finally, many players switch positions, from batter to pitcher or vice versa - Rick Ankiel, Adam Loewen, Yhency Brazoban, Matt Bush, Warner Madrigal, etc. As far as I can tell, this was possible in OOTP-8 (though it was total luck if a guy developed; he needed a talent boost), but now, in OOTP-9, it's impossible. If I change a batter to a pitcher, for example, his batting ratings continue to change, but his pitching ratings remain stagnant. Some batters, particularly catchers and strong-armed infielders, should have at least the possibility of pitching at higher than 75 mph.

Priority

Medium.