Anyone done any testing on prospect development in v25.2.52?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

T

Personally I think daily focus should have more impact. Positive and negative.

What about "no affect"? I'd wager IRL 99.9% of players are working on improving their game daily in the cage or bullpen. The ones that aren't are probably quickly without a job. And yet season after season they statistically continue to basically be the same player. With the end result most of these guys are maintaining their skills, while some attain slight improvements.

Your certainly entitled to that opinion but then it comes down to how much more impact? Based on what? You may think a 2% increase would be "right" the next guy 10%, etc.

The feature is way to new for me to comment either way. It may well need to be tweaked. I'll give Will Beh the benefit of the doubt and think he based the model on something more than "feel", and always with an eye on not unbalancing the game. I'll also be patient and let him observe how things are working as the sample size grows. Last year (or was it v23?) we "improved" financials in a "fix on the fly" patch that broke the game until a hotfix came out a day or two later. Maybe letting the team digest the information they have before making any decsions is a good idea?

Too me they took the right path by being conservative and having small affects. If it's too easy they get the same complaints from a different group of users. To use your previous analogy .. If the affect is too small or nonexistent at least it doesn't break the game. If the affect is too large, long running games are ruined.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Sweed

What about "no affect"? I'd wager IRL 99.9% of players are working on improving their game daily in the cage or bullpen. The ones that aren't are probably quickly without a job. And yet season after season they statistically continue to basically be the same player. With the end result most of these guys are maintaining their skills, while some attain slight improvements.

Your certainly entitled to that opinion but then it comes down to how much more impact? Based on what? You may think a 2% increase would be "right" the next guy 10%, etc.

The feature is way to new for me to comment either way. It may well need to be tweaked. I'll give Will Beh the benefit of the doubt and think he based the model on something more than "feel", and always with an eye on not unbalancing the game. I'll also be patient and let him observe how things are working as the sample size grows. Last year (or was it v23?) we "improved" financials in a "fix on the fly" patch that broke the game until a hotfix came out a day or two later. Maybe letting the team digest the information they have before making any decsions is a good idea?

Too me they took the right path by being conservative and having small affects. If it's too easy they get the same complaints from a different group of users. To use your previous analogy .. If the affect is too small or nonexistent at least it doesn't break the game. If the affect is too large, long running games are ruined.

I agree with most of what you say. Conservative is probably the right way to go. What seems lost is that I intentionally tried to break players and it is not possible to do. An entire organization over 20 years that tells their players to ignore running, defense, usually gap, stamina for pitchers should be obvious in my opinion. That isn’t to say some won’t sneak through this terrible set up, but if an organization that only wants to develop DHs and RP and goes out of its way to do so can not, then there are not enough consequences (or upside) for your choices imo.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

Seemingly there is a small but devoted group on the forum that believes the development team is infallible. I’m sure it is nice for them to have that level of support and devotion. Let’s just all keep in mind that just because they coded it doesn’t mean it is right - I respect that this is a pretty complicated game developed over 25 years that attempts to create a realistic “baseball world” out of the box, but with 25 years of development there is layer on top of layer that has unintended consequences that crop up when things are changed - both in the execution in game and the reaction of the player base. Sometimes things that are touted as big additions one year are turned off by default the next for example.

Nobody believes the development team is infallible. Those kind of statements are essentially the equivalent of a little temper tantrum because everyone doesn't agree with you.

I've said multiple times that there is always the possibility that an issue exists. However, in order to fix an issue it has to be shown to exist.

The development team has talked about the fact that they have evaluation tools for this kind of stuff. They can run hundreds? thousands? of simulations and compare that data to the data they are trying to emulate.

This is why they agreed there was an issue previously and made changes in the patches. They are currently saying that things are pretty much on target.

In this thread we have a few people who have run maybe a few simulations with very little (if any) actual proof of anything. Mostly just anecdotal "this is broken".

[SirMichaelJordan]

FWIW, zeroing out a category doesn’t mean ignore it, just mean it’s worked on less than the other categories. I think the misconception is the way the feature is intended to work vs how users think it should work.

Again, that tab is “training” before actual games. That’s how baseball players “practice”. It’s more related to maintaining ratings rather than “developing” hence the subtle improvements otherwise this feature would be exclusive to prospects.

Also 2-3 years is hardly enough time to see if someone develops. The average prospect takes 4-5 years of development and they usually hit their prime around the age of 26…

With that said, could there be tweaks made to allow for more 21 year olds to make an impact? Yes, and that’s why I personally changed the development targets from default to much younger and as mentioned, the devs are making tweaks to allow for that at the default setting.

[SpartyQ]

If we want realism, then we also need to realize that teams are pulling guys up to majors earlier than ever before. This means that they are ready almost right out of the gate. Langford up right away. Nolan Schanuel was up the year he was drafted. Jared Jones is up for the Pirates and dominating after two starts. That would never happen in OOTP. Why not?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

I agree with most of what you say. Conservative is probably the right way to go. What seems lost is that I intentionally tried to break players and it is not possible to do. An entire organization over 20 years that tells their players to ignore running, defense, usually gap, stamina for pitchers should be obvious in my opinion. That isn’t to say some won’t sneak through this terrible set up, but if an organization that only wants to develop DHs and RP and goes out of its way to do so can not, then there are not enough consequences (or upside) for your choices imo.

Hate to tell you but those DH/RP that a real life team tried to develop would fall into exactly what I said in my post. They would maintain the skills they already had with, maybe, some slight improvements. To make a DH you what? I assume zero out all fielding and have him only work in the cage. Ok, they weren't in the field anyway so nothing lost, or is there is it won't matter. More time in the cage, great. Keeping his current skills is likely, improving? Maybe, but not a certainty by any means. It's just not that easy.


If focus was easy Javy Baez would be walking 50 times a year instead of 25 and striking out 80 times instead of 125+++. Hell, he can't do that in a lab with a full off season.

One could say "look at Bellinger". Sure but that was off season "OOTP Lab" stuff that carried into actual games. Even with that many project he won't be able to reproduce that performance this year.

Sure since OOTP is a game this all could be done as a simple +/-. Thank god the developers want it to not be easy to get results, and more complex than simply "subtract eye, add to power".

Someone above (SirMJ?) mentioned the feature was probably miss named. I'd agree. Probably should have been called "Practice Focus".

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Nobody believes the development team is infallible. Those kind of statements are essentially the equivalent of a little temper tantrum because everyone doesn't agree with you.

I've said multiple times that there is always the possibility that an issue exists. However, in order to fix an issue it has to be shown to exist.

The development team has talked about the fact that they have evaluation tools for this kind of stuff. They can run hundreds? thousands? of simulations and compare that data to the data they are trying to emulate.

This is why they agreed there was an issue previously and made changes in the patches. They are currently saying that things are pretty much on target.

In this thread we have a few people who have run maybe a few simulations with very little (if any) actual proof of anything. Mostly just anecdotal "this is broken".

I may have missed your data points that you have contributed - if so, my bad! You are correct, there are a few people kinda arguing back and forth, generally about similar but often different things that are getting muddled together. I really am not throwing any tantrums - I would say I chose language to emphasize my point that I know game development is not an exact science.

I am pretty certain that these boards are monitored, they pay attention to what the player base thinks and they track game usage - it makes financial sense yo do so and once the game is released it belongs to the people. As someone else said in this thread who disagreed with me (which is their right) “if I don’t speak up with my opinion things may happen that I do not want.” If I do speak, things might happen I do want. Best time to discuss something is when it is fresh.

You have every right to your opinion. As do I. The thread asks who has run tests on developments. I have using the tools allotted to me by the game - the only thing players have access to and ultimately those results are all that I will have access to. I have run hundreds of seasons, always with default engine settings. I am very confident in how the game that is installed on my machine behaves as far as the ultimate development path of players. Based on where player ratings wind up in the editor, From a FOCUS STANDPOINT ONLY I do not think there is enough variation on what happens to individual careers from this point in baseball history forward at default levels and focus has no discernible impact in either a negative or positive direction. My opinion is again based on where they wind up in the editor - even with intentionally extreme settings.

I generally like the OOTP franchise year to year. I LOVE the idea of their development additions this year, I think it has potential to be great and add to the immersion factor - provide real consequences rather than “scout well, buy the best IAs, spend max on development, try to have a coaching progression, see who pans out, rinse, repeat”. In my experience those tactics generally still seem to provide decent results if all you want to do is “win” - others don’t seem to think they do, that is their opinion - I’m glad they are expressing it. In my opinion, focus could be a tool that makes the game greater for a user who cares about influencing development, if the user wants more in that direction - setting an organization’s philosophy from the bottom up / top down / however you want to think about it.

Good luck with your sims.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Hate to tell you but those DH/RP that a real life team tried to develop would fall into exactly what I said in my post. They would maintain the skills they already had with, maybe, some slight improvements. To make a DH you what? I assume zero out all fielding and have him only work in the cage. Ok, they weren't in the field anyway so nothing lost, or is there is it won't matter. More time in the cage, great. Keeping his current skills is likely, improving? Maybe, but not a certainty by any means. It's just not that easy.


If focus was easy Javy Baez would be walking 50 times a year instead of 25 and striking out 80 times instead of 125+++. Hell, he can't do that in a lab with a full off season.

One could say "look at Bellinger". Sure but that was off season "OOTP Lab" stuff that carried into actual games. Even with that many project he won't be able to reproduce that performance this year.

Sure since OOTP is a game this all could be done as a simple +/-. Thank god the developers want it to not be easy to get results, and more complex than simply "subtract eye, add to power".

Someone above (SirMJ?) mentioned the feature was probably miss named. I'd agree. Probably should have been called "Practice Focus".

1. This isn’t real life. We have a fundamental disagreement about that clearly.

2. The players are playing in the field. They just don’t get noticeably worse. So to enhance your chances at improvement (theoretically) you take no risk. Supposedly it was supposed to be worse to subtract than to add when released.

3. Why do the bars exist if they do not do anything? I personally feel it was a poor allocation of time in the development process if there is no discernible impact. Personally if I had worked for a year on this, I’d like people to realize it. The Lab is very noticeable.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by SpartyQ

If we want realism, then we also need to realize that teams are pulling guys up to majors earlier than ever before. This means that they are ready almost right out of the gate. Langford up right away. Nolan Schanuel was up the year he was drafted. Jared Jones is up for the Pirates and dominating after two starts. That would never happen in OOTP. Why not?

It takes time for the code to catch up to real life trends? Maybe we see how these trends work out before making changes?

Two starts is the definition of small sample size. Do we want major changes to the game based on those?

I would guess that measurable skills, that weren't measurable before, are leading to better training at an earlier age. Could result in a younger players that can match some veterans measurables, and them replacing vets leading to a younger (cheaper player cost) league? OR those vets also take advantage of new training and are able to keep their jobs, and league age doesn't change a whole lot?

I'd just caution before jumping on the "trend", let's make sure it is a trend.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Hate to tell you but those DH/RP that a real life team tried to develop would fall into exactly what I said in my post. They would maintain the skills they already had with, maybe, some slight improvements. To make a DH you what? I assume zero out all fielding and have him only work in the cage. Ok, they weren't in the field anyway so nothing lost, or is there is it won't matter. More time in the cage, great. Keeping his current skills is likely, improving? Maybe, but not a certainty by any means. It's just not that easy.


If focus was easy Javy Baez would be walking 50 times a year instead of 25 and striking out 80 times instead of 125+++. Hell, he can't do that in a lab with a full off season.

One could say "look at Bellinger". Sure but that was off season "OOTP Lab" stuff that carried into actual games. Even with that many project he won't be able to reproduce that performance this year.

Sure since OOTP is a game this all could be done as a simple +/-. Thank god the developers want it to not be easy to get results, and more complex than simply "subtract eye, add to power".

Someone above (SirMJ?) mentioned the feature was probably miss named. I'd agree. Probably should have been called "Practice Focus".

Correct. The feature isn’t meant mold players into what you want your organization to have, you do that by drafting prospects who fit your philosophy.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by SpartyQ

If we want realism, then we also need to realize that teams are pulling guys up to majors earlier than ever before. This means that they are ready almost right out of the gate. Langford up right away. Nolan Schanuel was up the year he was drafted. Jared Jones is up for the Pirates and dominating after two starts. That would never happen in OOTP. Why not?

College players are more ready than HS, IAFA, it’s been that way for a while now. However, the college guy going straight up is rare in the game on default settings but it does happen.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Sweed

It takes time for the code to catch up to real life trends? Maybe we see how these trends work out before making changes?

Two starts is the definition of small sample size. Do we want major changes to the game based on those?

I would guess that measurable skills, that weren't measurable before, are leading to better training at an earlier age. Could result in a younger players that can match some veterans measurables, and them replacing vets leading to a younger (cheaper player cost) league? OR those vets also take advantage of new training and are able to keep their jobs, and league age doesn't change a whole lot?

I'd just caution before jumping on the "trend", let's make sure it is a trend.

Not to mention the new limitations in the minors vs in the past. Clubs are more eager to rush prospects up (particularly older players) with the limited amount of roster spots.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

1. This isn’t real life. We have a fundamental disagreement about that clearly.

2. The players are playing in the field. They just don’t get noticeably worse. So to enhance your chances at improvement (theoretically) you take no risk. Supposedly it was supposed to be worse to subtract than to add when released.

3. Why do the bars exist if they do not do anything? I personally feel it was a poor allocation of time in the development process if there is no discernible impact. Personally if I had worked for a year on this, I’d like people to realize it. The Lab is very noticeable.

We certainly do. Of course it's not real life, it's software code. But it's code to simulate real life. Otherwise what is the point? A huge "math problem" that one can solve? Sounds fun. From my experiences here over the years I think Markus would say his goal was to create the illusion of real life. Same as the Collier brothers and FM, Riz with Eastside Hockey Manager, or to go back in time High Heat. What was the hook? Oh yeah, "It's so real", not "Gauss would be proud".

I simply can't fathom someone wanting to play OOTP as a "game". PT sure, that makes sense. OOTP? Never.

Please don't take that as a dig. You are certainly allowed to play and enjoy OOTP any way you like.

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by SpartyQ

If we want realism, then we also need to realize that teams are pulling guys up to majors earlier than ever before. This means that they are ready almost right out of the gate. Langford up right away. Nolan Schanuel was up the year he was drafted. Jared Jones is up for the Pirates and dominating after two starts. That would never happen in OOTP. Why not?

I agree with this, the way the minors are used is changing. I remember in last year's version you would see a decent number of draftees debut after only a short time in the minors, more than you would see in real life. They seem to have overcorrected in this version and now you don't see any.

This is a different and less dire concern than "prospects don't develop" but it is a concern and I hope they're looking at it. There should be a handful of guys that are coming out of college at two or even two and a half stars.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Sweed

We certainly do. Of course it's not real life, it's software code. But it's code to simulate real life. Otherwise what is the point? A huge "math problem" that one can solve? Sounds fun. From my experiences here over the years I think Markus would say his goal was to create the illusion of real life. Same as the Collier brothers and FM, Riz with Eastside Hockey Manager, or to go back in time High Heat. What was the hook? Oh yeah, "It's so real", not "Gauss would be proud".

I simply can't fathom someone wanting to play OOTP as a "game". PT sure, that makes sense. OOTP? Never.

Please don't take that as a dig. You are certainly allowed to play and enjoy OOTP any way you like.

I honestly take nothing personally - this has been a really active thread and people are passionate, that’s good. That people can use the software in many different ways is great. I simply recognize there are game restraints and I’m not trying to read a history book. Rather than watch fate unfold I’d like as much influence as I can have without ruining what makes the game good.

OOTP has a game engine that year to year typically behaves in a believable way. Personally I am only interested what is going to happen with my “players” from Opening Day of that year’s version and I may play 100 years on a single save if I’m engaged enough. I set strategies, do daily lineups quite often or set strict rest rules, but I don't usually watch the pixels move. If I wanted to do that I would play a different game, others love that part. The future baseball world is fiction, but believable outcomes typically with this series. The team also is trying to please people who only play historical, which personally I don’t find enjoyable but that’s their thing. A small subset of that group probably think the game is broken if Nolan Ryan only throws 2 no-hitters in his career.

Do I think that anyone has accurately measured the intelligence level of every player in MLB history or their ability to handle success? Obviously no, but clearly along the way there were decisions made to include those in the math equations / dice rolls / rock, paper, scissors the game uses to approximate statistical behavior in baseball. That’s really what I’m talking about when I say I know I am playing a game.

My guess is the pull of the history crowd is very strong and adding new layers like this one comes at the risk of upsetting them. I hope they still take that risk.

If you were watching baseball in 1988, there is no way you could have predicted what it would look like in 1998. Players focused on “different things”. It worked for some, others were ruined, some player types became obsolete and really have not returned. I don’t want the ability to turn Javy Baez into a contact hitter who walks, I want the ability to make it more likely that Javy Baez turns into a guy who washes out at A ball because he focused on the wrong things and it was a bad decision - by me, the only person who is actively adding inputs into my game. I would also personally think it was just fine if sometimes by focusing on the right thing for how the math plays out I see a guy jump 5mph from when he enters the league and go on an unexpected run of dominance - not because I turn up the randomness slider or get luck one time in the Lab, but because I improved their odds with my decisions over a period of time, and it is clear that is what happened.

I guess I want less to feel like only fate combined with luck and more to feel like choice, coupled of course with some good or bad luck in the dice rolls. Good and bad. Do I expect this to be a free for all? Absolutely not and I recognize it can mess up the engine, but I am hoping for a little more impact.

[Guthrien]

What's the rough numbers for the modern game? 80% of 1st rounders get a cup of coffee? Should be 2-4yrs College, 3-5 HS? I don't have time to run 1000 games, but I suspect 25 lacks any of those early dynamic prospects. It seems to be geared towards much longer bake times, and people had all sorts of suggestions for the development settings in 24 though I guarantee you get draft picks that are knocking on the door of the MLB every year.

We should have a lot of random distribution between us, anyone gotten lucky and drafted 1 (or god forbid 2 or 3 later round surprises!) of those powerhouses?

[Cluboris]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

I honestly take nothing personally - this has been a really active thread and people are passionate, that’s good. That people can use the software in many different ways is great. I simply recognize there are game restraints and I’m not trying to read a history book. Rather than watch fate unfold I’d like as much influence as I can have without ruining what makes the game good.

OOTP has a game engine that year to year typically behaves in a believable way. Personally I am only interested what is going to happen with my “players” from Opening Day of that year’s version and I may play 100 years on a single save if I’m engaged enough. I set strategies, do daily lineups quite often or set strict rest rules, but I don't usually watch the pixels move. If I wanted to do that I would play a different game, others love that part. The future baseball world is fiction, but believable outcomes typically with this series. The team also is trying to please people who only play historical, which personally I don’t find enjoyable but that’s their thing. A small subset of that group probably think the game is broken if Nolan Ryan only throws 2 no-hitters in his career.

Do I think that anyone has accurately measured the intelligence level of every player in MLB history or their ability to handle success? Obviously no, but clearly along the way there were decisions made to include those in the math equations / dice rolls / rock, paper, scissors the game uses to approximate statistical behavior in baseball. That’s really what I’m talking about when I say I know I am playing a game.

My guess is the pull of the history crowd is very strong and adding new layers like this one comes at the risk of upsetting them. I hope they still take that risk.

If you were watching baseball in 1988, there is no way you could have predicted what it would look like in 1998. Players focused on “different things”. It worked for some, others were ruined, some player types became obsolete and really have not returned. I don’t want the ability to turn Javy Baez into a contact hitter who walks, I want the ability to make it more likely that Javy Baez turns into a guy who washes out at A ball because he focused on the wrong things and it was a bad decision - by me, the only person who is actively adding inputs into my game. I would also personally think it was just fine if sometimes by focusing on the right thing for how the math plays out I see a guy jump 5mph from when he enters the league and go on an unexpected run of dominance - not because I turn up the randomness slider or get luck one time in the Lab, but because I improved their odds with my decisions over a period of time, and it is clear that is what happened.

I guess I want less to feel like only fate combined with luck and more to feel like choice, coupled of course with some good or bad luck in the dice rolls. Good and bad. Do I expect this to be a free for all? Absolutely not and I recognize it can mess up the engine, but I am hoping for a little more impact.

Love this post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

What's the rough numbers for the modern game? 80% of 1st rounders get a cup of coffee? Should be 2-4yrs College, 3-5 HS? I don't have time to run 1000 games, but I suspect 25 lacks any of those early dynamic prospects. It seems to be geared towards much longer bake times, and people had all sorts of suggestions for the development settings in 24 though I guarantee you get draft picks that are knocking on the door of the MLB every year.

We should have a lot of random distribution between us, anyone gotten lucky and drafted 1 (or god forbid 2 or 3 later round surprises!) of those powerhouses?

I think this is a good question, I am happy to contribute. This is a league I simmed but did not influence. New Standard Game at creation.

The year is 2040. With 100% accuracy there are 21 80 rated players. 8 of them are in their 20s - 23, 25, 26, 26, 26, 26, 27, 28. Unless I missed something all are game created (fictional) other than Salas, definitely no one from 2024 - 2026 draft classes.

1.27
1.5
1.4
1.26
1.12
1.2
1.1
IAFA $5.2m bonus
1.1
IAFA $4.1m
1.29
IAFA 4.75m
IAFA 5.23m
IAFA 4.75m
1.1
IAFA 4.998m
IAFA 5.1m
Ethan Salas
1.2
1.15
1.2

There are 16 players who are 75s. These are the non-1st rounders or $4.0m+ IAFA
2.1
IAFA $900k (reliever) - created as 60 potential
FA From S. Korea 7yr/$220m
8.5 - created as 50 potential. He’s a defensive catcher (also wrecked at age 31) with 1 AS appearance and a .202 career avg with 16.9 career WAR. Just became a 75 this year.
IAFA $3.044m
2.2

So in this one snapshot, out of the top 37 players (according to 100% scouting anyway), one was a relatively affordable IAFA reliever and another was a mid-round pick who seems…underwhelming?

[FantasyDrafter]

MVPs that year were the 27 yo 80/80 and a 29 yo (age 28 season) 70/75 who got traded at the deadline despite signing an extension in 2038 (under contract till 2046). Opt out after 2042 (age 30 season). 1.2 in his original draft.

[FantasyDrafter]

Update at the end of 2060. Went deeper to get some later round guys.

18 players at 80/80
23 at 75
28 at 70
43 at 65
72 at 60

The 80/80s have 9 guys in their 20s. Ages are 24, 25, 26, 26, 27, 28, 28, 28, 29

All 80s were 1st rounders or IAFAs who signed for $5.7m except 2

IFA P from Japan who signed a 3/$78 deal
IAFA defensive C who is 30 signed for $1.064 and was created at 55 potential.

Lower round picks:

75/75 drafted 3.1 (55p at creation)
75/75 signed for $2.5m (60p at creation)
75/75 drafted 5.16 (50p)
75/75 23 YEAR OLD CATCHER (offensive) who is the 93rd ranked prospect? Signed for $1.68m (65p)

70/70 drafted 7.2 (50p)
70/70 drafted 3.19 (65p)
70/70 drafted 4.15 (50p)
70/70 drafted 3.1 - two way player in MLB (75p at creation, heck of a draft in 2051, 7.1 WAR as a starting pitcher in 2 seasons. Waived from the minors in March 2059 (scouting somewhere between 50/60 and 55/65 at the time - picked up and immediately won rookie of the month in April).

65/65 drafted 8.19 (50p)
65/65 drafted 5.34 (50p)
65/65 drafted 4.8 (50p)
65/65 drafted 3.23 (50p)
3.3
4.20
3.16

At 60 we get lower (only listing 5th round or higher)

5.30
7.7
7.12
7.24
6.20
6.3
5.2
5.9
8.1
5.14
14.7 - pretty decent balanced catcher. He’s a backup (45p)
10.28 - catcher same as above
11.27 - 7 time GG winning SS with a .220 career avg (45p - his defense went from 55 at creation to 80 at the start of 2052 5 years later, huge jump from end of 2051, no lab mention in his history. Peaked at 85 defense, just dropped to 80 at age 34. Of course his focus bar is currently almost maxing out BABIP, defense right in the middle).