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

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

If you bump up TCR you'll get more variance, which is the point of TCR, and I like that that applies both to prospects and to vets (where it's completely possible for a guy to get a TCR or even an age related malus when they're like 32 and then get a separate TCR bump at 33 - this isn't common but when you see a guy go from a .260/30/90 to .200/10/60 and then back to what looks like .270/15/70, that can be what happened (or of course the guy just got HR lucky in year one and hit unluck in year two but, speaking of things that a lot of people don't want to admit...).

.

And in this regard, a recent example is Cody Bellinger, from being the MVP to almost being released by the Dodgers in the following two years to then having a very good season 3 years later.

In my simulations I like to have this type of cases, personally I find it boring that a player has a linear upward or downward trajectory.

With a TCR of 100 (default) you can have these types of cases, but by raising the TCR to 150, for example, you will see it more and they will be more noticeable.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

And in this regard, a recent example is Cody Bellinger, from being the MVP to almost being released by the Dodgers in the following two years to then having a very good season 3 years later.

In my simulations I like to have this type of cases, personally I find it boring that a player has a linear upward or downward trajectory.

With a TCR of 100 (default) you can have these types of cases, but by raising the TCR to 150, for example, you will see it more and they will be more noticeable.

I've even had the Bellinger argument with people, albeit about a slightly different thing (part of an argument about making the game physics-based, which, I have to say, there are a lot of people who seem to be kind of deluded by statcast stats that certain aspects of the game are far more predictable than they actually are), and there are aaaaaaaaaaaall kinds of post facto arguments about why he was bad and why he's good again, things that are either a. not modeled in OOTP at all, included to some degree but not nearly to the extent that people say, or c. perfect examples of retrofitting excuses to largely random events.

Sometimes stuff is just kind of random or at least unpredictable and uncontrollable, in life and especially in baseball. If you want to make up a reason why your guy had a bad season and then a good one, make one up. It won't hurt anybody.

[Guthrien]

If OOTP weren't that way, I'd argue it wouldn't be enjoyable. Though I know there are people very concerned with somewhat more predictive historical replays. And it's true, 98% of the comments about something being broken is based on way way too small a statistical sampling. Until most the board identifies something over a period of time it likely doesn't exist.

But again, I don't think whether or not prospects bust is much at question. Does anyone observe baseball and not know that? It'll be partly why it will be fun to see which godly rated new players in 2024 come back to earth after more mortal rookie seasons. And some other diamonds will be identified (real MLB here). What seems to be broken is progression at certain stages in a young career, not whether or not you thought a star would be a star. Those seem to still align, good or bad.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

If OOTP weren't that way, I'd argue it wouldn't be enjoyable. Though I know there are people very concerned with somewhat more predictive historical replays. And it's true, 98% of the comments about something being broken is based on way way too small a statistical sampling. Until most the board identifies something over a period of time it likely doesn't exist.

But again, I don't think whether or not prospects bust is much at question. Does anyone observe baseball and not know that? It'll be partly why it will be fun to see which godly rated new players in 2024 come back to earth after more mortal rookie seasons. And some other diamonds will be identified (real MLB here). What seems to be broken is progression at certain stages in a young career, not whether or not you thought a star would be a star. Those seem to still align, good or bad.

It does seem that there might be a case for having top prospects who are basically considered “MLB-ready” a little more frequently with the jump to the majors. I do not mean that they necessarily are exposed as being AAAA players (though that is occasionally the case), but also perhaps examples where they have a few false starts before becoming established in the majors at one of any possible levels of legitimacy. For example, from what I have seen and read Wyatt Langford appears to quickly and very regularly attain superstardom. Not a big deal relative to other problems, but worth mentioning (in so far as the perception is in fact accurate).

[SirMichaelJordan]

Remember that even with tweaks by the devs, the default setting will never be 1:1 with modern-day MLB. Default settings are meant to be neutral. If you want the best results that mirror today, mess around with dev/aging targets and dev/aging speed

I am currently messing around with...

.800
1.200
.800
1.200

Younger
Older

[Guthrien]

Originally Posted by jcard

It does seem that there might be a case for having top prospects who are basically considered “MLB-ready” a little more frequently with the jump to the majors. I do not mean that they necessarily are exposed as being AAAA players (though that is occasionally the case), but also perhaps examples where they have a few false starts before becoming established in the majors at one of any possible levels of legitimacy. For example, from what I have seen and read Wyatt Langford appears to quickly and very regularly attain superstardom. Not a big deal relative to other problems, but worth mentioning (in so far as the perception is in fact accurate).

Wyatt, Elly De La Cruz, Jackson Holliday, Churio.. these are basically seeded to be stars in this years game. I'd be blown away if they fail in anyone's sim. They're good to go now because.. IRL they're good to go now. That's the phenomenon you can't recreate with fictional players in this years version. In my experience. Last year seemed to be able to handle this well, I've gone back to play 24 a lot this week and it's fun to see Wyatt Langford and other top picks like Skenes be a toss-up after the 23 draft. But what OOTP does there is appropriate, you bet on the super talented rookies just like ZIPS or other prospect lists they use. I'm only irritated with what happens when real life slips away in a year or two.

"Remember that even with tweaks by the devs, the default setting will never be 1:1 with modern-day MLB. Default settings are meant to be neutral. If you want the best results that mirror today, mess around with dev/aging targets and dev/aging speed"

This does nothing to solve the 'prospect cooking' issue. Not this year, I think the problem is unrelated. I changed it up freakishly high for many of my sims. Didn't check age/retirement related issues though, I do believe both worked in 24.

They did a lot of serious rebuilding with attributes and development (that are likely positives for the engine long-term), probably something I couldn't begin to guess as a non-coder.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

Wyatt, Elly De La Cruz, Jackson Holliday, Churio.. these are basically seeded to be stars in this years game. I'd be blown away if they fail in anyone's sim. They're good to go now because.. IRL they're good to go now. That's the phenomenon you can't recreate with fictional players in this years version. In my experience. Last year seemed to be able to handle this well, I've gone back to play 24 a lot this week and it's fun to see Wyatt Langford and other top picks like Skenes be a toss-up after the 23 draft. But what OOTP does there is appropriate, you bet on the super talented rookies just like ZIPS or other prospect lists they use. I'm only irritated with what happens when real life slips away in a year or two.

"Remember that even with tweaks by the devs, the default setting will never be 1:1 with modern-day MLB. Default settings are meant to be neutral. If you want the best results that mirror today, mess around with dev/aging targets and dev/aging speed"

This does nothing to solve the 'prospect cooking' issue. Not this year, I think the problem is unrelated. I changed it up freakishly high for many of my sims. Didn't check age/retirement related issues though, I do believe both worked in 24.

They did a lot of serious rebuilding with attributes and development (that are likely positives for the engine long-term), probably something I couldn't begin to guess as a non-coder.

The settings I just posted works fine for me.

Easing development alone doesn’t fix the problem you are experiencing.

[Pelican]

I second the notion of adjusting the development and aging speed numbers. (I still don't fully understand the target age numbers, in terms of what effect increasing/decreasing might have, so I stay away from them.) However, if I understand your numbers, I am moving in the opposite direction, faster development (1.15) and faster aging (also 1.15) for both pitchers and position players. This seems to yield young guys who mature a bit faster, and old guys who leave the scene more quickly (I hire them as coaches). Works for me because I play out seasons game by game (though not pitch-by-pitch), and the talent changes happen a bit faster, so I can see them within a year.

[Syd Thrift]

I bumped up development to around 1.2, dipped aging to around 0.75, and (maybe most of all) bumped TCR to 150. With that I still 100% need to have age limits in the lower minors because the AI will gladly sign 35 year olds to play over prospects if it can (this isn't such a big deal for AAA IMO; minor league catchers in particular can play well into their 30s in real life). The biggest downside of this for me is... the draft is now too predictable. 1st round picks do seem to make it much more often than they do IRL. For some that might be a feature as opposed to a bug.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I bumped up development to around 1.2, dipped aging to around 0.75, and (maybe most of all) bumped TCR to 150. With that I still 100% need to have age limits in the lower minors because the AI will gladly sign 35 year olds to play over prospects if it can (this isn't such a big deal for AAA IMO; minor league catchers in particular can play well into their 30s in real life). The biggest downside of this for me is... the draft is now too predictable. 1st round picks do seem to make it much more often than they do IRL. For some that might be a feature as opposed to a bug.

Indeed, the introduction of age limits and service time has a significant impact on the game. These factors play a crucial role in pushing prospects up the levels, ensuring a more realistic and dynamic gameplay experience.

I'm at 200 for TCR.

Success as a first-round pick is probably more successful than in real life, but it's not as off as I originally thought from looking at the past draft history in the game and using filters. There were a lot of busts and a lot of good-to-great players from the later rounds.

This guy was a 11th rounder

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I second the notion of adjusting the development and aging speed numbers. (I still don't fully understand the target age numbers, in terms of what effect increasing/decreasing might have, so I stay away from them.) However, if I understand your numbers, I am moving in the opposite direction, faster development (1.15) and faster aging (also 1.15) for both pitchers and position players. This seems to yield young guys who mature a bit faster, and old guys who leave the scene more quickly (I hire them as coaches). Works for me because I play out seasons game by game (though not pitch-by-pitch), and the talent changes happen a bit faster, so I can see them within a year.

I for one would like more of a detailed breakdown how these affect our leagues and prospects.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I bumped up development to around 1.2, dipped aging to around 0.75, and (maybe most of all) bumped TCR to 150. With that I still 100% need to have age limits in the lower minors because the AI will gladly sign 35 year olds to play over prospects if it can (this isn't such a big deal for AAA IMO; minor league catchers in particular can play well into their 30s in real life). The biggest downside of this for me is... the draft is now too predictable. 1st round picks do seem to make it much more often than they do IRL. For some that might be a feature as opposed to a bug.

It seems counterintuitive that TCR and First Rounder Success would be positively related.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by jcard

It seems counterintuitive that TCR and First Rounder Success would be positively related.

It’s not. Accelerated development and first rounder success are positively correlated.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

It’s not. Accelerated development and first rounder success are positively correlated.

But wouldn’t higher TCR work in the other direction, making developing players more volatile and thus increasing the odds that a player near the top of the draft class at the time of the draft would fail to develop into one of the top players in that class. For comparison, at minimum TCR I would expect that (presuming at least some correlation between scouted and actual talent) the first rounders would be generally expected to maintain their talent advantage throughout development.

[itsmb8]

Originally Posted by jcard

But wouldn’t higher TCR work in the other direction, making developing players more volatile and thus increasing the odds that a player near the top of the draft class at the time of the draft would fail to develop into one of the top players in that class. For comparison, at minimum TCR I would expect that (presuming at least some correlation between scouted and actual talent) the first rounders would be generally expected to maintain their talent advantage throughout development.

It would, but the issue with this is boosting dev speed will just give TCR less of an opportunity to have an effect. Think of it like this. If there are x players in the minors each year affected by TCR each in-game year, a player will be much more likely to be hit by TCR, good or bad, if they are in the minors for 5 years (with 1 dev speed) vs being in the minors for only 3 years (with 1.25 dev speed).

The way to perfect this would be to let us change the talent curve in drafts and generated IAFAs so we can keep development speed at a realistic rate, keep TCR high to produce the realistic unpredictability you see from prospects, AND have some players that are obviously at a much higher level and be the Acuna, Soto, Jacksons types that are almost immediately ready.

[Rpgmasta]

Wyatt won the MVP in his age 24 season for me with 64 2B and 49 HR. Still 80/80 entering 2029

Originally Posted by jcard

It does seem that there might be a case for having top prospects who are basically considered “MLB-ready” a little more frequently with the jump to the majors. I do not mean that they necessarily are exposed as being AAAA players (though that is occasionally the case), but also perhaps examples where they have a few false starts before becoming established in the majors at one of any possible levels of legitimacy. For example, from what I have seen and read Wyatt Langford appears to quickly and very regularly attain superstardom. Not a big deal relative to other problems, but worth mentioning (in so far as the perception is in fact accurate).

[Underlined.i]

Any of you soldiers testing with the new patch?

[jcard]

Originally Posted by itsmb8

It would, but the issue with this is boosting dev speed will just give TCR less of an opportunity to have an effect. Think of it like this. If there are x players in the minors each year affected by TCR each in-game year, a player will be much more likely to be hit by TCR, good or bad, if they are in the minors for 5 years (with 1 dev speed) vs being in the minors for only 3 years (with 1.25 dev speed).

The way to perfect this would be to let us change the talent curve in drafts and generated IAFAs so we can keep development speed at a realistic rate, keep TCR high to produce the realistic unpredictability you see from prospects, AND have some players that are obviously at a much higher level and be the Acuna, Soto, Jacksons types that are almost immediately ready.

I am saying that ceteris paribus TCR is positively correlated with prospect volatility. I understand that other settings can offset the TCR change so that the combined net effect on first-rounder success can be opposite the independent TCR influence.