Player Development Question...

Jeff · 09-25-2003, 01:44 AM

So I started a career league with my 1972 Phillies. It's the first year Steve Carlton pitched for Philly, and the rookie season of Mike Schmidt. I left Schmidt in the minors for all of 1972, letting him play and hopefully get better.

At the end of the season, his ratings were as follows.

Getting Hits: 3
Hitting HRs: 1
Drawing BBs: 2

After the 1973 spring training, his ratings were as follows...

Getting Hits: 3
Hitting HRs: 1
Drawing BBs: 2

Shouldn't he have improved at all from one year to the next? His only improvement during the entire 1972 season was Getting Hits rating went from 2 to 3. My Class A coach is decent...I even hired a new coach with excellent development skills...and Schmidt's rating actually went down. I really wanted to start at the beginning of Schmidt's career, but I'm afraid I'm killing off any chances of him being worth a lick.

Any advice or insight guys?

Thanks..

Jeff

Kelric · 09-25-2003, 01:51 AM

Tired sayings that are still true:

OOTP knows no names.

Player development is unpredictable.

Jeff · 09-25-2003, 01:57 AM

I guess I figured a 5-star prospect had a little better chance to improve. The joy of this game...lol. I think it truly is the devil.

Kelric · 09-25-2003, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff
I think it truly is the devil.

It is. Welcome to the joys of OOTP.

Steve Kuffrey · 09-25-2003, 06:35 AM

It is quite possible that he did "improve", all you are seeing is the "round" numbers. Plus the improvements in ST are not and should not be huge.

Jeff · 09-25-2003, 08:58 AM

Another thought along the same line...

I tried to start my career again, this time from 1973. Schmidt's ratings are much higher in '73 than they were when I started him in '72 and let him develop. That's all fine and good. My question is actually about Steve Carlton. In the career I started in '72...here are his ratings once we got to 1973.

Avoiding Runs: 8
Avoiding Hits: 7
Avoiding HRs: 6
Avoiding Walks: 9

At 28 he was a 4-star pitcher and described as one of the best pitchers in the league.

But when I started my league again in 1973...his ratings were as follows...

Avoiding Runs: 5
Avoiding Hits: 6
Avoiding HRs: 9
Avoiding Walks: 6

Still at 28, now he was just a 2 1/2 star player and described as having "slightly above-average stuff."

It just seemed odd that there would be such a drop-off, and that one of the best pitchers of the 70's who was already awesome, would go from being an ace to a #3 or #4 starter. Is this just a scouting issue or more OOTP voo-doo?

Thanks for your insight guys.

Jeff

PS...When starting a historical league, is there a general consensus on using generic L/R splits? Should I use them or not?

Henry · 09-25-2003, 09:13 AM

Jeff,

Your comment about "scouting" concerns me a bit. Any comparisons / discussions, etc. concerning ratings must be made or analyzed with scouts off - otherwise, your throwing in another level of "fog of war" that won't result in anything valuable.

Jeff · 09-25-2003, 09:18 AM

Henry...

I guess I threw out the "scouting" rationale, because I'm desperate at this point to find some tangible reason for the drop off.

I'll gladly ignore the scouting phase of things...I just hope somebody can give me another reason foe the ratings discrepancy.

Thanks...

Henry · 09-25-2003, 09:28 AM

Ok... assuming all the ratings above, then, are with scouts off - let me try to explain...

The '72 ratings you pulled from the Lahman DB were based on his '72 statistics (or possibly the balance of his career - depending on how you answered that setup question).

Code:

Year Ag Tm  Lg  W   L   G   GS  CG SHO SV   IP     H   ER   HR  BB   SO   ERA *lgERA *ERA+
1972 27 PHI NL  27  10  41  41  30   8  0  346.3  257   76  17   87  310  1.97  3.59  182

You then played one season and got the results you posted.

The '73 ratings, however, were based on his '73 season (which was not as good as '72 ...

Code:

Year Ag Tm  Lg  W   L   G   GS  CG SHO SV   IP     H   ER   HR  BB   SO   ERA *lgERA *ERA+
1973 28 PHI NL  13  20  40  40  18   3  0  293.3  293  127  29  113  223  3.90  3.82   98

Hope that helps

Jeff · 09-25-2003, 09:49 AM

Henry..

Can I imply from your posts that you think the scouting/coaching option creates an unnecessary "fog"?

I guess in the end this all goes back to trying to leave Mike Schmidt in the minors long enough to develop properly...and he doesn't seem to be doing squat at this point. When I have a guy who has hall-of-fame "potential", I guess I expect there to be some level of development. Right now his learning curve is apparently a vertical line, because he isn't growing at all. I'm trying not to rush him, but at this point I feel like I might as well throw him up to the bigs because he isn't getting any better in the minors. I guess I just need to chalk it up to being OOTP, and I can't expect history to repeat itself. All I want is Carlton and Schmidt to be as good as they were. The rest of the guys can go to hell...

I'ts good to see that this dilemma is the biggest priority in my life right now. My priorities are firmly in place as always...

Any thoughts on the generic splits?

Jeff · 09-25-2003, 09:59 AM

Yet another thought...

Back to 1972's Mike Schmidt and his skimpy ratings. Do a player's ratings go up, thus allowing better production...or does better production drive a player's ratings up?

I guess after all this rambling...THAT is my entire question in a nutshell.

Henry · 09-25-2003, 10:00 AM

Schmidt is one of those borderline HOF guys.... career .267 hitter with power and the ability to draw a lot of walks. In OOTP-speak, his ratings are going to look pretty much average except for power and drawing walks - which he hasn't developed in your test (but I would look to see what his "talent" ratings are... should be at least "good" I would think.

As far as my scouting comments - no, certainly NOT an unnecessary "fog" - but when trying to analyze things that are intended to see if the game is correct - scouts must be OFF. In a "real world" simulation, you want the scouts to create that "fog".

Jeff · 09-25-2003, 10:15 AM

Henry...you've been a tremendous help. One more naggin thing...

It sounds to me that I need to be more concerned with "talent" ratings. Those are representative how good a player could be...while the pitching and batting ratings are more representative of what a guy actually accomplished up to that point.

Have I finally gotten all of this through my thick skull?..

Henry · 09-25-2003, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff
Henry...you've been a tremendous help. One more naggin thing...

It sounds to me that I need to be more concerned with "talent" ratings. Those are representative how good a player could be...while the pitching and batting ratings are more representative of what a guy actually accomplished up to that point.

Have I finally gotten all of this through my thick skull?..

By George I think you've got it !!

Jeff · 09-25-2003, 10:25 AM

Henry...you're my hero. I think the biggest thing that concerned me up to this point with Schmidt was that he spent nearly all of 1972 in A ball, and hit .430, but hit a grand total of 0 home runs. In 1973, I'm starting him at AA, and he STILL hasn't hit a home run. Obviously, that set me into this semi-freakout mode. He's a brilliant home run talent, but has a "1" HR rating. I guess I'll just have to wait for him to come around.

sporr · 09-25-2003, 10:26 AM

Jeff,

Talent Ratings = potential
Batting/Pitching ratings = current ability

That's the quick and dirty.

Gastric ReFlux · 09-25-2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
Schmidt is one of those borderline HOF guys.... career .267 hitter with power and the ability to draw a lot of walks. In OOTP-speak, his ratings are going to look pretty much average except for power and drawing walks - which he hasn't developed in your test (but I would look to see what his "talent" ratings are... should be at least "good" I would think.

As far as my scouting comments - no, certainly NOT an unnecessary "fog" - but when trying to analyze things that are intended to see if the game is correct - scouts must be OFF. In a "real world" simulation, you want the scouts to create that "fog".

Borderline HOFer? No freaking way. Schmidt was the premiere home run hitter of his day and played some great defense. About the only debate is whether he or Eddie Mathews or Pie Traynor was the greatest 3rd baseman ever.

Henry · 09-25-2003, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gastric ReFlux
Borderline HOFer? No freaking way. Schmidt was the premiere home run hitter of his day and played some great defense. About the only debate is whether he or Eddie Mathews or Pie Traynor was the greatest 3rd baseman ever.

LOL... I figured that would get someone "cranked up"

Keep in mind what I was trying to point out. Besides his defensive abilities, Schmidt really had only two exceptional ratings... HRs and BBs. Everything else was "average". In OOTP-speak, we should see the same thing when we look at either ratings or talent... HR and BB should be high - everything else average.

Gastric ReFlux · 09-25-2003, 10:37 AM

More on topic regarding the original post now.

It's already been said that OOTP doesn't know that's Mike Schmidt. All it knows is that there is some data that represents the name to some ratings, but beyond that, OOTP just assigns some ratings that give those numbers a chance to grow into a Mike Schmidt.

That said, I think OOTP does have trouble with historical imports of players who debuted with rather unspectacular rookie years, like Schmidt. I ran one historical using the original unchanged Lahman dbase and saw a number of those sorts of players have trouble becoming they way we think of them. I got much closer to real historical results when I used Ankit's modified dbase that pushed back a number of debut years.

Gastric ReFlux · 09-25-2003, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
LOL... I figured that would get someone "cranked up"

Keep in mind what I was trying to point out. Besides his defensive abilities, Schmidt really had only two exceptional ratings... HRs and BBs. Everything else was "average". In OOTP-speak, we should see the same thing when we look at either ratings or talent... HR and BB should be high - everything else average.

No problems with it put that way. Yeah, Schmidt wasn't much hitting for average, although he also had good doubles and triples power. He was also a fairly good base stealer before his knees began going bad.

09-25-2003, 01:44 AM	#1
Jeff Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 43	Player Development Question... So I started a career league with my 1972 Phillies. It's the first year Steve Carlton pitched for Philly, and the rookie season of Mike Schmidt. I left Schmidt in the minors for all of 1972, letting him play and hopefully get better. At the end of the season, his ratings were as follows. Getting Hits: 3 Hitting HRs: 1 Drawing BBs: 2 After the 1973 spring training, his ratings were as follows... Getting Hits: 3 Hitting HRs: 1 Drawing BBs: 2 Shouldn't he have improved at all from one year to the next? His only improvement during the entire 1972 season was Getting Hits rating went from 2 to 3. My Class A coach is decent...I even hired a new coach with excellent development skills...and Schmidt's rating actually went down. I really wanted to start at the beginning of Schmidt's career, but I'm afraid I'm killing off any chances of him being worth a lick. Any advice or insight guys? Thanks.. Jeff

09-25-2003, 06:35 AM	#5
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	It is quite possible that he did "improve", all you are seeing is the "round" numbers. Plus the improvements in ST are not and should not be huge. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

09-25-2003, 09:28 AM	#9
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Ok... assuming all the ratings above, then, are with scouts off - let me try to explain... The '72 ratings you pulled from the Lahman DB were based on his '72 statistics (or possibly the balance of his career - depending on how you answered that setup question). Code: Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO SV IP H ER HR BB SO ERA lgERA ERA+ 1972 27 PHI NL 27 10 41 41 30 8 0 346.3 257 76 17 87 310 1.97 3.59 182 You then played one season and got the results you posted. The '73 ratings, however, were based on his '73 season (which was not as good as '72 ... Code: Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO SV IP H ER HR BB SO ERA lgERA ERA+ 1973 28 PHI NL 13 20 40 40 18 3 0 293.3 293 127 29 113 223 3.90 3.82 98 Hope that helps

09-25-2003, 01:51 AM	#2
Kelric Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Greater Boston Area Posts: 3,992	Tired sayings that are still true: OOTP knows no names. Player development is unpredictable.

09-25-2003, 01:57 AM	#3
Jeff Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 43	I guess I figured a 5-star prospect had a little better chance to improve. The joy of this game...lol. I think it truly is the devil.

09-25-2003, 08:58 AM	#6
Jeff Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 43	Another thought along the same line... I tried to start my career again, this time from 1973. Schmidt's ratings are much higher in '73 than they were when I started him in '72 and let him develop. That's all fine and good. My question is actually about Steve Carlton. In the career I started in '72...here are his ratings once we got to 1973. Avoiding Runs: 8 Avoiding Hits: 7 Avoiding HRs: 6 Avoiding Walks: 9 At 28 he was a 4-star pitcher and described as one of the best pitchers in the league. But when I started my league again in 1973...his ratings were as follows... Avoiding Runs: 5 Avoiding Hits: 6 Avoiding HRs: 9 Avoiding Walks: 6 Still at 28, now he was just a 2 1/2 star player and described as having "slightly above-average stuff." It just seemed odd that there would be such a drop-off, and that one of the best pitchers of the 70's who was already awesome, would go from being an ace to a #3 or #4 starter. Is this just a scouting issue or more OOTP voo-doo? Thanks for your insight guys. Jeff PS...When starting a historical league, is there a general consensus on using generic L/R splits? Should I use them or not?

09-25-2003, 09:13 AM	#7
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Jeff, Your comment about "scouting" concerns me a bit. Any comparisons / discussions, etc. concerning ratings must be made or analyzed with scouts off - otherwise, your throwing in another level of "fog of war" that won't result in anything valuable.

09-25-2003, 09:18 AM	#8
Jeff Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 43	Henry... I guess I threw out the "scouting" rationale, because I'm desperate at this point to find some tangible reason for the drop off. I'll gladly ignore the scouting phase of things...I just hope somebody can give me another reason foe the ratings discrepancy. Thanks...

09-25-2003, 09:49 AM	#10
Jeff Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 43	Henry.. Can I imply from your posts that you think the scouting/coaching option creates an unnecessary "fog"? I guess in the end this all goes back to trying to leave Mike Schmidt in the minors long enough to develop properly...and he doesn't seem to be doing squat at this point. When I have a guy who has hall-of-fame "potential", I guess I expect there to be some level of development. Right now his learning curve is apparently a vertical line, because he isn't growing at all. I'm trying not to rush him, but at this point I feel like I might as well throw him up to the bigs because he isn't getting any better in the minors. I guess I just need to chalk it up to being OOTP, and I can't expect history to repeat itself. All I want is Carlton and Schmidt to be as good as they were. The rest of the guys can go to hell... I'ts good to see that this dilemma is the biggest priority in my life right now. My priorities are firmly in place as always... Any thoughts on the generic splits?

09-25-2003, 09:59 AM	#11
Jeff Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 43	Yet another thought... Back to 1972's Mike Schmidt and his skimpy ratings. Do a player's ratings go up, thus allowing better production...or does better production drive a player's ratings up? I guess after all this rambling...THAT is my entire question in a nutshell.

09-25-2003, 10:00 AM	#12
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Schmidt is one of those borderline HOF guys.... career .267 hitter with power and the ability to draw a lot of walks. In OOTP-speak, his ratings are going to look pretty much average except for power and drawing walks - which he hasn't developed in your test (but I would look to see what his "talent" ratings are... should be at least "good" I would think. As far as my scouting comments - no, certainly NOT an unnecessary "fog" - but when trying to analyze things that are intended to see if the game is correct - scouts must be OFF. In a "real world" simulation, you want the scouts to create that "fog".

09-25-2003, 10:15 AM	#13
Jeff Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 43	Henry...you've been a tremendous help. One more naggin thing... It sounds to me that I need to be more concerned with "talent" ratings. Those are representative how good a player could be...while the pitching and batting ratings are more representative of what a guy actually accomplished up to that point. Have I finally gotten all of this through my thick skull?..

09-25-2003, 10:25 AM	#15
Jeff Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 43	Henry...you're my hero. I think the biggest thing that concerned me up to this point with Schmidt was that he spent nearly all of 1972 in A ball, and hit .430, but hit a grand total of 0 home runs. In 1973, I'm starting him at AA, and he STILL hasn't hit a home run. Obviously, that set me into this semi-freakout mode. He's a brilliant home run talent, but has a "1" HR rating. I guess I'll just have to wait for him to come around.

09-25-2003, 10:26 AM	#16
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	Jeff, Talent Ratings = potential Batting/Pitching ratings = current ability That's the quick and dirty.

09-25-2003, 10:37 AM	#19
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	More on topic regarding the original post now. It's already been said that OOTP doesn't know that's Mike Schmidt. All it knows is that there is some data that represents the name to some ratings, but beyond that, OOTP just assigns some ratings that give those numbers a chance to grow into a Mike Schmidt. That said, I think OOTP does have trouble with historical imports of players who debuted with rather unspectacular rookie years, like Schmidt. I ran one historical using the original unchanged Lahman dbase and saw a number of those sorts of players have trouble becoming they way we think of them. I got much closer to real historical results when I used Ankit's modified dbase that pushed back a number of debut years.