Player development

[glenn2006]

I would like to comment on an issue that has been brought up in the past concerning player talents and player ratings in OOTP3.

I am a strong proponent for elimination of player RATINGS from the game. As far as I am concerned, the crux of this issue is not so much whether the numerical ratings are useful or redundant, but that they take away from the realism and enjoyability of the game. In real life, when you hear a player being evaluated by a scout/coach/expert/GM/fan/whomever, they talk about: 1) what the player has done so far (statistically), and 2) what the player's potential is for getting better (i.e. talent). These two pieces of information are the only things to which I want to be privy when I am deciding the fate of a player - i.e. if I want to acquire/release him, if I want to play him in the starting lineup, if I want to promote/demote him in my majors/minors system, etc.

As many of you have concurred, one of the major strengths of OOTP3 over the other baseball sims is the unpredictability of player performance. When I am deciding whether I should bring up the talented 23-year-old rookie from AAA to start in place of a declining 35-year-old veteran, I don't want to be influenced by the fact that the older guy still has higher numerical ratings than the rookie. I want to base these decisions solely on talent and stats.

Now, the argument has been made that we never see the "actual ratings" of the players anyways. For me, that's just another reason for getting rid of the numerical ratings altogether. In terms of the variability introduced by the coaches/scouts aspect of OOTP3 - well, that's one part of the game of which I have never been a big fan.

Don't get me wrong -- the game's fantastic as it is. This is just a philosophical preference, if you will, about one aspect of the game. For me, there is something very appealing about a player's performance being as much a "black box" as possible.


Glenn
<a href="http://www.psbl.net" target="_blank">PSBL</a>, Honolulu Diamondsox

[Pip]

I agree. While hiding the ratings would be a BIG change, I think it would increase the realism and strategy. For instance, sometimes you look at a pitcher and you can determine from his ratings if he is particularly dominent towards righties or lefties or weak in an area. By playing to those strengths you can utilize him more effectively. In real life, discovering these tendencies about your player would only about through experience (looking at his stats - trying him in certain situations etc.) Hiding ratings simply makes stats that much more important and baseball is a game of stats. If you were to hide ratings I think you would have to have accurate stats for minor league games, and complete breakdowns L/R for all years. Picking up a player would require a close look at stats not ratings. Also, this is a good way to include unpredictability. Now , with ratings, if your guy has an off year - so what,his stats are still good. But if you get rid of ratings now you're wondering, is he losing it, was last year a fluke? It would be a big move but it might pay dividends. The game now is sort of an equation without too many variables. Basic equations are relatively easy to solve. By removing visible ratings, you increase the number of variables.

[Killebrew]

No ratings would be a poor choice IMO - teams have detailed knowledge of each players strengths and weaknesses and they don't depend soley on stats to tell them that a pitcher has great control or a hitter has pop in his bat. Also with the randomness and current hidden "real" ratings your high rated guys are not guaranteed to have big years anyway so you must still depend on stats to a certain degree just as real GM's. In real life scouts have an idea what a player can do now as well as in the future, and that is what the current ratings are telling us now.

[sporr]

I agree with Killebrew. I think the current system simulates what a team would know about a player pretty well. I like the fact that it's not a 1-100 scale too. That way you do have to consider stats and not just pick the guy with the highest ratings. I've had lower ratings guys outperform guys who should have been better. I just see the ratings as a scouted guideline.

[Steve Kuffrey]

[quote]Originally posted by eblcommish:
<strong>How long will it take Prospects to reach their Talent ratings?

OOTP2 they blossum VERY quickly

OOTP3 it takes FOR-EVER.

How will they improve in OOTP4 ????</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have not found that to be the case for the most part, they seem to develop within 2-4 yrs which is about where they should I feel.

[c-man]

I also agree that some sort of ratings should stay in place. when you think of the ratings as a subjective scouting report and not objective performance guides, it makes a lot of sense. Real players are constantly scouted in the minors and the majors.

However one alternative is that all the types/names of ratings could change to "control, velocity, mechanics, breaking pitches,etc" for pitchers. and "bat speed, power, contact hitting, eye, swing, mechanics, etc" to reflect how scouts look at players(i think). i saw where ootp4 will incorporate some of these ratings, but maybe that could be the primary rating system? then we would slowly have to learn these ratings translate to as far as performance goes. some would be easy (control=walks) some would be more difficult (multiple combinations of the pitching ratings could = numbers of doubles given up) great control and a great breaking pitch could make for a great pitcher regardless of velocity and mechanics,etc. as it is now, ootp's "scouts" do that translation work for us, from raw qualities of players to what that probably means statistically.

here's an example from real life--(sorry--this is fun and interesting to think about)--i remember a scout looking at a pitcher friend of mine in high school and expressing concern that he showed too much emotion on the mound, and he analyzed his arm and wind-up mechanics, and the movement on his breaking ball. Those things were more important than his stats...(he had a 0.50 ERA and a jillion K's and didnt get drafted--small high school)

Another friend of mine was drafted because he went to a walk-on tryout, threw in front of a scout and the scout liked his breaking ball. he never even faced a batter for this guy. Undoubtedly the scout could tell he wasnt gonna be a superstar, but he threw a couple of nice pitches and he gave him a shot, thinking just maybe if the planets aligned, he could develop more speed on his fastball and contribute. it didnt amount to much, he was done 2 months later. the key is, the scout didnt say "i think he's going to have a below average ability to prevent doubles"

I think the game works well as is, i love it, but this could also be an interesting way to think about scouting/ratings.

[CoachL]

I think that more control of the minor leagues would be good. I would like to know more about player development in short season leagues. If players don't develop as well in short season leagues, could this be changed. I also have noticed that the financials for a short season don't quite work correctly. The attendance and merchandise sales get halved every year and it throws everything off, including size of market and fan loyalty. If this could be fixed that would be great.

[MannyTrillo]

On the "hidden ratings" debate, I'd love to see this as a league option. You could select normal ratings, no ratings, or ratings evaluated in the same way talent is evaluated ("fair," "above average," etc.).

Also, I don't like the ERA rating for pitchers- it tells you too much. I'd rather see pitchers rated on aspects like velocity, stuff, control, etc.

[hellfrozeover]

Actually, I find the ERA ratings for pitchers to be deceptive. I have one pitcher where all of his ratings are 5 or over, yet somehow he has an era rating of 2. I don't understand why this happens. If his ratings for avoiding hits, doubles, homers, walks, and getting strikeouts are all five or above, shouldn't the era be an average of those? Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems a bit strange.

[Scott Vibert]

I always took the ERA rating with a grain of salt, for that reason. I always just assumed that the ERA rating became a factor if runners reached base.... so if the hits allowed rating is high... well runners won't reach base, but when they do against this pitcher, then its more likely he'll blow it and allow another hit so that the run scores...

Of course this probably isn't the intent of the rating or even correct, its just how I rationalized weird ratings like that... and from anecdotal experience it seems like it works that way.

[Kevin]

Personally, I am against no ratings. I am also against disclosing accurate objective ratings. Rather than disclosing ratings for doubles, triples and HR, the scout should give an indication of power and speed to be compared with statistical results to give the player enough information to deduce what the approximate ratings would be. A number of the other suggestions here are quite interesting also.

[Scott Vibert]

Something that could be cool... instead of ratings for all categories... change to the way that scouts rate amateur players. I would leave both actual and talent ratings but rate both of them this way.

You would have 5 ratings (hitting, fielding, pitching, speed, arm, etc.) or something along those lines (perhaps specify different ratings for pitchers and batters?) but fairly general talents and the scouts would rate each player on the 5 tools. (The five tool players you hear about score highly in each of their appropriate five tools) The scout would simply score from 0-8 on each scale. Then leave it up to the player to determine from text reports and performance whether or not a player is ready to contribute.

This would give objective ratings for both talent and actual (read: current) skills, but not spell out each skill for the player, the numbers would only be seen through your scouts eye (perhaps allowing more than one scout to be signed to compare their views of a prospective player, this could add all sorts of interesting things... like do you take a shot on a guy that one scout thinks will be a stud, where as the other guy isn't so sure, etc..) This would force the player to use more interpretation, but still allow them to have some objective measure of a players abilities.

Potential rating categories:
Hitters (Power, Contact, Speed, Fielding, Arm)
Pitchers (Velocity, Control, Movement, Arm or Endurance (to allow player to figure out if the pitcher should be a starter or reliever), Fielding)
Ratings are same for both current and potential tabs and would be the only ratings revealed to the player, and only through his scouts eyes (the scout view could be toggled from one scout to another or scouts average rating could be viewed)

Just my thoughts..

[hellfrozeover]

The rating system as it is now is not too bad. I wouldn't mind getting rid of the doubles and triples ratings because that isn't something the scouts would look at. But I think that getting rid of ratings entirely is a mistake. Right now the text reports are much too general to be relied upon entirely. Also, if you went to something pitcher/hitter specific, I would still want to be able to see whether or not the pitcher is a decent hitter or not.

[c-man]

after reading the discussion here, i've been thinking more about changing the nature of the ratings categories and the more i think about it, the more convinced i am...i started a new thread under suggestions, since i'm not sure that it's exclusively a "player development" issue. would love to hear more thoughts on the subject.

[Matches]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but it kind of has to deal with player development and the learning of new positions.

I agree with a lot of the stuff said earlier about newly drafted players being more flexible in their positions. I think in general that learning new positions could be made more flexible by varying the amount of spring training points that it takes to learn certain new positions, especially pitchers' roles.

If I'm not mistaken, as it is now, it takes 5 points in order for any player to learn any new position. But a lot of changes shouldn't be that hard to make. The biggest one is having pitchers learn a new role. It should not be that difficult for a "natural closer" to learn the middle releif role, or a natural midle reliever to learn to become either a starter or a closer. There are far too many "natural middle relievers" anyway.

I think if the spring training development points scale was made larger (i.e. instead of 5 being the average, make it 10) then you could afford a bit more flexibility and have the amount of points it takes to learn a new position vary depending on what position/role the player is already familiar with, what the new position role is, and how old the player is.

For example, a natural center fielder should be able to learn to play either corner outfield position with just 2-3 points worth of spring training time. A shortstop can learn to play second base or third base with 5-6 points. But for a catcher to become a center fielder, it would take the full 10 points.

On the pitching end of things, it should be easier all around. A starter should be able to learn the middle reliever's role with just 1 point, and a closers role with 3-4. Middle relievers can become starters with 3-4 points and closers with 2-3 points, and closers can become middle relievers with 1-2 points and starters with 8-10.

On ratings, I do like that you can see the ratings. But some of the ratings are a bit dubious, like "hitting triples". That's something that should definitely be programmed as a rating, but shouldn't really be seen by a GM as a rating per se. A good GM/coach/owner should be able to look at the number of triples and doubles a guy hits and recognize where his talent in terms of that is.

I suddenly realize that I'm going off topic here, but I might as well throw out a couple more things... I like the idea of a consistency rating and a clutch rating. I don't find it unrealistic to have a scout be able to report on a player's ability to hit in clutch situations, etc.

Also, the loyalty rating... Is it just me or is "average" loyalty really not average? It seems to me that about 80% of players are "minimal," which makes an guy who has "average" loyalty actually pretty special.

One thing that I think might work in terms of loyalty and desire to play for winner is rather than just have a rating, have two separate dichotomies (scales) on which players are based:

Stability vs. $$$ - Shows how willing is a player to forgo salary in exchange for staying in the same place (be it as a result of a long-term contract or re-signing with the club he is currently on)

Winning vs. $$$ - Shows how willing a player is to forgo salary for the opportunity to be on a winning club. This rating could change and increase as a veteran player gets older.

At the beginning of players' careers, or until their first contract negotiation, these ratings would not be significant, maybe at most 1-2 points (out of 5) in either direction. But just like in real iife, it soon becomes evident where a players' preferences are. With a young guy, you might hold out hope that he will want to stay with the team that brought him up through the minors, and you're not sure, but bam - next thing you know you have Manny Ramirez playing for the Red Sox. Now everyone in baseball is pretty sure that his "Stability vs $$$" rating leans heavily to the right.

Anyway, it's my first post here, I've gone on for LONG enough already, but.. It's a great game and I hope to see even better things with the new release.

[hellfrozeover]

I like the idea about the spring training using 10 point averages and the values it takes to change positions. What if you just had to guess how much it took to change a position. For instance, if you really wanted to work on one player's hitting but needed to switch positions, you took a chance and allocated less points to switching positions? Just an idea.

By the way, that post is not all that long. Someone around here once had so much to say that he actually just put it up on a web page and posted the URL with a short message. But I think it's all good as long as you have something good to say.

[bird]

My only quip would to add some input from the minor league teams. Example being that if SS-Juan Imgood is my #1 prospect and tearing it up in AA ball the AA team owner lets me know that he is ready to move up to AAA or even the Majors.I know ootp3 has green and red arrows doing something like this but it would be great to get a more accurate scope of where a player is at.If I could write the code it would go something like this:

1) A team drafts SS-Juan Imgood as the #5 pick in the 2000 draft, he is sent to A ball.

2)He is listed as the teams #3 prospect and hits .255 12hr 60rbi in A ball and his A bal mgr says he ready for AA or AAA ball but recommends AA ball.

3) 2001 in AA ball SS-Juan Imgood gets hot and hits .315 19hr 59rbi's in 1/2 a season and the major league club gets urgent message that this kid is ready to move up. The AA team owner thinks majors but we decide to go slower and send him to AAA ball 1st.

4)2001 AAA ball 2md half of season, Juan hits .277 9hr 29rbi and shows promise but not enough to get to the majors.

5)2002 AAA ball Juan hits .290 21hr 88rbi and the AAA team owner says the boy is ready.

6)You promote him to the majors and this is where the career stats kick in with either a gem, dud or an up and down player.

I probably made this more confusing that it sounds but I basically like it to work like the MLB. Teams in A to AAA ball send word to the parent club on how a player is progressing.In ootp3 you only get to see this in limited action with some player development news or by looking at the players ratings or stats.

Thanks
Bird

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: bird ]</p>

[Scott Vibert]

Bird, I guess I don't get how this is different than the red and green arrows? Instead of the arrows you get messages indicating that you could/should move the player up and down, but how is this different than the arrows? (Other than the obvious text message vs. visual cue)

Edit- essentially right now we have the team sending you a message, its just its the green arrow, now the message doesn't tell you the players current stats, however those are found in the minor league report, which in addition to the stats, has a note saying that the player is ready to be promoted or demoted on that as well.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: ScottVib ]</p>

[sporr]

Bird,

Could it be as simple as adding a line into the player scouting report that says ,"Todd Smith is a bright star. He is handling AA quite well and soon should be ready to move up to AAA". Granted, much of this info you can pull from his minor league stats and the arrows on the transaction screen, but it sounds like you would like something like the above to let you know how close he is to getting called up to the next level.

In this I agree. If there is no arrow on a player, there is really no indication of how far along he is toward progressing or regressing to another level. I fear, though, that if we go too far, it takes all of the decision out of promoting and demoting players.

[bird]

I guess what I am looking for is a little more input from the game. Does everyone here follow the advice of moving players up or down on the consesus of a green/red arrow? My team I deem who I feel should be at A or AAA ball.If a player has a rating of 2-average and is hitting .290 in AA ball is he really ready for AAA ball if my worse guy in the majors has a 5-average rating? To shuttle players up and down the A-AAA ball route does nothing then why do it? I just want a little more input from my minor league system then green/red arrows and a bio that does not change much.