Talent Changes

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by jbone

first off, sorry for all the posts, but...



It is flawed, I agree with that.

Okay, time to perhaps freak some of you people out, I apologize in advance. But...

It seems as if all these games are produced based on the concept that there is one universal truth or "God", mind you, about what is real. This thought process is based on our Western, monotheistic ways of viewing things. But real life is constantly changing, every millisecond, every atom on your keyboard even i believe. There are other systems of thought that believe that God is within ourselves, so to speak, ie. Buddhism. How the player views himself is paramount to what talent and performance is. Why not do player development from a Buddhist perspective? I don't understand why a computer game would need some concept of "ultimate truth" in order to function. After all, the players are only competing against each other, not against God. Players only need current abilities, not pre-ordained potentials, in order to play a game of baseball.

I am not arguing that players are miraculously able to grow six inches in one day. What I'm arguing is that ultimately it is up to the player to make the most of his genetics. But other than genetic limitations, it is an open-ended system which gives everyone a chance. In MLB, no player is ever drafted with the pre-ordained potential to max out at Class A ball - if so, there wouldn't be any point in drafting him. While a player may have certain genetic physical limitations, no player should ever be precluded from being a major league contributor, just look at regular-Joe types such as Greg Maddux, or the legally-blind Mike Bordick. These guys with very poor athleticism found a way to succeed. Maddux may have seemed like a weak prospect at draft-time, but he used his guile and work ethic to increase his abilities. It can be done.

Check out this prospect, drafted in the 17th round by the Red Sox in 2006:

William Redick, Middle Georgia College
Position: OF Bats: Left Vitals: 19 years old, 6-2; 180

Go find Redick in person. Are you going to go up to William Redick and tell him to his face that his pre-ordained potential by God as a baseball player is to be a AA outfielder with an 8/7/8? It would be nonsensical to say something like that, and you'd be laughed out of the stadium. If Redick didn't have a shot, he wouldn't be there. In spite of our perceptions regarding OOTP, the foundation of player development as creating an "ultimate truth under God" just doesn't make any sense.

You know, this makes a LOT of sense. I agree totally.

[Syd Thrift]

I don't think we should throw out POTs entirely. I do agree that there is too much emphasis on them in drafting in part because too many players reach them. I'll also say, show me a superstar and I'll show you a guy who was very good when he was 20 years old. Very few good players in OOTP seem to realize a high percentage of their potential when they come out of the draft.

[andymac]

I missed jbone's post but that is the general idea I have of the way I would like it to work. Although, considering Maddux was a 2nd round pick and is actually more athletic than most pitchers I don't see him as a good example . Mike Piazza is probably the one I would point out. The way it works now is good for historical replays I would say but fictional guys should be a lot more open-ended IMO.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Now we see how harsh this developmant model is. A kid entering the universe at 19yo has a 80% chance of receiving an increase by the time he is 24, true enough...but he also has a 96% chance of receiving a talent/potential decrease.

Interesting stuff. I think you mean 17yo, from your chart. If my Venn diagrams are right, that means between 76 and 80% of 17yos receive both talent boosts and hits- almost all- so it seems crucial to consider the magnitude of boosts and hits to draw the conclusion that teenage prospects are treated harshly by the development engine. To assess this, wouldn't it make more sense to consider the mean contact change (and variance) between ages 17yo and 24yo? The game's player creation engine may also compensate by creating teenagers with higher talents than newly generated older players.

I'm referring only to your contention that the game is 'harsh' on teenage prospects; only 16-20% of 17yos receive a talent hit without a talent boost, so I think other evidence is required to make a conclusion about this. The data is germane to the argument about the frequency of talent changes, and certainly useful in discussing how often upside ought to change in-game.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by jbone

first off, sorry for all the posts, but...



It is flawed, I agree with that.

Okay, time to perhaps freak some of you people out, I apologize in advance. But...

It seems as if all these games are produced based on the concept that there is one universal truth or "God", mind you, about what is real. This thought process is based on our Western, monotheistic ways of viewing things. But real life is constantly changing, every millisecond, every atom on your keyboard even i believe. There are other systems of thought that believe that God is within ourselves, so to speak, ie. Buddhism. How the player views himself is paramount to what talent and performance is. Why not do player development from a Buddhist perspective? I don't understand why a computer game would need some concept of "ultimate truth" in order to function. After all, the players are only competing against each other, not against God. Players only need current abilities, not pre-ordained potentials, in order to play a game of baseball.

I am not arguing that players are miraculously able to grow six inches in one day. What I'm arguing is that ultimately it is up to the player to make the most of his genetics. But other than genetic limitations, it is an open-ended system which gives everyone a chance. In MLB, no player is ever drafted with the pre-ordained potential to max out at Class A ball - if so, there wouldn't be any point in drafting him. While a player may have certain genetic physical limitations, no player should ever be precluded from being a major league contributor, just look at regular-Joe types such as Greg Maddux, or the legally-blind Mike Bordick. These guys with very poor athleticism found a way to succeed. Maddux may have seemed like a weak prospect at draft-time, but he used his guile and work ethic to increase his abilities. It can be done.

Check out this prospect, drafted in the 17th round by the Red Sox in 2006:

William Redick, Middle Georgia College
Position: OF Bats: Left Vitals: 19 years old, 6-2; 180

Go find Redick in person. Are you going to go up to William Redick and tell him to his face that his pre-ordained potential by God as a baseball player is to be a AA outfielder with an 8/7/8? It would be nonsensical to say something like that, and you'd be laughed out of the stadium. If Redick didn't have a shot, he wouldn't be there. In spite of our perceptions regarding OOTP, the foundation of player development as creating an "ultimate truth under God" just doesn't make any sense.

This is actually well within the framework of the model I'vehad in mind. Ultimatley, you need only know a few things:

1) where the player is now
2) where the "average" player is likely to grow from that point
3) the range/deviation of possible change from that point

Make everything else random from there, and you've got a solid development system that does not have to rely upon an artificial peak potential in "God" mode. At that point the only people who speak of "potential" are scouts.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by magnet

Syd is just hoping the beta team next year is chosen by # of words posted.

Please do not tell LGO.

[Mattingly06]

It seems like everyone agrees on a lot of points made in this thread. I'll try to illustrate my interpretation of Ronco's idea, which I agree with.

This is how OOTP's current engine models "flash in the pan" type of players. These players, imo, don't have it and lose it, they never had it to begin with. OOTP's current engine would show "70 current skill/80 future potential" then they would drop off drastically the following year. I wouldn't mind seeing this with scouts turned on but, like Ronco, I would like to see in god mode without scouts.

I think a more accurately reprentation of a "lucky" player's skill should show "40 current skill/ 80 potential) making you wonder how he did so well in his rookie campaign.

Overall I agree with a lot of Ronco's ideas, that potential doesn't change very often (unless he gets hurt) for the same reasons he mentioned throughout this thread. I don't know how hard it would be to implement though without changing the things that are good in the game.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by injury log

Interesting stuff. I think you mean 17yo, from your chart. If my Venn diagrams are right, that means between 76 and 80% of 17yos receive both talent boosts and hits- almost all- so it seems crucial to consider the magnitude of boosts and hits to draw the conclusion that teenage prospects are treated harshly by the development engine. To assess this, wouldn't it make more sense to consider the mean contact change (and variance) between ages 17yo and 24yo? The game's player creation engine may also compensate by creating teenagers with higher talents than newly generated older players.

I'm referring only to your contention that the game is 'harsh' on teenage prospects; only 16-20% of 17yos receive a talent hit without a talent boost, so I think other evidence is required to make a conclusion about this. The data is germane to the argument about the frequency of talent changes, and certainly useful in discussing how often upside ought to change in-game.

Here's a chart on the magnitude of changes, broken into spans of 20 points. Note that negative development is about 4x (give or take a little...and quite a bit more at some ages) the magnitude of positive development.

Contact										
Age	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26
Hitters	798	900	825	1236	1632	1501	1332	1211	1003	748
+60	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
+40	2	4	5	7	4	3	2	1	0	1
+20	30	30	39	39	36	23	16	11	9	4
Pos	174	208	187	266	307	247	166	115	65	28
None	290	361	365	592	861	845	779	719	581	361
Neg	334	331	273	378	464	409	387	377	357	359
-20	111	120	94	114	136	111	100	68	35	15
-40	28	25	23	16	24	25	19	10	6	3
-60	6	6	4	3	4	7	4	0	2	0

[monte213]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Here's a chart on the magnitude of changes, broken into spans of 20 points. Note that negative development is about 4x (give or take a little...and quite a bit more at some ages) the magnitude of positive development.

Not to throw gasoline on the fire but these numbers seem to indicate that development is pretty damn good the way it is which is what we concluded way back when this thread started. 4x negative compared to positive sounds about right to me

I know there are going to be those that still aren't content with the magnitude of some of the drops in some of the players but I still contend the model is fine. We'll never be able to accurately define a player's development in real life and so to have expectations that we can do so in the game is unrealistic as well. The best the game can hope to do is model itself in terms of the raw numbers and I think the game does that well.

Might be a little tough to pull out but would it be possible from this data set to get a sense of how each draft round progressed in the universe? Meaning, at what level of play did they end up reaching. It's alittle outside the scope of the thread but I'm curious

[RonCo]

The model is doing a very good job relative to players who make the major leagues. This is flat-out, the best OOTP development model that has existed in that perspective...heck, I'm the one who wrote the blog on player development in the RTR series. It could always do better, of course. And the model struggles mightily in attempting to properly recreate the minor leagues.

I've posted draft data before somewhere. It comes fairly close to modeling the MLB draft using the 1989 & 1990 MLB draft classes as a baseline.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by monte213

Might be a little tough to pull out but would it be possible from this data set to get a sense of how each draft round progressed in the universe? Meaning, at what level of play did they end up reaching. It's alittle outside the scope of the thread but I'm curious

Also, I wrote my code to focus on draft quality. There is some data that shows later rounds are more likely to develop up and earlier rounds are more likely to develop down, but the sample sizes when looking at draft classes are a little suspect.

[statfreak]

"development" has got to be the most ridiculous and poorly implemented part of OOTP or any game I've ever played for that matter.

20 year old pitcher with actual ratings of 6-7-5 and talent of 7-7-7 is holding is own in the majors through the middle of June (5.50+ ERA, but that is down from over 7 in April/early May) and then gets decimated to talent of 4-7-4. Huh?!? No injury, no rhyme or reason other than a very poor design decision and implementation. If it wasn't for online leagues, I can honestly say I would never play this game and have begun refusing to recommend it.

OOTP2007 has all the potential to be a truly great game, but the more it gets played, the more its flaws and poorly designed/executed "features" rear their ugly heads. I wonder if this was something introduced in a patch since I don't remember see this as frequently as I am now.

FWIW, I would rather see talent levels remain the same and/or only increase and have players actual ratings ebb and flow with some players reaching their talent levels and others not getting close, but it makes absolutely no sense to decimate talent levels without a significant injury, especially at young ages (<23 years old).

[Elendil]

OOTP's always worked that way, statfreak. If you've never seen killer talent hits to young players in prior versions, you haven't been playing the game long.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by statfreak

"development" has got to be the most ridiculous and poorly implemented part of OOTP or any game I've ever played for that matter.

20 year old pitcher with actual ratings of 6-7-5 and talent of 7-7-7 is holding is own in the majors through the middle of June (5.50+ ERA, but that is down from over 7 in April/early May) and then gets decimated to talent of 4-7-4. Huh?!? No injury, no rhyme or reason other than a very poor design decision and implementation. If it wasn't for online leagues, I can honestly say I would never play this game and have begun refusing to recommend it.

OOTP2007 has all the potential to be a truly great game, but the more it gets played, the more its flaws and poorly designed/executed "features" rear their ugly heads. I wonder if this was something introduced in a patch since I don't remember see this as frequently as I am now.

FWIW, I would rather see talent levels remain the same and/or only increase and have players actual ratings ebb and flow with some players reaching their talent levels and others not getting close, but it makes absolutely no sense to decimate talent levels without a significant injury, especially at young ages (<23 years old).

This has always been the nature of the OOTP development model--at least since v5 when I started tabulating it. While I obviously agree that it is flawed, it is a defensible model in that it creates stat lines that in general make a whole lot of sense. The downside to the "ratings follow talent" model that is the primary mechanism of performance is that we see it working, and that it doesn't fit how humans think of things. To make sense of it you have to play a meta-game that includes invisible scouts (for example).

Just to be picky, here...(I'm obviously on your side overall)...the process is not poorly implemented. It's implementation is actually pretty solid. It is, however, not the best conceptual model of development that is possible. I would struggle with your comment that it's the worst of any game though merely because if you ignore talents and look at the big league careers and career arcs) it's creating, they look pretty good.

[RonCo]

18-20 yo pitchers, for example, have _always_ been at high-risk for development hits in OOTP. For real life years now, I have made it a basic policy to never draft them until late rounds unless it's just the only pick that makes any sense whatsoever.

[teak88]

Interesting discussion so far, but I think it is still missing the mark, here's my take on where this should go:

- there should be Potential and Current Talent (or whatever names they have)
- Potential should be "rough", ie on a 1-5 scale. Someone has great power potential (5), average (3) or little (1). But this is the upper limit/ceiling.
- A player starts his career with low Current Talent (in most cases) - and it grows, barring injury, over time based upon coaching, game experience, and physical maturity. Maybe it hits the full Potential; maybe not. Most all of the previos commentary above applies in this context;

Scouting is another thing - and I believe the weak part of the discussion (and I don't understand playing with Scouts 'Off"). How well are humans able to discern Potential - or, for that matter, Current Talent. Obviously, there is a lot of randomness in this (Maddux in 2nd round; Piazza in the 72nd). This is what makes baseball - beyond the actual game itself - fun... trying to figure out who can play and who can't at each level. OOTP is too much a mathamatical model at this point

But the final thing...Development. It seems that a player, in the current and past versions develop over calendar time (mos/yrs) versus developing because of game experience. Said differently, the player has a development algorithm built into his dna and will develop along it whether he plays or not. (I think I'm right on this).

It should be based on games/innings played. A potentially good player who sits on the bench in AA is not going to get better just because he aged a year. You get better in games. A mediocre player who plays a lot will improve. In both cases, they won't exceed their Potential, but playing - not aging - is what will get them to improve. This is why teams will send a young player back to the minors where he can play everyday, rather than be the 5th outfielder in the MLs sitting on the bench.

[voxpoptart]

Personally, I like the development model (at least for nonpitchers) a LOT already. Here's my conceptual defense of it.

1. First of all, recognize that the model WORKS, statistically: the right number of prospects pan out in the right range of ways. Thus, when I rationalize it below, it's because the results impress the heck out of me. And yes, Statfreak, there absolutely are real-life Angel Berroas and Zach Greinkes and Calvin Pickerings who establish that they're major-league calibre players at 20 or 23, then dive below that surface never to recover. (Um, I think you can figure out who my favorite real-life baseball team is...)

2. "Potential" or "Talent", in this game, is never meant as God's Absolute Truth to me - it can't be, given all the changes that follow. It represents, clearly, What The Ideal Human Scout Would Perceive. But even very smart humans are flawed.

3. Why would those estimates go down, without injury? Lots of reasons:
* The estimate hoped the player might "fill out", physically, but he didn't.

* The estimate hoped the player would make adjustments to his stride or swing that either it no longer looks like he can make, or that, when he makes them, don't actually help as expected.

* The estimate hoped he could learn to hit a good curveball (for example), and, um, no.

* The estimate hoped he could adjust well to the rather brutal schedule of traveling and intense daily workouts - and, if he makes it to the majors, the overwhelming media attention - and he didn't.

* The estimate hoped that we'd know about any injury right away, but there could be a tiny, persistent, nagging injury that no one catches. (I used to do long-distance running, but I got slower and slower over time - I think I was getting some barely-noticeable cousin of shin splints).

4. Why would those estimates go up? Because the player figured out adjustments in ways even a brilliant scout wouldn't have expected.

*********************

I'm not sure why the pitcher model, unlike the nonpitcher model, generates such low potentials and relies on pitchers to exceed those potentials over time. To me it would make more sense to generate high pitcher potentials and just have a lower rate of pitchers fulfilling them. However, even if I'm right -- and I might not be -- don't anyone think it would be less frustrating to play.

[voxpoptart]

Originally Posted by teak88

Development. It seems that a player, in the current and past versions develop over calendar time (mos/yrs) versus developing because of game experience. Said differently, the player has a development algorithm built into his dna and will develop along it whether he plays or not. (I think I'm right on this).

It should be based on games/innings played. A potentially good player who sits on the bench in AA is not going to get better just because he aged a year. You get better in games.

I agree that a player's improvement should go along with playing time. That said, it's been my strong impression while playing that it already <I>does</I>, in OOTP2007. Anyone know for sure? Certainly, if I'm wrong and teak88's right, that aspect should be changed. My defense of the overall model stands.

[RonCo]

This thread has been genearlly about talent development, yet as I've said the main purpose of "talent/potential" in OOTP is to serve as an arrow for ratings progression. Ratings progress to talent/potential. Ratings progression is highly dependent upon playing time, and playing time at the right level.

[voxpoptart]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Ratings progression is highly dependent upon playing time, and playing time at the right level.

That's what I thought. Excellent.