Does OOTP Player Development Needs to Be Fixed?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Treches

There are more issues than those, for example:

10 March: Joe Smith pitching potential INCREASES.
12 May: Joe Smith pitching potential DROPS.

Roughly two months with no injuries involved.
Apart from too volatile, there doesn't seem to be any coherence.

Check his stats... that's what influences development.

[Markus Heinsohn]

The only thing problematic right now is how the change of talent gets displayed/reported. It is instantly, which obviously is not the way it works in real life.

Apart from that, I see no problems at all, and the reason is simple: No one knows how talent works in real life... I mean, who knows, maybe Sandy Koufax was taught his curveball by a teammate when he was young. Maybe if he hadn't met him, he would have not developed into the great pitcher he was. So, his talent increased over night Or maybe if some coach would have been able to teach Shawn Abner a better approach, he'd be leading active players in HR now... who knows? Maybe that's what happened to Piazza...

That's how I view the development engine in OOTP. It does produce good results, and how it gets there is a matter of my imagination.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

As I near the end of my current season, there are exactly 100 player development items listed for my Single-A team:

35 went UP,
65 went Down.

Not very encouraging. I have coaching turned off so I don't know how this affects development - but I would think that even default coaching should do better than this.

That's exactly how real life works IMO... see, draft picks are much more often labeled as a "solid big leaguer in the future" than they actually get there.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

That's exactly how real life works IMO... see, draft picks are much more often labeled as a "solid big leaguer in the future" than they actually get there.

But a lot of people don't like the talent drops. As I said in a post somewhere else, talent hits are the #1 complaint of online leagues (other than a few pesky bugs).

No one expects every 5 star potential guy to become 5 stars, or even a 2 star potential guy to become 2 stars.

But these talent drops happen for no apparent reason. In DDB, I just had one of my 4 star potential outfielders become a 1-star, over night. No reason. He was sitting in AAA, hitting around .320 (league average is .267), morale was decent, no injuries... and just bam. He's no longer any good. That just doesn't make sense. In anyone's imagination.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Neags23

But a lot of people don't like the talent drops. As I said in a post somewhere else, talent hits are the #1 complaint of online leagues (other than a few pesky bugs).

No one expects every 5 star potential guy to become 5 stars, or even a 2 star potential guy to become 2 stars.

But these talent drops happen for no apparent reason. In DDB, I just had one of my 4 star potential outfielders become a 1-star, over night. No reason. He was sitting in AAA, hitting around .320 (league average is .267), morale was decent, no injuries... and just bam. He's no longer any good. That just doesn't make sense. In anyone's imagination.

If he'd go from 4 stars to 1 star in a period of 18 months, you wouldn't complain, right?

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

If he'd go from 4 stars to 1 star in a period of 18 months, you wouldn't complain, right?

If there were discernible reasons... no. Injuries, really poor performance, whatever. Hell, if it was overnight but it was due to him getting his leg cut off, I'm cool with that.

You can't just off guys that were once future stars for no good reason. Something happened to make him not have the potential he once had (if you're going to continue modeling this way).

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

The only thing problematic right now is how the change of talent gets displayed/reported. It is instantly, which obviously is not the way it works in real life.

we agree on this

Apart from that, I see no problems at all, and the reason is simple: No one knows how talent works in real life...

Tango is real world data. Granted its a small sample. Wouldn't it be better to use that as a base rather than just coming up with a development model out of thin air?

I mean, who knows, maybe Sandy Koufax was taught his curveball by a teammate when he was young. Maybe if he hadn't met him, he would have not developed into the great pitcher he was. So, his talent increased over night Or maybe if some coach would have been able to teach Shawn Abner a better approach, he'd be leading active players in HR now... who knows? Maybe that's what happened to Piazza...

His talent wouldn't have increased, his ability would have. He always had the talent to throw that curve ball he just didn't have the ability.

That's how I view the development engine in OOTP. It does produce good results

... At the Major League level

how it gets there is a matter of my imagination.

Which we both agree on. The difference is I'd prefer it be based on actual data such as Tango and extrapolate from there rather that just use imagination.

You would never just use your imagination when it came to the stats results right? You based that on what you knew and filled in the blanks by extrapolating based on what you knew. Why is development different?

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Neags23

If there were discernible reasons... no. Injuries, really poor performance, whatever. Hell, if it was overnight but it was due to him getting his leg cut off, I'm cool with that.

You can't just off guys that were once future stars for no good reason. Something happened to make him not have the potential he once had (if you're going to continue modeling this way).

I almost agree with this. If a players potential is going to be hammered there needs to be a reason. If the potential stays the same, its Real Life if he doesn't always reach that potential.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

If he'd go from 4 stars to 1 star in a period of 18 months, you wouldn't complain, right?

I think that's the biggest (only?) issue: the jarring scale of the change. If the development engine stayed exactly the same but there was a filtering layer between the actual potential and what is shown (even to a player with scouts off) where the potential creeps towards it's destination.

Imagine a player with 40/40/40 ability and 80/80/80 potential. Behind the scenes, the player's potential drops to 60/60/60 as the current model does. However, what's reported to player (even with scouts OFF) is a slow, steady decline in potential:

May 1st: 76/76/76.
June 1st 74/74/74.
July 1st 72/72/72.

(Actually, I'd probably put a little "noise" in that decline so it wasn't so obvious. The potentials might drift like this 75...72...73...70...70...67...)

We keep the exact same model that is developing players accurately but the talent changes don't occur in disturbing jumps. Plus, this probably wouldn't be too hard to implement for OOTP9 .

[ctorg]

I tend to think that people get caught up on the word talent and its definition. I think "potential" is a better word for OOTP. Your potential can go up and down plenty. It is partly based on talent, partly on learned skills, etc. It's a more useful measure than pure talent.

I definitely do not think that a player's potential should be something that is set in stone barring injury or known reasons. I think a guy's potential should be able to go up or down based on a variety of factors too numerous to have the game worrying about, from learning new stances or pitches to losing one's confidence and so on. I think a low potential guy should be able to have something click for him - who knows what - and have that raise his potential.

That makes sense to me, and it makes the game less predicatable.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

His talent wouldn't have increased, his ability would have. He always had the talent to throw that curve ball he just didn't have the ability.

Well, then the only real talent a pitcher has in real life is velocity. Everything else can be taught. Right? See, this is more a philosophical discussion.

Anyway, OOTP 9 will have a much better system in place, and the sudden drops for no reasons are gone. You'll see that in the next beta Jarmenie

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Anyway, OOTP 9 will have a much better system in place, and the sudden drops for no reasons are gone.

You're just full of.... good news today!

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Check his stats... that's what influences development.

Player Report for #30 Miguel Silva

Sweet... 8.04 ERA in May = talent bump on June 4 --- w00t!

[Tony M]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Anyway, OOTP 9 will have a much better system in place, and the sudden drops for no reasons are gone.

Does that mean there'll be a reason then

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, then the only real talent a pitcher has in real life is velocity. Everything else can be taught. Right?

Absolulty not. There's a lot more to pitching. Control is not something you can just teach. The skill can be refined but to have Greg Maddux pinpoint control, there has to be god given talent. The ability to throw a great change up is the same way. A guy with long fingers can much more effectively choke the ball then me with my short stubby fingers. I was never able to throw a splitter effectively because my fingers just weren't long enough. The movement a pitch has is affected by body type just as much as skill.

Those are all god given talents that no amount of coaching is going to change. That being said, having those features does mean you are a better pitcher just that you have the tools or, POTENTIAL, to be a better pitcher. If player A with lesser tools or, POTENTIAL, works harder than player B with more tools, or Potential, player A very well could out perform player B but you can't say player A had more potential than player B, he just got closer to reaching his Potential.

[SittingDuck]

He was being tongue-in-cheek.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by SittingDuck

He was being tongue-in-cheek.

I don't think he was.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

I don't think he was.

I think I was.

See, this discussion does not make much sense, because I feel you can view this from different standpoints.

We did agree on the main issue, though... and I fixed it.

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Player Report for #30 Miguel Silva

Sweet... 8.04 ERA in May = talent bump on June 4 --- w00t!

Maybe I'm related to this guy. heh

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

See, this discussion does not make much sense, because I feel you can view this from different standpoints.

A players physical tools are not going to change without a life altering event. Those tools are what potential should be modeling.

We did agree on the main issue, though... and I fixed it.

If the only time talent drops there is a VALID reason, then I'll hold my other comments until I see the new beta. If talent still drops, just over the course of a few months, then no, its still broken you've just made it less noticeable.

There's a game play issue here at the core of this discussion. As OOTP works right now there's very little reason for teams to take a "flyer" on a player who is under performing because his potential has dropped. There's very little chance once potential starts dropping its going to start heading back up.

In real life, these type of players could be seen as a late bloomer. But no OOTP owner is going to try and acquire a 28 year old with potentials of 40/40/40 with actuals of 40/40/40, but darn well might for a 28 year old with potentials of 80/80/80 and actuals of 40/40/40 because there's potential upside. However small it is, the player with the 80/80/80 potential is seen as having a little more value.