Does OOTP Player Development Needs to Be Fixed?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by injury log

That's not quite what I said:

Now, one wouldn't, in the absence of data proving otherwise, expect building a model on 'imagination' to produce good results either; I haven't said anything about that. We do have data about OOTP's results for Major Leaguers, though, and the results are reasonably good. For minor leaguers, well, I don't think so.

People are beginning to do skill studies on minor leaguers, but until they are done, you're basically right -- no one can tell with 100% certainty if guys in the bigs are fundamentally different from guys who don't make the bigs.

What you can say is that players who progress through the minors in OOTP do not seem to do so in the same fashion as guys in real life. So, while I _can't_ say that the Tango model will perfectly fit minor leaguers, I can say that the Tango model _might_ fit them, and I can say with pretty direct certainty that the model in OOTP _does not_.

[Tony M]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I doubt anyone would be crazy enough to learn my code without getting paid

I 'reverse-engineered' most of the database structure and wasn't paid for it. A lot of us with real jobs like the part time challenges other people make for us. Many a time I've been dealing with a customer whilst looking at a string of bytes thinking 'wtf is Markus using that field for?'

I don't do C++ either, being more of a VB or C# person myself. Does your C++ compiler use CLR or is it a non-Microsoft one?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Not, it's not in my opinion. Look at it this way: A player changes his approach, has success with it (better stats), he thinks "cool, that works for me!", so his talent increases. That's what scouting woud do too, and I see the real talent ratings as 'gods' view what the player could become in the future.

I have no idea what this means.

[RonCo]

Respectfully.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by redsoxford

I 'reverse-engineered' most of the database structure and wasn't paid for it. A lot of us with real jobs like the part time challenges other people make for us. Many a time I've been dealing with a customer whilst looking at a string of bytes thinking 'wtf is Markus using that field for?'

I don't do C++ either, being more of a VB or C# person myself. Does your C++ compiler use CLR or is it a non-Microsoft one?

I use Codewarrior while coding, the debugger is pretty fast. The release .exe is compiled using Microsoft .Net C++ though.

[bababui]

IMO using talent alone is very unrealistic in determining performance. The formula should be along these lines:

(Talent)(Professionalism)(Health)(Discipline)=Rati ngs

all the below graded between .01 to 1.0)

Professionalism=Physical conditioning and training

Health=Have injuries hampered one part of a players skill set to the detriment of the whole

Discipline=Likelihood that a player will stay on his diet and conditioning program and will do the studying to maximize his abilities.

The more factors that go into the talent/ratings spectrum mean the game is more challenging and unpredictable and fun.

[EMSoccerCoach]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Scouts project. God gives Talent. The development engine should give talent and scouting should give projections. After all, if you play with scouting off shouldn't you be getting a god's eye view not some projection?

Actually, the development engine shouldn't show you talent at all, only a projection of what the play appears capable of doing. Talent, if you're believing it as pre-ordained ability, is not something definitively measurable. But a scout can see what Player A is doing (i.e. stats, improvement) and say "I think this guy could be a 25 homer guy." But talent, as you define it here, shouldn't be shown, because I don't think it's something you actually see/measure. You don't project on talent, you project on past results extrapolated into future results.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I have no idea what this means.

Hmmm... I wish my english was better

[Tony M]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I use Codewarrior while coding, the debugger is pretty fast. The release .exe is compiled using Microsoft .Net C++ though.

So, it's taken to a CLR level then by the sounds of it. I'm sure that assemblies built in various .net software can be shoehorned into one another, but that'd be looking at maybe OOTP10 or 11 as an option for you to explore...

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by bababui

IMO using talent alone is very unrealistic in determining performance. The formula should be along these lines:

(Talent)(Professionalism)(Health)(Discipline)=Rati ngs

all the below graded between .01 to 1.0)

Professionalism=Physical conditioning and training

Health=Have injuries hampered one part of a players skill set to the detriment of the whole

Discipline=Likelihood that a player will stay on his diet and conditioning program and will do the studying to maximize his abilities.

The more factors that go into the talent/ratings spectrum mean the game is more challenging and unpredictable and fun.

The personality ratings are used in the development engine as well, i.e. work ethic and intelligence.

[Tony M]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Hmmm... I wish my english was better

It made sense to me. I'm trying to think of a non-baseball analogy and the best I could come up is a delivery driver who finds that coming off a junction early from the freeway gets him to his destination quicker. It improves his talent in delivering things quicker but isn't due to some god-given skill at birth, he just happened to hit upon it one day.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Hmmm... I wish my english was better

We've been through this often enough together that I'm pretty sure it's not an English issue. In its most positive light, it's a disagreement on views of cause-and-effect.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

The personality ratings are used in the development engine as well, i.e. work ethic and intelligence.

I like that, Maybe we could get a couple more variants. People are being a little too nit-picky here. As long as the development model is dynamic and produces results that mostly comport with reality, isnt that enough? If Markus tries to reproduce the results of a certain period of time, it will be much more difficult to please.

The game is a little schizophrenic. On the one hand, people want the game to reproduce the career paths of historical players. On the other hand, people want fictionalized universes to be dynamic and unpredictable. Its hard to accomplish both goals.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by redsoxford

It made sense to me. I'm trying to think of a non-baseball analogy and the best I could come up is a delivery driver who finds that coming off a junction early from the freeway gets him to his destination quicker. It improves his talent in delivering things quicker but isn't due to some god-given skill at birth, he just happened to hit upon it one day.

(yes, the scenario is a bit of a stretch, but I'll run with it). He had the "talent" to learn from someone or from reading a map or even just recognizing that one way worked better, and so when he learned that path his rating rose. When his rating rose, he then was able to deliver the goods more quickly than a driver with a lower rating. His basic talent for learning didn't change merely because his time fell.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by RonCo

We've been through this often enough together that I'm pretty sure it's not an English issue. In its most positive light, it's a disagreement on views of cause-and-effect.

You're right of course that the whole engine could be done better... but I can comfortably live with the way it works now (OOTP 9). Maybe for OOTP 10 I'll rewrite that thing completely from scratch, and I hope you'll be there for advice.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by RonCo

(yes, the scenario is a bit of a stretch, but I'll run with it). He had the "talent" to learn from someone or from reading a map or even just recognizing that one way worked better, and so when he learned that path his rating rose. When his rating rose, he then was able to deliver the good more quickly than a drive with a lower rating. His basic talent for learning didn't change merely because his time fell.

But by deciding to read a map, he saved time, so he discovered that this is a way to improve, thus his talent for improving his path increases... then he reads more in the map, and even further improving his time, so his ratings get closer to his now higher talent

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

That one is a thing of beauty...

Thank you, sir. When I think something through, I really think something through.

[PineTar]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I like it when I see the talents of my players increase, and I hate it when they go down. But that's the fun part IMO.

The only real complaints I've seen in FOBL since we moved to OOTP2k7 are about the development engine. Unfortunately, they have been loud and they have been frequent. There's been a few FOBL contributors in this thread, but I think they are but a sampling of the widespread dissatisfaction from our 36 owners. Not fun IOO.

As an aside, I don't think a once in a generation anomaly like Rick Ankiel should be the anecdotal evidence that proves a dev engine is realistic. Ankiel-like ratings collapses are an almost weekly occurrence in OOTP.

[pallison14]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

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

Err, really? I've seen time and time again a legitimate 4-5* player in his late-teens/early-20s and fairly along developmentally wise suddenly taking a dramatic hit in talents (3 points in contact, 4 points in power, 4 points in eye -- using a 1-10 scale), despite posting good-to-great numbers in their appropriate league (AA or AAA).

I take it for what it is - an imperfect system of development attempting to keep the overall talent of the league in check, but at some point it, but it certainly takes a lot of the air out of the system.

Edit: I should've read further down to see the "sarcasm" that this post was apparently dripping with.

[t-bone shuffle]

First let me say that it is with great hesitance that I even jump into a conversation with so many greatly educated opinions. And, I’m not even certain what I’m about to contribute is really applicable to the player development issue, but here goes anyway.

Nowhere in this conversation have I seen a mention of a player’s ability to perform consistently. I don’t know, or have an opinion about a lot of the things discussed here today, but I do know that player consistency is something that Major League teams scout and value greatly. The fact of the matter is that MLB and AAA are filled with players who have average to plus major league level talent yet are unable to turn it into an average to plus major league baseball career. For many players the difference between AAA and the majors is the inability to perform at a consistent level, and nothing else. Teams tire of, and eventually trade away (or whatever form of separation you prefer), the major league player who is consistently inconsistent. Many players succeed or even dominate in the lower levels despite their lack of consistency because their talent is so great, only to be exposed at the major league level.

I guess what I’m hoping to say is that it seems to me that some of the disagreement and discussion here is addressed by a player’s consistency level. Why does the 5 star prospect fail to become a 4 or 5 star big leaguer? More often than not it’s because he’s unable to bring his talent to the big league table in a consistent, day to day fashion. Now, why this is, is probably subject to a different debate. Regardless though, I assure you that it exists and that major league teams put a value on it.

I could go on and on here. A 3 star prospect turns into a 3 star big leaguer because he’s very consistent. The 5 star prospect failure above matures at a certain point and his consistency level increases and while he never becomes the 4 or 5 star big leaguer, he does become a solid 3 star guy.

I could put real names on all these scenarios, but I bet if you think for just a minute you could easily put a face on all of them. It just seems to me that modeling players and their career development path without addressing their ability to perform consistently is missing a factor that the real world, particularly at the major league level is essential. And might potentially help with the development issues bandied about here today.

Thanks for listening.