Does OOTP Player Development Needs to Be Fixed?

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by rwd59

Random is cool but the drops are too dramatic when there are not injuries. Wohlers and Blass all of the sudden couldn't throw strikes ( Wohlers also had an underlying injury) and I wouldn't mind seeing those type drops occasionally. They just happen too often and too dramatically in the game. Carlton was around 40 years old when he flamed out, something not neccesarily unexpected.

Oops, should have finished reading the thread before I responded as others already said what I just said.

Part of the problem is people tend to use fringe examples (Ankiel, Blass, Wholers) to explain these large drops that OOTP generates. Its not that large drops don't happen but the much larger frequency that they happen in OOTP.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Part of the problem is people tend to use fringe examples (Ankiel, Blass, Wholers) to explain these large drops that OOTP generates. Its not that large drops don't happen but the much larger frequency that they happen in OOTP.

If they'd happen too much, then the average talent level in the league would drop. It does not. Also, the average career length would be off as well, but it is spot-on. Also, the average league age would be off... again, spot-on.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

If they'd happen too much, then the average talent level in the league would drop. It does not. Also, the average career length would be off as well, but it is spot-on. Also, the average league age would be off... again, spot-on.

Unless they are countered by crazy talent bumps.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RonCo

As I said...even Tango himself would not view this as the bible. But it's certainly true to it's extent. Also, the following statements are true:

• The places where Tango philosophy is most fully "implemented" (major league hitters) are providing results that OOTP users are most content with.
• While the current model does well across all players in the majors, it fails miserably on several case-by-case basis studies
• Users who are focused on the minor leagues are among the most dissatisfied
• Many, many players are getting absolutely destroyed in the minor leagues using the current development model

I've never said Tango's research is perfect, and I don't think I've ever attempted to dodge the possible issues sampling can cause. But the system today is bad. It is "acceptable" only because it is probably better than any system that has been in existence previously. But it's bad.

I don't think I'll have time to continue this discussion in detail, but:

-Many of the issues with OOTP development are display issues. Users are angry that they see, instantaneously, that a player has lost 'Potential', and because users interpret 'Potential' to mean something like what a scout will call 'upside', these instantaneous changes look ridiculous. That is definitely a problem, and definitely needs fixing. But when you say users are dissatisfied with minor league development, in many cases this is because of display issues- users see a top prospect turn into a projected AA player literally overnight. As you have rightly said, it is important to separate display issues (including 'scouting') from development engine issues;

-That said, there are certainly problems with OOTP's development engine- we agree there. Too many players lose skills too quickly, absent injury, for example- the oft-noted problem of Major Leaguers turning into Little Leaguers over the course of a year or two;

-I'd argue that the problems, however (at least in the case of batters), are largely related to variance, not to trend lines, which OOTP gets pretty close to right for Major Leaguers. Tango only tells us the average trend that rate stats follow, and only for a very particular subset of the baseball playing population. Tango doesn't tell us how far development varies from these trend lines. OOTP doesn't get the variance right, but we have no data (as far as I'm aware) to tell us how to use Tango to get variance right either. Of note, Tango excludes from study any player who does crater in real life; that player won't accumulate enough big league stats to be included in a matched pair.

Originally Posted by RonCo

We have a set of data that is founded in truth for a large number of human beings.

This is just rhetorical device. Tango's sample is a non-probability sample; applying it to the entire population treats it as if it were a random sample. Saying Tango data 'is founded in truth for a large number of human beings' seems intended to suggest that Tango's sample is close to random, and it's not. Generalizing conclusions to an entire population from strongly biased samples is one of the most basic of statiscal fallacies; we both know that.

Originally Posted by RonCo

If I were Markus I would have no issues with taking a week or so and implementing a Tango driven system. I have yet to see a data-driven argument that suggests this would be a bad decision for Markus to take. If you've got one, please bring it. I'm all eyes.

I've yet to see a data-driven argument that suggests it would be a good idea. If we get some trend line and variance data for minor leaguers, we can talk data.

Originally Posted by RonCo

This is my fault, though. I take full responsibility for the fact that I am obviously lacking in some fundamental capability of thinking, because I just don't get it.

Is it so unreasonable to say: the players who succeed developed differently from those who don't? Tango is only looking at the former.

[Kelric]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

If they'd happen too much, then the average talent level in the league would drop. It does not. Also, the average career length would be off as well, but it is spot-on. Also, the average league age would be off... again, spot-on.

With all due respect, Markus, I think you're blinding yourself here. I just gave you what I consider to be a good example of what many of us have seen numerous times (yes, it was a low talent drop, but it's still a drop that 'should not happen') and it's ignored. The big league statistical results are pretty much spot-on, but how we get there isn't. The Talent Drops are balanced by a lot of Talent Improvements, eventually evening themselves out to give us nice big league numbers. But the way those Drops and Improvements happen do not happen as you continuously in this thread claim they do. Could you please take a look at this player and explain to me how I must be imagining things, because that Talent Drop didn't happen since he was performing well and was perfectly healthy? Mass illusions in place of actual Talent Drops that we keep documenting?

[spark240]

Originally Posted by injury log

Many of the issues with OOTP development are display issues. Users are angry that they see, instantaneously, that a player has lost 'Potential', and because users interpret 'Potential' to mean something like what a scout will call 'upside', these instantaneous changes look ridiculous.

Exactly. It's been said, the results are pretty good, I just don't like how they're being reached. Well, then, don't watch the sausage being made. Leave scouting on. Hide potential ratings. Use the less-precise scales for current ratings, if you don't hide those too. Judge players based on their game stats, and the scouts' reports.

Markus might have happier customers if he had given them fewer display options.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by spark240

Exactly. It's been said, the results are pretty good, I just don't like how they're being reached. Well, then, don't watch the sausage being made. Leave scouting on. Hide potential ratings. Use the less-precise scales for current ratings, if you don't hide those too. Judge players based on their game stats, and the scouts' reports.

See, it's me. I'm mentally deficient.

When I say "results are decent for hitters that make the majors" I think (because I play in leagues with three levels of minors, and pitchers in my major leagues) "That means the results are pretty good for 12% of the players in my universe." I also think "In the 12% exist a few real head-scratchers that cause me discomfort."

To me this is only "good" because it is miles better than any version prior.

Hiding the the talent changes will result in fewer vitrolic complaints on the boards, I agree with that. But it's a Dilbert solution in that it won't do anything to solve the actual problem.

Again, though, I've grown 100% certain that I'm the one that's weird here. It's to the point where I'm figuring each visit here will be my last.

*And the crowd goes wild!*

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by RonCo

See, it's me. I'm mentally deficient.

When I say "results are decent for hitters that make the majors" I think (because I play in leagues with three levels of minors, and pitchers in my major leagues) "That means the results are pretty good for 12% of the players in my universe." I also think "In the 12% exist a few real head-scratchers that cause me discomfort."

To me this is only "good" because it is miles better than any version prior.

Hiding the the talent changes will result in fewer vitrolic complaints on the boards, I agree with that. But it's a Dilbert solution in that it won't do anything to solve the actual problem.

Again, though, I've grown 100% certain that I'm the one that's weird here. It's to the point where I'm figuring each visit here will be my last.

*And the crowd goes wild!*

Based on the results of this poll, there are a lot of weird people here

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by injury log

Is it so unreasonable to say: the players who succeed developed differently from those who don't? Tango is only looking at the former.

It is, to me, unreasonable to say: I have a broken process, but am unwilling to move to the only model I've seen put forward that relies on real data merely because there exists some unquantifiable level of statistical uncertainty in applying the data across the board.

If you have a model that is proven to represent human baseball players better, bring it on. If you point to OOTP's model as one of those, I'll respectfully disagree. You, of course, will win that one. This is like watching Corporate America at its finest, really. I live this every day. "Since we don't have 100% certainty in going the way that some data says is good, we're now justified in doing whatever the heck we want and calling it great!"

Then six months later you're in another meeting trying to figure out why the process is still messed up.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by RonCo

When I say "results are decent for hitters that make the majors" I think (because I play in leagues with three levels of minors, and pitchers in my major leagues) "That means the results are pretty good for 12% of the players in my universe." I also think "In the 12% exist a few real head-scratchers that cause me discomfort."

Well, there's head-scratchers in the real world too.

Originally Posted by RonCo

Hiding the the talent changes will result in fewer vitrolic complaints on the boards, I agree with that. But it's a Dilbert solution in that it won't do anything to solve the actual problem.

But what is the actual problem? That players aren't developing for "realistic" reasons? No game can hope to model the vast spectrum of real world factors. If you're saying what I think you're saying, my response is: there can be no solutions except "Dilbert" solutions.

Originally Posted by RonCo

I've grown 100% certain that I'm the one that's weird here. It's to the point where I'm figuring each visit here will be my last.

Hmm, yeah, I think that way too. I started snooping around again with the talk of the approaching new version, hoping to find a reason to buy it--haven't spotted it yet. With the possible exception of LGO, I don't see much evidence of people interested in playing the game the way I want to play it.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by spark240

But what is the actual problem? That players aren't developing for "realistic" reasons? No game can hope to model the vast spectrum of real world factors. If you're saying what I think you're saying, my response is: there can be no solutions except "Dilbert" solutions.

No, the problem is players don't develop in a realistic fashion based on the known data available. 22 year old players don't go from Major league quality to McDonalds worker overnight without a good reason. This happens in OOTP way too often. Rather than having players that don't reach their potential, OOTP has players reach their potential, then kills them.

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

As for a guy suddenly losing it like that, it's rare but it happens. Steve Blass and Mark Wohlers both lost any semblance of control seemingly overnight. I also recall the end of being a top-rated pitcher coming relatively quickly for Steve Carlton as well, although he kept on pitching for several years after he was done.

Isn't the point that's trying to be made that it happens WAY more often in OOTP than in real life?

If not, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Its unrealistic as it is. You'll have players having decent/good years and no injuries and then BANG -- talent drop.

[deadringer]

I hate to oversimplify this because I'm sure there is so very complex computations with all this but if the end result (like Markus claims, and I agree) is realistic with all the drastic develop jumps and falls then could they simply be smoothed out a little and the player creation end of things tweaked to compensate?

I have no issues with talent jumps and drops, even at random, I just feel like they're WAY too drastic. I'd just either like to see those severity of those jumps tamed down a little or simply to be left in the dark about the changes in potential and have to figure it out over time.

By the way, I'm not just sour grapes about talent drops either. In the solo league I play with right now I had a pretty severe talent jump this morning. I had a 25 year old fourth outfielder jump from a 50 contact / 50 power (on a 20-80) to a 60 contact / 60 power just by sitting on the bench watching the world go by. He went from a 40 of 80 overall to a 72 overall just like that.

I'm not saying that it couldn't happen but again, I'd either rather see the jump slower / more gradual or have it displayed more gradually.

Maybe that's my biggest issue, the speed at which it all happens. I'd almost rather see the potential displays to move as slowly as the current ratings.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

22 year old players don't go from Major league quality to McDonalds worker overnight without a good reason.

I thought the prevailing feeling, among those who have an issue here, was that major league results, at least for hitters, are not bad; it was the track through the minors that didn't look right?

Originally Posted by RonCo

When I say "results are decent for hitters that make the majors" I think (because I play in leagues with three levels of minors, and pitchers in my major leagues) "That means the results are pretty good for 12% of the players in my universe."

But the model that is offered as an alternative is Tango's which is based on successful major leaguers to begin with?

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by spark240

I thought the prevailing feeling, among those who have an issue here, was that major league results, at least for hitters, are not bad; it was the track through the minors that didn't look right?

For major leaguers who play consecutive seasons. If the guy craps out in the middle of the season and the AI demotes him, he never shows up on the report because he didn't get the minimum plate appearances to qualify for the study. Thus the majors "look good".

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RonCo

It is, to me, unreasonable to say: I have a broken process, but am unwilling to move to the only model I've seen put forward that relies on real data merely because there exists some unquantifiable level of statistical uncertainty in applying the data across the board.

Again, I find this rhetorically misleading. It's not that there exists some 'statistcal uncertainty' that makes Tango inapplicable to minor league players; it's that there is (rather extreme) bias in the sampling. The data simply isn't relevant to the minor league population.

Originally Posted by RonCo

If you have a model that is proven to represent human baseball players better, bring it on. If you point to OOTP's model as one of those, I'll respectfully disagree. You, of course, will win that one. This is like watching Corporate America at its finest, really. I live this every day. "Since we don't have 100% certainty in going the way that some data says is good, we're now justified in doing whatever the heck we want and calling it great!"

Then six months later you're in another meeting trying to figure out why the process is still messed up.

I've consistently pointed to flaws in OOTP's development system. I am not an apologist for something that has obvious flaws- every post I've made acknowledges the problems with OOTP's development engine. How you've interpreted my arguments as being some kind of microcosm of public debate in American politics I don't think I'll ever be able to fathom. All I've argued is that statistics shouldn't be misused, and I've merely been regurgitating what anyone would learn in a Stats 101 course- nothing more. Biased samples are not random samples- and that's all I've said. In American politics, statistics are consistently misused to support courses of action; I'm arguing against doing that.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RonCo

See, it's me. I'm mentally deficient.
...
Again, though, I've grown 100% certain that I'm the one that's weird here. It's to the point where I'm figuring each visit here will be my last.

While I can tolerate most anything, I do get irritated by rhetorical device. When you say things like 'It's me, I'm mentally deficient', you are clearly appealing to an audience that will disagree with the assertion. You're saying "okay, if you think I'm stupid, you'd agree with this other person's argument, BUT if you don't think I'm stupid, clearly their argument is ridiculous." I'm sure in this community most would not think you 'stupid'; you've done much to demonstrate otherwise. Still, this style of argumentation has nothing to do with facts, and I think it has no place in any kind of intelligent discussion.

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by spark240

I thought the prevailing feeling, among those who have an issue here, was that major league results, at least for hitters, are not bad; it was the track through the minors that didn't look right?

The problem is with any player who reaches their potential at an early age, whether that lands them in the majors or the minors. As long as a player in the majors still has potential to burn, he's fine.

The issue is that ratings approach potential and potential tends to decrease on the whole before age 25 or so. As a result, anyone who has already hit their potential is fairly likely to regress.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

The problem is with any player who reaches their potential at an early age, whether that lands them in the majors or the minors. As long as a player in the majors still has potential to burn, he's fine.

The issue is that ratings approach potential and potential tends to decrease on the whole before age 25 or so. As a result, anyone who has already hit their potential is fairly likely to regress.

As I've said before, this is not really true. It takes a few charts and graphs to show it. But trust me when I say this is not true over large numbers of OOTP players.

[PAtricapillus]

Originally Posted by Kelric

I'll sit there wondering why the guy can't put it together, but the game engine will still be happy. It's just as with a real life example of, say, Matt Clement. For years teams have thought if he could just put all of his talent together he'd be a really good pitcher. It hasn't happened. He kept the tantalizing pitch movement and occasional control (his Potential was always high), but it never 'clicked' for him (his Ratings never improved).

With the apparent return of the text-based Scouting Report, this seems a lot more possible. Someone else in this thread mentioned doing something similar, where the text would just read "Matt Clement still has a good curveball, but his other pitches aren't developing as we had hoped. He's probably a back-of-the-rotation starter at best."

That makes a lot more sense to me than drafting Clement as a 4 star prospect with, say, 6/7/7 Potentials and having him working his way through the minor leagues with no visible problem and then all of a sudden the next day the game says he's a 4/5/5 instead. He'll still have dropped to a 4/5/5 behind the scenes, but to me he'll still be a 6/7/7 who just never developed his ratings all the way.

Take Matt Clement's 2nd half 2003 with his 1st half 2004 and you'll see he was putting it together. In September 2004, he was reported to have a shoulder/neck injury. Who knows how long he was pitching with discomfort. He was an all-star with Boston in 2005, then he was beaned by a batted ball in July and it was later discovered that he had a torn labrum and rotator cuff. The guy had injuries and the problem was more likely his decision to try to pitch through discomfort without telling anyone about how bad his shoulder felt.

I do think there is something, MENTAL FORTITUDE, that might influence a person's potential. Ed Whitson pitching in Yankee Stadium, Edgar Renteria in Boston. Wilting when the setting is not optimal.

Take Big Papi. In Minnesota, he said they didn't want him swinging for the seats. He had nagging injuries due to the turf in the Metrodome. He gets picked up by the Sox and is second string to Jeremy Giambi... Next thing you know, he is a legend. Right place, right time, top potential achieved.


How about some other examples from real life...
Nick Esasky, 1989, at age 29 goes for 133OPS+, the next year he's done. Vertigo?

Jack Clark, big year for Boston 1991, 35 yrs. 127 OPS+ 167OPS+ prior year in SD... Age 36 in Boston, Done.

Kevin McReynolds? Pretty big prospect, then not so much. Wally Joyner or Jose Canseco? Eric Hinske, Chris Sabo, Ben Grieve, Marty Cordova, Raul Mondesi, Bob Hamelin... Kevin Mitchell. Just take a look at some of the 'Rookie of the Year' winners that never amounted to much.

There are character issues to go along with injury issues. Discipline and Dedication vs. Risk Taking and Partier (Drugs/PEDs/Alcohol).

Lenny Dykstra, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, Mark Fidrych, Joe Charboneau. Albert Belle?

Nomar was a .400 potential hitter, now he's lucky to play healthy. Jason Giambi was MVP now he's struggling to tread water.

Carlos Pena? Late Bloomer. Jeremy Burnitz, took time to develop, had some really good years, then declined.

Think of all those old rated rookies and top prospects rookie cards, think of all the nobodies that were on the cards along with the likes of Mike Schmidt, Nolan Ryan (well, Jerry Koosman is more than a nobody), Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, Cal Ripken, Tim Raines...

Jeff McNeely? Sam Militello? Lance Dickson? Kevin Maas? Shane Spencer?

Greg Swindell, the next Roger Clemens from U Texas? And a variety of career paths from these guys-
Tom Browning, Bob Welch, Dave Stewart, Jim Clancy, Doyle Alexander, Willie Hernandez, Pete Vuckovich, Tedy Higuera, Mike Caldwell, Aaron Small?