Every young major leaguer with collapsing ratings at once

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by TLB1975

Not sure how you could imply anything "standard" about my response. And I never mentioned anything about realism.

And further, I don't get you fascination with needing the out of the box version of this game to perfectly match your interpretation of reality.

You said his problem was caused by him not changing the default settings. I say that if it is a problem then it is caused by the default settings not accurately producing realistic talent changes. If what he is seeing is actually close to what reality produces then there is no problem and he is mistaken about his assumptions. Your response though assumed that there is a problem and offered a reason as to the cause. That was my issue with the response. It isn't uncommon on these boards when someone sees something that seems unrealistic for another poster to say that they need to change some setting or another in order to get the more realistic results he was looking for. It has nothing to do with my interpretation of reality in this case since I haven't complained about this or said that I am seeing unrealistic talent changes in the game. However, I don't think it is unrealistic to expect the "out of the box" version to model reality closer than any other possible settings configuration.

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by voxpoptart

TLB1975: I'm guessing your research is about real-life 3rd-to-5th-round picks? If so, it sounds about right, yes. They have potential, and a few of them reach it. Has your own game universe gone on long enough that you can compare the results from your own league's drafts?

I'm not implying, btw, that your results *need* to match up to reality. I'm just curious how they compare.

Yes RL MLB from 06-10.

My OOTP 13 game which I ran for 75 seasons seemed consistent over 5 yr periods. I'm sure there were years when talent was thin and the numbers were far worse and vice versa.

One thing you may want to try is creating a new league with TCR low and just sim it out for at least 5 years keeping track of the potential ratings of prospects and see what happens. And maybe that and some other tweeks might help.

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

You said his problem was caused by him not changing the default settings. I say that if it is a problem then it is caused by the default settings not accurately producing realistic talent changes.

You may have missed that he is not playing entirely with default settings as he created a league where all players were between the ages of 20-28. That slight change could have a significant effect.

[voxpoptart]

I'll give the low TCR a try and see what happens!

I do, however, wonder if anyone can chime in on the other question I'd slipped in there: is it weird that most of the managers/ coaches have low ratings? Since I don't know what caused it, and can't help but wonder if it's a contributing factor ... Is there any real harm to turning coaching off?

[voxpoptart]

Dyzalot: I agree with you that the game's default talent development settings should be the most realistic. However, what I'm finding -- for whatever reason, and we've discussed a few -- is results that are not realistic at all. So if TB1975's suggestion works as he suggests, I won't be bothered by the fact that ideally it shouldn't.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by TLB1975

You may have missed that he is not playing entirely with default settings as he created a league where all players were between the ages of 20-28. That slight change could have a significant effect.

Yes it could. I agree. If someone had pointed that out as a possible issue and then said to counter that you need to do this, it would have made more sense in the context of the issue I had with the reply. It just seems common here to suggest changing the settings as a fix as opposed to trying to figure out if the default settings are a problem and need to be addressed by the devs.

Dyzalot: I agree with you that the game's default talent development settings should be the most realistic. However, what I'm finding -- for whatever reason, and we've discussed a few -- is results that are not realistic at all. So if TB1975's suggestion works as he suggests, I won't be bothered by the fact that ideally it shouldn't.

And I have no problem with people offering "work arounds" to temporarily fix a problem as long as it isn't presented as the ultimate solution without any investigation into why the default settings aren't producing the desired level of reality simulation.

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by voxpoptart

Dyzalot: I agree with you that the game's default talent development settings should be the most realistic. However, what I'm finding -- for whatever reason, and we've discussed a few -- is results that are not realistic at all. So if TB1975's suggestion works as he suggests, I won't be bothered by the fact that ideally it shouldn't.

I'd think if you were creating players so young you'd need to lower the TCR because of the way the game works. Since you don't have any players declining the game is going to do weird things with your players because the game is generally expecting both incoming players and declining players to off-set each other so to speak.

I've noticed similar issues when I create age restricted leagues. I used to have a 22-25 year old league and the players would all have seeming weird potentials then they'd age out, get traded, or released and their potentials would change.

Personally I don't think potential should ever be lower then then your current rating. If your rating is 75 then your potential should be at least 75 since that's what you're already at. But that's just my thinking I'm sure there is reasoning behind why the game works the way it does.

[voxpoptart]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

It just seems common here to suggest changing the settings as a fix as opposed to trying to figure out if the default settings are a problem and need to be addressed by the devs.

As I stated up front, I would love to see the developers rethink their whole basis of prospect development. I think real-life potential almost never goes way down except in the case of illness, injury, or passing peak age (hence the number of late-blooming formerly-hot prospects). For that matter, I don't think it ever goes *up* except in cases where it's matched to visible progress on the field. (Matt Adams's potential, or Mookie Betts's, went up as they made changes that caused their performance to exceed expectations. In OOTP a guy can be sitting in Rookie League waiting for the season to start and suddenly have his potential skyrocket. Literally.)

But! That's a different issue from whether, given a faulty system of talent development, the default settings are the least bad. It is quite possible that they are the least bad, had I chosen a more standard league setup. Maybe!

Then again, given my prior experience with earlier OOTP versions where I let the age distribution be normal, and given whatever experience caused TB1975 to make the choice he did, maybe the default isn't very good even in context. I don't know.

[TLB1975]

From the manual about TCR:

Talent Change Randomness option is a numeric value from 1 to 200 that controls how random player talent changes are. For example, a 200 here would mean that talent changes are highly random, making it more likely that players would experience significant changes in talent over the course of their career.

Not sure I even understand the concept of it since when does talent in RL change randomly?

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by TLB1975

From the manual about TCR:

Talent Change Randomness option is a numeric value from 1 to 200 that controls how random player talent changes are. For example, a 200 here would mean that talent changes are highly random, making it more likely that players would experience significant changes in talent over the course of their career.

Not sure I even understand the concept of it since when does talent in RL change randomly?

When dealing with RNG everything is random. It's just a matter of the parameters set around that randomness.

IMO nearly every young player should get "better" every year till they hit roughly 25-26ish. Then it becomes a bit more random and after a player hits mid thirties most players should be declining. You could still have random jumps or fall backs but for the most part you should see trends.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by TLB1975

Not sure I even understand the concept of it since when does talent in RL change randomly?

Well, remember that we are talking about "potential" talent, not the actual talent/ability of the player. I see that rating more of a projection than an ability and that is something I can see being a lot more volatile. When they change I look at it more as a reassessment.

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Well, remember that we are talking about "potential" talent, not the actual talent/ability of the player. I see that rating more of a projection than an ability and that is something I can see being a lot more volatile. When they change I look at it more as a reassessment.

Yes, but unfortunately in OOTP, (especially when the TCR is high) that change is only random and often happens without supporting data to go with it. So a high potential player can be producing at whatever level in the minors and then, without warning, his potential rating will nosedive.

[voxpoptart]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

IMO nearly every young player should get "better" every year till they hit roughly 25-26ish.

Oh, that isn't what I was saying. Many young players fail to improve much, either because they have little talent or, like Mike Trout or Al Kaline, they maximize it really fast. Sometimes their Current Ratings clearly go backwards as they develop bad habits or the league learns to exploit a hole in their game and they don't adjust: Jesus Montero, Dustin Ackley, Jose Bautista, Chris Davis, druggie-era Josh Hamilton, Jean Segura, Jeff Francouer, Yuniesky Betancourt, or the aforementioned Royals Alex Gordon/ Mike Moustakas/ Eric Hosmer (and before them Carlos Febles and Mark Quinn and.... go on, guess my favorite baseball team.)

But given two youngish players with similar recent playing records, one of whom *used* to be quite good, you bet on the one who used to be quite good. Because the Potential, or at least most of it, is still there.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by TLB1975

Yes, but unfortunately in OOTP, (especially when the TCR is high) that change is only random and often happens without supporting data to go with it. So a high potential player can be producing at whatever level in the minors and then, without warning, his potential rating will nosedive.

Right, like a guy who gets drafted high, blows through the minor leagues but then never puts it together in the majors. The difference between OOTP and real life is that we never really see those potential ratings at all, not in the same context...which is why there is a decent contingent around here that prefer "stats only" or something similar (I'm a 1-5 ratings guy myself).

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Right, like a guy who gets drafted high, blows through the minor leagues but then never puts it together in the majors. The difference between OOTP and real life is that we never really see those potential ratings at all, not in the same context...which is why there is a decent contingent around here that prefer "stats only" or something similar (I'm a 1-5 ratings guy myself).

I agree. And I have no issue when those numbers decrease in your scenario as that happens frequently in RL. Unfortunately, in OOTP, that decrease seems to happen while still tearing it up in the minors.

FYI, I play 1-10 but I turn off stars and I hide current ratings so all I see is potential ratings. I found that one of my player development advantages was that as long as I could see current ratings, I had too good of an idea what minors level to put a guy so he could dominate. By hiding the current ratings, I have some Fog of war and have guys who now get promoted and don't hit or pitchers who don't perform at various minor league levels.

Debating going to 1-5. It's my next evolution on the way to stats only.

[voxpoptart]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Right, like a guy who gets drafted high, blows through the minor leagues but then never puts it together in the majors.

But those guys don't suddenly lose all their potential. Javier Baez has tons of potential. He may or may not ever become a good player, but his potential is absolutely astounding, and he will be treated and valued that way for the next two years even if he doesn't produce in the majors, the same way Jesus Montero and Mike Olt were. A couple more crappy seasons and his value will go down, as theirs did ... but he will probably still be a strong guy with amazing bat speed, and the possibility will remain that the right coach will turn him around.

In my system, unused Potential would be less and likely, over time, to ever be lived up to -- but it would remain tantalizing, because it's still visibly there. Bubba Starling has been awful since being picked 5th in the 2011 draft, but last month he hit .386/.471/.614 in A-ball and the Royals excitedly promoted him, tiny sample size or no, because they still see what an athlete he is.

In OOTP a guy like Javier Baez can, for no reason, turn into someone you have warming the bench in AA because there's no possibility left in him -- just a year removed from his burning up AA and AAA both.

[Rain King]

I don't disagree with any of that, but I also don't see it as very important because I tend to play with potentials off or at 1-5 where you just don't notice that stuff very often (and the overall development engine works really well IMO).

If I were actually designing the rating system from scratch I flat out wouldn't even have hard coded potential ratings. Scouts would come up with a potential based on a combination of current ratings (as they see them), performance and various preferences/biases, but the actual potential would be completely open ended in the development engine. Of course, I'm sure that would also take a lot of testing to balance out and I think at this point we have digressed quite a bit away from addressing the OP.

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by voxpoptart

Oh, that isn't what I was saying. Many young players fail to improve much, either because they have little talent or, like Mike Trout or Al Kaline, they maximize it really fast. Sometimes their Current Ratings clearly go backwards as they develop bad habits or the league learns to exploit a hole in their game and they don't adjust: Jesus Montero, Dustin Ackley, Jose Bautista, Chris Davis, druggie-era Josh Hamilton, Jean Segura, Jeff Francouer, Yuniesky Betancourt, or the aforementioned Royals Alex Gordon/ Mike Moustakas/ Eric Hosmer (and before them Carlos Febles and Mark Quinn and.... go on, guess my favorite baseball team.)

But given two youngish players with similar recent playing records, one of whom *used* to be quite good, you bet on the one who used to be quite good. Because the Potential, or at least most of it, is still there.

I wasn't implying you were saying that I was saying that's my opinion of what should be happening. Most younger player should get better even if just a little bit for a few years. Granted some will tank and never make it and obviously most will never be stars but for the most part most younger players should have small increases every year.

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

I wasn't implying you were saying that I was saying that's my opinion of what should be happening. Most younger player should get better even if just a little bit for a few years. Granted some will tank and never make it and obviously most will never be stars but for the most part most younger players should have small increases every year.

Agree. The spread between current ratings and potential should be narrowing for a prospect as he evolves and IMO, the potential should only begin dropping once a player can't handle and perform at a level

A few months back I was looking through RL MLB drafts from 2002-2010, comparing the success rate of players drafted vs other RL leagues, especially the NHL. For over 90% of the prospects who never made it to ML, even for a September call up, it came down to two things:

1. Injury - especially for Pitchers

2. Player could not handle High A or Double AA.

Not sure how that matches up with our OOTP experiences. In my leagues, I don't see enough young prospect pitchers with injuries that ruin their career vs delay their development. I often see prospect pitchers with 4-12 month arm injuries with the only consequence being they miss a year of development vs big velocity drop, loss of control, etc...

[Padreman]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I hate responses like this. You shouldn't have to change any settings to make the game more realistic. The most realistic settings should be the default settings. That way if you want to play in a manner that is different from reality, you can change the default settings and know that you are changing it from the baseline of reality towards whatever fictional universe you are trying to achieve.

Don't be a hater be a lover