Most REALISTIC Settings for MLB

[marc5477]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

They all have great potential, but the number of 7's and 8's given OOTP is very off compared to actual scouting grades...it's actually ridiculous. A top MLB draft prospect might receive something like Hit:55, power:65, eye: 60,,,in a year when a player gets a 7 or 8 in one of those categories, they are considered exceptional, and not seen too often. OOTP reflects this on higher accuracy ratings, and does a horrible job on lower accuracy.

That sounds right. Its the scout bias. OSA is basically an unbiased rating thus it has the widest potential range. Scouts will be more accurate towards their bias and all scouts, even neutral, have bias. They will tighten up the rating based on their evaluation stats.

Some folks around here like to think of the OSA as a "hands off" magazine-style rating where they rate just based on evidence they have without actually going out to watch the players. Your scout however is more of a "hands on" rating in that they go to games, watch the players, and evaluate based on their bias. Clearly both have a functional use and I do use both.

Important Note: Just because the scout has a tighter band, does not mean they are right. It could be that all their high rated players either fizzle out or turn into average or worse player which is exactly how it is in real life. On the flip side, magazine ratings sometimes do get it right. A great example is Ken Griffey Jr who was hailed by some magazines as the next Willie Mays back when he was in high school.

[chriskelly]

I'm going to try the aging at .65 and the development at 1.3. i understand and appreciate everything you guys did; I'm just nervous to stray so far from the defaults....Marcus must have them set where they are for a reason.

[PSUColonel]

Are these Aging and Development changes generally accepted? What happens when/if the defaults are changed? I hate to tell you, but they usually don't announce those type of changes. Why would Markus not just make this the default? He has obviously don a lot of testing and research himself...I don't see how he would or could get something as important as this wrong.

[chriskelly]

I agree totally, and I don't want to start a league and find out in 5 years that it's messed up. I will send a note and ask

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Are these Aging and Development changes generally accepted? What happens when/if the defaults are changed? I hate to tell you, but they usually don't announce those type of changes. Why would Markus not just make this the default? He has obviously don a lot of testing and research himself...I don't see how he would or could get something as important as this wrong.

My guess is that every year, the people who like to run a bunch of test seasons (like Spanish Lefty) do it so they can see if anything has changed on that front. It's not a Ron Popeil rotisserie oven "set it and forget it" type of deal.

Look for another thread next year on this same topic, just like there was last year and the year before that - there's a reason that the thread is called the "annual settings thread"

As for why SL's numbers are so different from 100 or 1.000 - the only thing I can think of that makes sense is that perhaps 1.000 represents an average across the entire history of MLB (or at least from 1901 onward), and SL's numbers are done in a way to be the most like 2015. For my next project, if I get numbers and development that is as close to current day as possible, I'll be happy. And given the numbers that SL has shared, it looks like that's what I'll get.

[PSUColonel]

Funny you mention Ron Popeil...my friend and former Program Director Steve Bryant used to be on his infomercials. Steve is a former QVC host, so he was a natural fit for RonCo..lol

[PSUColonel]

The thing for me, is there seems to be some credible evidence these altered settings are credible...yet I know the development team has tested this extensively.

Is it possible we should not just be comparing things to 2015...you could argue the avg over the ladt 5-7 years might be a better way to gauge accuracy.

[MrBojangles]

Originally Posted by chriskelly

I agree totally, and I don't want to start a league and find out in 5 years that it's messed up. I will send a note and ask

Is there any group knowledge on how my ongoing league may be affected if I make very gradual adjustments over time to some of these settings?

[PSUColonel]

It would be nice to get an official comment on this.

[daves]

Originally Posted by RubeBaker

AI Trading Frequency: Props here to OOTP user rjl518. I'm using the same settings he's employing for his 2016 Mets Replay. April: Very Low, May: Low, June: Average, July 1-15: High, July 16-31 (Trade Deadline): Very High, August: Low, September: Low

Player Rating Scales: I use 20-80, no stars. Overall rating based on AI evaluation, not pure ratings.

Injury Frequency: Again, props to OOTP user rjl518. Injury Frequency for April & May: Low, June & July: Normal, August & September: High.


.

I did not think about adjusting the Injury and trading frequency throughout the season. Very Interesting.

[chriskelly]

I sent a note to the support ID to specifically ask their thoughts on this, I linked to this thread, and I will let you know what they say. I think what you guys are saying makes sense....maybe going to .9 or 1.1 makes sense as a tweak if the defaults are tested at like 5 year or 10 year or 50 year averages or something like that. but, this game is so well thought out that dropping something to .3 scares me. I interpret that to mean 30% of "normal" and it's just too big an alteration.

I will let you all know what I get back.

[Libid21]

I'm playing with OP's recommendations, except I've changed the trade difficulty to Nutlaw's suggestion of "Hard, Favoring Neither Veterans or Prospects". As a Braves fan, I have seen our team trade players such as Shelby Miller for a king's ransom of prospects.

[SMPatin]

Originally Posted by Libid21

I'm playing with OP's recommendations, except I've changed the trade difficulty to Nutlaw's suggestion of "Hard, Favoring Neither Veterans or Prospects". As a Braves fan, I have seen our team trade players such as Shelby Miller for a king's ransom of prospects.

What's your experience thus far? Happy with the results?

[Sam_15]

Originally Posted by chriskelly

I'm going to try the aging at .65 and the development at 1.3. i understand and appreciate everything you guys did; I'm just nervous to stray so far from the defaults....Marcus must have them set where they are for a reason.

Yeah I had my aging speed set at .750 for both hitters and pitchers for a while and I got too many people playing at a very high level into their very late 30s. Yes, it does happen IRL, but not THAT much. I now have it set at .900 for hitters and .925 for pitchers and I'm happy with the results thus far. Some guys make it into their late 30s and early 40s, but plenty fail to make it past their early 30s.

As for dev speed I used the default for a while as well but loads of top prospects weren't breaking into the bigs until age 25 or 26, again that's just my experience. Now I've got it at 1.100 for everyone and it seems ok.

I definitely wouldn't stray terribly far off the defaults, because, at least in my experience, really low age speeds and high dev speeds can throw your league off of reality. Maybe it works for other people and that's fine but I got unfavorable results myself.

[Libid21]

Originally Posted by SMPatin

What's your experience thus far? Happy with the results?

Yes, it's a little tougher to acquire prospects but I still find good, fair deals once in a while.

[Matt Arnold]

The defaults I believe are quite good (I know a few years ago they seemed well off, but I know Markus did some tuning of them again this year too), but if you want to adjust them up or down, you're more than welcome to.

You can always try out with those values. Create a league, set the values what you want, and sim out 20 years and see if you have too many old guys sticking around, or guys are developing too quickly that they're not spending time in the minors, or whatever. Getting outside of the 0.65-1.5 range I would expect you might start seeing weird patterns develop, but if you're within that zone it should be fine.

[BadluckinOOTP]

I change my injury setting as the year goes by, but I think you guys have it backwards. There are more injuries in spring training and the first few months than at the end of the season.

Epidemiology of Major League Baseball injuries. - PubMed - NCBI

[Bears5122]

The defaults are really not that bad. I do adjust mine a little bit. 1.1 on development speed and 0.9 on the aging. It's kind of tough to gauge because the game has changed a bit over the last decade or so. We are seeing prospects get called up a little younger.

For what it's worth I tested some much more aggressive settings and while you see different results, it's not game breaking. You won't magically see 40 year olds starting on every team. So I wouldn't be too concerned by getting the number perfect (if you're debating between 0.85 and 0.9 for instance).

[KJDelaney]

Looking at the settings, I have wondered why about this. What do the current year stats mean? Isn't the ratings a "proper" reflection on how a player is? I can see where last year and 2 years ago, to dictate rise/fall.

But what is the purpose of looking at this current year's stats.

Thank you in advance.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by marc5477

That is actually how it is in real life. All the kids coming out of HS and Col have "potential" to be great and there is very little difference between anyone after the 1st 20 picks that distinguish them from anyone else. Does that mean that the "other" guys should be rated lower? Dont be too sure since many of the greats came from lower rounds and many high ranked prospects end up fizzling out thus, its clear, that the potential scale has a very wide error range and that is exactly how Marcus modeled it in ootp 17.

As for development randomness, its a matter of flavor. If you set it to 200, it will be as if you were saying that the scouts dont matter nor does experience and skill. Everything is random including the performance of veterans. This has been discussed to length in the past as well and for the most part, I think many will agree that development really isnt that random in reality. If you look at 1st round picks, many do make it to the bigs eventually, albeit most are barely average. Also, established (veteran) superstars and stars dont usually flake out very often and are very consistent for many years (minus injuries) so again, thus it really isnt that random at some point in a players career. Certainly there is some randomness (most acute with younger players), so I just stick with the devs default of 100. I wish there was a separate scale based on age (as age increases, randomness should decrease).

The way things are now, it's impossible to tell the difference between a number one overall pick, and a third or fourth round pick...again, I want the scouts to be very inaccurate, but you can't go rating half the draft class four stars and above....why can't they be inaccurate without doing this? So for instance, the very few players he does rate extremely highly, he could just as easily be wrong about, same with low ranked players, and all in between?