Player Development Settings

sreem · 09-13-2016, 10:30 AM

I was curious what everyone's opinions were on the Player Development Settings (age and development speeds) this year. Do you feel the base default setting of 1.000 is accurate to real life?

I currently have it set as follows :

Batter & Pitcher Aging Speed : .890
Batter & Pitcher Development Speed : 1.100
Talent Change Randomness : 110

Side note, I have Victor Martinez having a great season. I'm at the trade deadline and I could use some pitching help. He is 37 and I'm concerned about a drop off in production over the last 2 years of his contract. Should I try and trade him off?

jokr29 · 09-13-2016, 05:05 PM

I have never messed with development numbers, but would be interested to see what others have to say.
As far as Victor goes, Id trade him, because hes at his peak trading since hes having a good year. Once players get around that age I trade them.

PSUColonel · 09-13-2016, 05:15 PM

There has been a lot of debate over this, with zero consensus or even a ballpark recommendation. The fact is, injury frequency plays a role in ho w realistic (or not) the numbers are.

My observations are that players in the real MLB are developing much more quickly, and fall off the table much sooner than in years past.

I am therefore using the defaults all across the board...I wish the development team would lineup realsitic injuries (high) as the default however. Because they do not, it's my perception that players may take a little longer to develop than real life, and may fall off a just the right amount....but that's just an eyeball test, so it's hard for me to say.

PSUColonel · 09-15-2016, 02:38 AM

If someone would like to take a stab...feel free. I want realistic injuries, so I am using the "high" realistic modern day setting....but I am using aging and development defaults. I really hope I don't regret it.

homerj · 09-15-2016, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

If someone would like to take a stab...feel free. I want realistic injuries, so I am using the "high" realistic modern day setting....but I am using aging and development defaults. I really hope I don't regret it.

That's also what I do, and seems to be working out. I like having enough injuries that I may have to juggle around players.

Bluenoser · 09-15-2016, 11:31 AM

To me it always seemed counter intuitive to slow down aging and increase development speeds. If you're keeping vets around longer, aren't you creating a logjam by speeding up rookies? If players are staying to a later age, then spots on the ML roster aren't opening up as often seems to me.

PSUColonel · 09-15-2016, 01:17 PM

Some might think you could speed up development a little, while keeping again the same. But the argument for slowing agin is the injury frequency.

Some people around here put waaaayyy too much emphasis on stats...and this is where think the debate stems from. A lot of people around here think that visible player assessment (scouting) exists, and that the only way to tell if a player is in decline is through numbers. This just isn't true. Baseball is a sport just like another such as football or basketball, where yes, you can visible see players' skills eroding.

There are many around here who think because you can start to predict or see drop-off, that it's an issue. They also still think it's 2006 instead of 2016, where a good amount of players might make it to their early 40's. That's just not going to be true any longer. In fact, a lot of teams are now starting to outright release older vets who aren't part of their future plans. this despite large contracts.

The CBA is going to change dramatically I think. There will need to be a better way to reward young and productive players in their prime, and not have to have vast sums of money tied up in aging and declining veterans.

PSUColonel · 09-15-2016, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

To me it always seemed counter intuitive to slow down aging and increase development speeds. If you're keeping vets around longer, aren't you creating a logjam by speeding up rookies? If players are staying to a later age, then spots on the ML roster aren't opening up as often seems to me.

higher injuries might break down the players much earlier...but I am not too sure.

homerj · 09-15-2016, 01:52 PM

And you have to watch with a lot of these settings anyways. Could make good arguments to change them or not change them.

What I think a lot of people end up doing is diving into the changing settings rabbit hole and never get out of it to enjoy actually PLAYING.

So my actual advice if anyone is interested in changing them is playing out a bunch of seasons, if it's not what you want, you can go in and tweak it a bit. But there's not going to be one perfect set of numbers that's going to make everyone happy, it's why it's editable.

PSUColonel · 09-15-2016, 02:59 PM

I can see where people might think..."if players are getting injured more frequently, therefore ruined earlier, it might make sense to lengthen aging a tad." My problem is, I really have no idea what the right abustle the is, and if the default will be changed by next version. The truth is, I'm tired of fiddling with these settings, and just want a game that is realistic from version to version. I test things because I work on BETA...but really, there comes a time to play and enjoy this wonderful product.

Bluenoser · 09-15-2016, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

higher injuries might break down the players much earlier...but I am to sure.

Well, that's true but it's not only vets that get injured. Rookies do too.

I've always left mine on default since Markus has stated in numerous occasions that default settings for these things (including injuries) work well. I have been happy with the results I get.

grmagne · 09-15-2016, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

To me it always seemed counter intuitive to slow down aging and increase development speeds. If you're keeping vets around longer, aren't you creating a logjam by speeding up rookies? If players are staying to a later age, then spots on the ML roster aren't opening up as often seems to me.

I did some analysis in April/May (it's an unrelated topic, but the bottom few charts compare aging/development):

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...t-lhp-rhh.html

Short summary: if both aging & development are changed to 0.55 then the average age will increase by about one year.

If both aging & development are changed to 1.50 then the average age will decrease by about one year.

If you do contradictory things like increasing aging while decreasing development then I find it has virtually no impact on the average age or talent level of the league. There must be a built-in balancing mechanism so that there's approximately the right amount of talent in the game and that making crazy changes to aging & development doesn't have as much impact as you'd think.

Another time I tested increasing the aging & development to 2.5 or reducing both of them to 0.2 and it affected the average age by less than two years in both cases.

The bottom line is that you can make large changes to these factors, or even make contradictory changes, and the net effect isn't as dramatic as you'd expect. No matter what you do, you won't create a league where the average age is 19 or 35, and you won't make a league that has all 5-star or 1-star players. The league looks pretty "normal" in all the settings that I tested, it's just a matter of whether you want the league to be a year or two older/younger than default.

Since MLB has been getting progressively younger over the past decade, the most "realistic" settings are probably to increase both aging & development into the 1.3-1.4 range.

Honorable_Pawn · 09-15-2016, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

To me it always seemed counter intuitive to slow down aging and increase development speeds. If you're keeping vets around longer, aren't you creating a logjam by speeding up rookies? If players are staying to a later age, then spots on the ML roster aren't opening up as often seems to me.

Good point. I never really looked at it that way before.

Honorable_Pawn · 09-15-2016, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I've always left mine on default since Markus has stated in numerous occasions that default settings for these things (including injuries) work well. I have been happy with the results I get.

Same here. Except for a slight little .950 on aging for hitters and pitchers.

09-13-2016, 10:30 AM	#1
sreem All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 673	Player Development Settings I was curious what everyone's opinions were on the Player Development Settings (age and development speeds) this year. Do you feel the base default setting of 1.000 is accurate to real life? I currently have it set as follows : Batter & Pitcher Aging Speed : .890 Batter & Pitcher Development Speed : 1.100 Talent Change Randomness : 110 Side note, I have Victor Martinez having a great season. I'm at the trade deadline and I could use some pitching help. He is 37 and I'm concerned about a drop off in production over the last 2 years of his contract. Should I try and trade him off? __________________ "What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. Except for bears....."

09-15-2016, 01:17 PM	#7
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,105	Some might think you could speed up development a little, while keeping again the same. But the argument for slowing agin is the injury frequency. Some people around here put waaaayyy too much emphasis on stats...and this is where think the debate stems from. A lot of people around here think that visible player assessment (scouting) exists, and that the only way to tell if a player is in decline is through numbers. This just isn't true. Baseball is a sport just like another such as football or basketball, where yes, you can visible see players' skills eroding. There are many around here who think because you can start to predict or see drop-off, that it's an issue. They also still think it's 2006 instead of 2016, where a good amount of players might make it to their early 40's. That's just not going to be true any longer. In fact, a lot of teams are now starting to outright release older vets who aren't part of their future plans. this despite large contracts. The CBA is going to change dramatically I think. There will need to be a better way to reward young and productive players in their prime, and not have to have vast sums of money tied up in aging and declining veterans. Last edited by PSUColonel; 09-15-2016 at 01:27 PM.

09-13-2016, 05:05 PM	#2
jokr29 Bat Boy Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13	I have never messed with development numbers, but would be interested to see what others have to say. As far as Victor goes, Id trade him, because hes at his peak trading since hes having a good year. Once players get around that age I trade them.

09-13-2016, 05:15 PM	#3
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,105	There has been a lot of debate over this, with zero consensus or even a ballpark recommendation. The fact is, injury frequency plays a role in ho w realistic (or not) the numbers are. My observations are that players in the real MLB are developing much more quickly, and fall off the table much sooner than in years past. I am therefore using the defaults all across the board...I wish the development team would lineup realsitic injuries (high) as the default however. Because they do not, it's my perception that players may take a little longer to develop than real life, and may fall off a just the right amount....but that's just an eyeball test, so it's hard for me to say.

09-15-2016, 02:38 AM	#4
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,105	If someone would like to take a stab...feel free. I want realistic injuries, so I am using the "high" realistic modern day setting....but I am using aging and development defaults. I really hope I don't regret it.

09-15-2016, 11:31 AM	#6
Bluenoser Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In The Moment Posts: 14,204	To me it always seemed counter intuitive to slow down aging and increase development speeds. If you're keeping vets around longer, aren't you creating a logjam by speeding up rookies? If players are staying to a later age, then spots on the ML roster aren't opening up as often seems to me.

09-15-2016, 01:52 PM	#9
homerj Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 183	And you have to watch with a lot of these settings anyways. Could make good arguments to change them or not change them. What I think a lot of people end up doing is diving into the changing settings rabbit hole and never get out of it to enjoy actually PLAYING. So my actual advice if anyone is interested in changing them is playing out a bunch of seasons, if it's not what you want, you can go in and tweak it a bit. But there's not going to be one perfect set of numbers that's going to make everyone happy, it's why it's editable.

09-15-2016, 02:59 PM	#10
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,105	I can see where people might think..."if players are getting injured more frequently, therefore ruined earlier, it might make sense to lengthen aging a tad." My problem is, I really have no idea what the right abustle the is, and if the default will be changed by next version. The truth is, I'm tired of fiddling with these settings, and just want a game that is realistic from version to version. I test things because I work on BETA...but really, there comes a time to play and enjoy this wonderful product.