Player Development Testing & Conclusion

[rwd59]

I drop the TCR to around 25-33 for historical play. TBH, I haven't done much historical with this version which is really strange cause all I used to do was historicals up until v24 or v25.

[TheRyanLee]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

I currently keep them the same for historical, but I think I need some adjustments. I'm getting a lot of guys playing into their mid 40's and getting way too many outstandings in the dev lab. TCR is aggressive at 100 in historical vs standard MLB or fictional.

Thank you for your insights. I am likely going to drop TCR down to 25-50 range. Do you think I should switch aging target range from much older to older? I'll probably tweak the aging and dev speeds as well.

[NoOne]

This has come up before. While their injury curve and development curve may not be perfect, the criticisms of it are whimsical in nature. Arbitrary arugments can be made about tweaking it this way or that, but overall it's representative of reality. It doesn't have the exact same shape, but that's an unrealistic standard to hold it to.

Occasionally an oddity happens due to tweaking this or that, and they do their own research on game results and fix it.

If you can show a consistent and repeatable effect in a rational way without significantly flawed process, they will be very responsive to it. They've shown nothing different since i've been an observer/user.

---

Don't forget that 'seed' players, real players and real prospects are all going to be a different distribution of talent than what results from the fictional process of creating players that then go through all the probabilities and injuries over time etc etc.

the distribution of 'real' amatuer prosepcts included in the game is totally devoid of reason. It operates under the idea that scouts are correct about their assessments and that players fail to develop. We know that's not the case. That's not they way the rest of OOTP works in this regard for good reason. Scouts are merely wrong more times than right and not very good at predicting future value - quantitatively true. That doesn't mean some scouts aren't better than others, just that the bar is low and it's all relative to that low bar of successful prediction of future talent results.

The 'failures' were mostly never talented enough in the first place. Some do fail due to their own lack of effort or destructive off-field behaviour, of course, but more often it's simple being overrated due to a total lack of predictive information for younger players.

Failure is the norm when it comes to prosepcts.

Pointing out problems with how something is tested should be welcomed. Pointing out how the way something tested caused additional volatility or inaccurate or irrelevant measurements is not a bad thing.

Relative metrics would be best.. what percentage develop to ~80% of potential?

but, things like, what percentage develop abve a 40/80 overall will be drastically impacted by the differences outlined aboutve.. e.g. real prospects included in the game will give bonker numbers in this regard compared to fictionally created prospects over time.

Metrics used, methods used... all can heavily skew the results. If you cherry pick, you can even prove autism is correlated to vaccines, lol, with bad research.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by NoOne

This has come up before. While their injury curve and development curve may not be perfect, the criticisms of it are whimsical in nature. Arbitrary arugments can be made about tweaking it this way or that, but overall it's representative of reality. It doesn't have the exact same shape, but that's an unrealistic standard to hold it to.

Occasionally an oddity happens due to tweaking this or that, and they do their own research on game results and fix it.

If you can show a consistent and repeatable effect in a rational way without significantly flawed process, they will be very responsive to it. They've shown nothing different since i've been an observer/user.

---

Don't forget that 'seed' players, real players and real prospects are all going to be a different distribution of talent than what results from the fictional process of creating players that then go through all the probabilities and injuries over time etc etc.

the distribution of 'real' amatuer prosepcts included in the game is totally devoid of reason. It operates under the idea that scouts are correct about their assessments and that players fail to develop. We know that's not the case. That's not they way the rest of OOTP works in this regard for good reason. Scouts are merely wrong more times than right and not very good at predicting future value - quantitatively true. That doesn't mean some scouts aren't better than others, just that the bar is low and it's all relative to that low bar of successful prediction of future talent results.

The 'failures' were mostly never talented enough in the first place. Some do fail due to their own lack of effort or destructive off-field behaviour, of course, but more often it's simple being overrated due to a total lack of predictive information for younger players.

Failure is the norm when it comes to prosepcts.

Pointing out problems with how something is tested should be welcomed. Pointing out how the way something tested caused additional volatility or inaccurate or irrelevant measurements is not a bad thing.

Relative metrics would be best.. what percentage develop to ~80% of potential?

but, things like, what percentage develop abve a 40/80 overall will be drastically impacted by the differences outlined aboutve.. e.g. real prospects included in the game will give bonker numbers in this regard compared to fictionally created prospects over time.

Metrics used, methods used... all can heavily skew the results. If you cherry pick, you can even prove autism is correlated to vaccines, lol, with bad research.

You were on the Beta team right? Seriously, I'm a retired college grad educator and a lot of what you said here went "whoosh" over my head. I assume what you mean is that it works well as it is and all these people posting results of their tests are providing flawed data.