Anyone done any testing on prospect development in v25.2.52?

[FantasyDrafter]

MVPs 80/80 27yo SS and 80/80 28yo 3B

I’m running another 20 years to look at the draft positions - if anyone finds this interesting let me know, otherwise I’ll keep it to myself!

[Guthrien]

I'm interested. I've kept simming though I'm mostly interested in how draft picks grow and impact within 5 years. I'm absolutely convinced they take too long though I'm by no means claiming they don't populate the game, eventually.

As a lark I did a couple with development turned to 2.000 but it seemed to have the opposite effect. Early picks retired fast and anyone with talent was still in their 20/30 out of 80 attributes in 5 years. I don't think that setting does exactly what I thought. I used to set it at 1.150 and similar in 23 and 24 based on the comments of some other users.

I'm simply expecting variation of growth for top prospects.. the occasional Jackson Holliday might be a little much, but at least some 1st round history changers.

The game is by no means broken, I still enjoy it very much. I just enjoy minors development and something seems off.

[locuspc]

The occasional Jackson Holliday is absolutely not a little much. Whatever happened to "if it's in the game it's in the game"? Jackson Holliday is in the game.

[Guthrien]

Originally Posted by locuspc

The occasional Jackson Holliday is absolutely not a little much. Whatever happened to "if it's in the game it's in the game"? Jackson Holliday is in the game.

Yes, I may have phrased that wrong. Jackson Holliday pt 2 is not in this game. Not in mine, anyway, but the worst part of critiquing this game is believing too much in your small amount of experiences so curious if he shows up in yours.

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

Yes, I may have phrased that wrong. Jackson Holliday pt 2 is not in this game. Not in mine, anyway, but the worst part of critiquing this game is believing too much in your small amount of experiences so curious if he shows up in yours.

I'm not sure I phrased it well. I'm saying Jackson Holliday pt 2 should be generated occasionally by the game, because real life MLB occasionally generates Jackson Holliday. I agree with your experiences that I don't see that type of prospect show up, but I think it should, I think it's a problem that it doesn't.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by locuspc

I'm not sure I phrased it well. I'm saying Jackson Holliday pt 2 should be generated occasionally by the game, because real life MLB occasionally generates Jackson Holliday. I agree with your experiences that I don't see that type of prospect show up, but I think it should, I think it's a problem that it doesn't.

Yes real life creates players that generate a lot of hype and perform wonders in the minors. Let's wait till he's played a few years in the majors and actually lives up to this hype before we worry about the game creating players like him.

[ChrisJNelson]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Yes real life creates players that generate a lot of hype and perform wonders in the minors. Let's wait till he's played a few years in the majors and actually lives up to this hype before we worry about the game creating players like him.

Whether or not Jackson Holliday specifically pans out as a prospect has nothing to do with anything. You're missing the point (or being intentionally obtuse).

[Syd Thrift]

I think the point is that it's reeeeeally rare that you see a guy who's an 80 prospect in the first place and the bust rate on MLB prospects in general is kind of high and so 80 prospects who actually turn into 80 grade players are kind of unicorns. Literally the last guy Fangraphs had as an 80 prospect in his graduating year was Wander Franco in 2021. We'll see how things work out in '24 but I'm pretty sure they don't have anyone rated as an 80 who's likely to play in the major leagues this year either...

These types do happen and it's known that OOTP doesn't tend to create guys who are Day One ready or close enough to Day One ready that you could start them in the major leagues almost immediately. Those players are also rare - it sort of describes A-Rod in the 90s, who got a cup of coffee (due to his contract) almost immediately but wasn't a superstar until a couple years in, I guess Pete Incaviglia back in the day... oh yeah, Ken Griffey Jr. of course - but they do exist, the game doesn't really create them, and that's an issue.

That said though, an awwwwwful lot of 80-grade players were just plain not that coming out of HS/college or else the majority of teams absolutely whiffed on them scouting-wise. Like Mike Trout as the biggest example was drafted in the 20s in the first round. People point to him as a great first round pick, which he was, but also the majority of MLB teams passed on him and for a while he was looking like the GOAT. And to take one striking example from this thread, Acuna was a 65 coming out who got real-life TCR bumps and became an 80. Not only do these things tend to happen sometimes, I think this is probably the most common route for guys who eventually become one of the top 2 or 3 players in the league: they're profiled as really good prospects who will eventually be above-average major leaguers, and they outperform their projections.

[FantasyDrafter]

This is definitely TLDR, but I went into some more development rather than just draft distribution (unless you are a masochist, don’t sweat the draft. Pick traits you like and throw a bunch of darts).

The year is 2080, still a familiar distribution of players.

18 at 80/80 (10 in their 20s)
12 at 75
38 at 70
36 at 65
77 at 60

Fewer 75s, more 70s this time but that’s the only thing that looks slightly different.

I’ll go into detail with one example of typical (good) player development using a 4th round pick who is now a 70-70 at 27 years old born 8/22/2053. His path is typical for a player created as a HS player, it is a little atypical for a 4th rounder to pan out like this.

First 100% scouting report 4/12/2069 which I guess was his freshman year in HS (15yo)
STUFF 30/65, MOV 45/60, CON 30/60, OVR 20/60 91-93

Four years later before the draft 4/12/2072
STUFF 30/60, MOV 45/50, CON 30/60, OVR 20/60 91-93. Not sure how familiar everyone is with high school freshmen vs seniors, but this would be very rare. Potential drop is fine, but there are not many freshmen who don’t change in their actual performance between ages 15-18.

4/13/2073 (age 19) as he starts his FCL Career
STUFF 30/60, MOV 45/50, CONT 30/60 OVR 20/60 92-94. Gained a little velocity.

7/4/2023 no change

6/2/2074 (age 20y 9.5mo), 2nd FCL year
STUFF 35/60, MOV 45/55, CON 30/60, OVR 20/60 92-94. Things are starting to happen

5/29/2075 (age 21y 9.5mo), 3rd FCL year
STUFF 45/60, MOV 50/55, CON 40/60, OVR 30/60 93-95. Definitely have to pay attention to him.

3/4/2076 (age 22y 6.5mo). Threw 10 innings at A+ ball at the end of last year and is now in AAA.
STUFF 45/65, MOV 55/55, CON 45/60, OVR 40/60 94-96.

Makes one start at AAA and gets promoted to MLB. He pitches in 59 games, mostly in relief, makes 3 starts. His first MLB scouting report is identical except his OVR now says 45/60 (probably as a relief pitcher?)

Fast forward to 12/1/2080 (27y 3.5mo)
STUFF 55/65, MOV 60/60, CON 60/60 OVR 70/70. He has been a full time starter since the start of 2077 making 119 starts over 4 seasons amassing 17.7 WAR. He has apparently visited the development lab 4 times in his career, all visits were unsuccessful.

This guy had a steady rise eventually, starting at around age 20. In the scouting history page the top graph on my screen shows you a players progression and those slopes vary greatly, but as a general rule there is a flatline to start when a player is created at age 16. When they are created as a college player the line typically looks much more believable, as if their skill level is changing during what most would consider a typical period of change. High level IAFAs typically have an extreme period of rapid growth after many flatline seasons sitting in your system.

In visual terms from the game, here is the guy I described in detail, then an 80/80 created as a college player (who is now 35 and has led the league in WAR for 10 consecutive seasons, 98 career WAR), and a 24 yo IAFA who should become a star (made 70 starts at A ball or lower over from 2075-2078. Jumped to AAA at the end of 2078. Made 1 start at AAA in 2079, then a part time starter / reliever. 5WAR starter in 2080). All entered MLB in their age 22 season which seems to be the sweet spot.

[FantasyDrafter]

Here’s 2 more IAFAs. Before someone says it, I know the graphs are skewed because they get scouted so much during their practice period - they all look the same though, it is very easy to identify. Development starts around age 20. Don’t give up on them when they are 18 and have not budged.

[Guthrien]

I actually prefer the talent distribution this year, it seems somewhat more realistic. Drafts have variation too, as everyone has seen the early ones are crap. There are odd things like way way too many Relief Pitchers in later rounds. Pitcher/Batter ratio is wackier than in real life. But in later years, many drafts have high curves for talent.

The issue is they simply toil in the minors too long. You just won't see players making early impacts the way you do with a Jackson Holliday or Wyatt Langford, etc. There are several young players OOTP 25 adores and will make gods based on their prospective ratings right now (Elly), but that won't happen for fictional players, not within the same timeframe. I think that adds an unrealistic pall around new talent, but it's not that new talent doesn't exist.

Anyhow, I'll quit banging the drum about it. I feel confident they know there's work to be done in the Draft/Development. As I said before, I think this is a strong release with a lot of new things going on they seem to have done well.

[turtle4499]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

That said though, an awwwwwful lot of 80-grade players were just plain not that coming out of HS/college or else the majority of teams absolutely whiffed on them scouting-wise.

I don't really think the way the game is handling 80 grade is what you are suggesting though. The current rating scale is not very coherent. There is as much rating range between 40-50 as between 50-75. There is a large difference between claiming players of extremely different skills are similar (what the game is currently doing) and generating more players of similar skills which the game is objectively not doing.

In real life there should be twice as much skill gap between 50-75 as between 40-50. I do not understand how the current ratings are supposed to be good or fun to play.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by turtle4499

I don't really think the way the game is handling 80 grade is what you are suggesting though. The current rating scale is not very coherent. There is as much rating range between 40-50 as between 50-75. There is a large difference between claiming players of extremely different skills are similar (what the game is currently doing) and generating more players of similar skills which the game is objectively not doing.

In real life there should be twice as much skill gap between 50-75 as between 40-50. I do not understand how the current ratings are supposed to be good or fun to play.

This is a guide on how the ratings work. No there shouldn't be as much skill gap between 40-50 as there is between 50-75. One is a 10 point difference, the other is 25.
Also remember it's a 5 point scale so anything between 1-5 will be rounded up

[turtle4499]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

This is a guide on how the ratings work. No there shouldn't be as much skill gap between 40-50 as there is between 50-75. One is a 10 point difference, the other is 25.
Also remember it's a 5 point scale so anything between 1-5 will be rounded up

While I agree with you, the game current has 40 as 300, 50 as 400, and 75 as 500. Or 35, 50, 90 on 1-100.

Full chart posted in a bug report because it causes a problem for scouting. The real life range for 40 is 0 WAR 50 at 2 WAR and 75 at 6 WAR. So the range between 40-50 should be half the range between 50-75 if they where trying to fit that.

[Guthrien]

Originally Posted by turtle4499

The real life range for 40 is 0 WAR 50 at 2 WAR and 75 at 6 WAR. So the range between 40-50 should be half the range between 50-75 if they where trying to fit that.

The game does a good job ending up that way in the WAR leader boards vs overall rating (not as strict in higher ranges obviously). I mean, your scout will always tell you a 50 rated player is a good, average XX.

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by turtle4499

The real life range for 40 is 0 WAR 50 at 2 WAR and 75 at 6 WAR. So the range between 40-50 should be half the range between 50-75 if they where trying to fit that.

You're making an unjustified assumption that rating points map linearly to WAR. The way to approach this is to examine the average WAR produced by players of each rating and see if it fits. There's no reason to expect the underlying ratings to map directly to WAR.

[turtle4499]

Originally Posted by locuspc

You're making an unjustified assumption that rating points map linearly to WAR. The way to approach this is to examine the average WAR produced by players of each rating and see if it fits. There's no reason to expect the underlying ratings to map directly to WAR.

If they are trying to fit that...... I said if......

Right now though a 40 control pitcher is unplayable. In real life that isn't true. That would be James Karinchak level last I checked is very playable.

[locuspc]

The point is that even if they're trying to fit the WAR ranges, making the rating point ranges proportional to the WAR ranges isn't necessarily the right way to do that. Rating points determine outcomes which determine WAR but it's not a strict linear process.

[FantasyDrafter]

This will be my last on this sim, which I let run to 2100 and will stop it there. Most people won’t get close to this distance - as others have said for the most part I think the distribution of players is pretty good once you get far enough, although I find the individual player growth/development rate annoyingly consistent/programmed. This was the first stop on this journey where the player distribution might also be a little off, especially in an expanded league (this was a new standard game sim there are 33% more teams now compared to 2024). Others will probably love that the game doesn’t see as many “elite” players.

80/80 - 10 players (9 in their 20s)
75 - 14 (9 in their 20s)
70 - 31 (18 in their 20s)
65 - 55
60 - 84

From a ratings standpoint, no one in the game is considered an 80 in Contact, Gap, Power. There are 2 80s in Eye, an 85 and an 80 in Avoid K.

For pitching there are no 80s in Stuff, Movement (one 70 is highest there), Control. There are a few 80+ rated pitches, mostly fastballs. One pitch is rated above 80, a 95 fastball on a 45/45 RP who hasn’t gotten out of AA entering his age 30 season. Editor rating on that pitch is 496. 99-101mph. Independent league signing 8 years ago. Traded once and released 3 times since. He honestly seems fine and has good results. I’d use him!

There is one IAFA player (55/55) with a 75 knuckleball who was promoted to MLB this past year after only 8 starts at AAA…at age 22. He was mostly a reliever in his rookie year.

Couple of observations / opinions:

1. I usually don’t leave automatic evolution on. There are now 40 teams in MLB (been expanding over time about 2-4 teams every 20 years. IMO the player development (number of good players) did not scale with the league size (which is why I usually don’t allow it).

2. Offensively almost every single season and career record still stands, with 3 exceptions: Career HR was surpassed in the 2085 season by a player who finished with 778 HR. Stop me if you’ve heard this before…he spent his age 17-20 seasons in the DSL. Age 21 at A ball, 20 games at A+. Age 22 starts with 21 games at AAA, then promoted to the show, hits 34 HR in 82 games. Hits 71 HR at age 23 (career high). Stays healthy enough to have a very consistently excellent/good 16 year run. Year 17 is below replacement level and he retires. Generated players also hold the 8-10 spots in the career list and are mixed in after that. They are mixed in for single season HR too.

3. The other “offensive” records that were broken were single season and career strikeouts. Others have mentioned this in other threads, but they always get obliterated. Reggie Jackson and Jim Thome are now 24 and 26 on the list and the record stands at 3494 (Guy somehow managed only 16.3 WAR over a 16 year career with 638 career HR, 9th all time - not in the HoF). Single season is now 315 and the entire list is generated players (261 is a 6 way tie for 95th most).

4. Pitching - the sim took over the games pitched in a season category. Sim also has the top games pitched career record but did not take it over. Winning percentage single season - Tanner Houck in 2029!

5. HRs allowed single season is now 65 set in 2097 (was still Blyleven at 50 until then) About half of the top 100 were in the sim. Sim has top 2 in career but similar spread to single season (about half).

6. Hits allowed/9 single season and career, k/9 single season and career, and opponents average career are all held by the same player who is in the game at the start as a minor leaguer (he is also 6th on the all time Ks list - a generated player whose graph I showed last time is 4th). I won’t spoil who that is for everyone. Top of the K/9 rate lists are dominated by the sim BUT mostly the early sim (through the 2030s) is where you find the big jumps in K rate.

[Daniel_09]

excellent results, and as you say it can even get boring and predictable since it is programmed.

It only remains to wait if the new patch will bring changes in the players creation modifiers and in the development engine.