Does OOTP Player Development Needs to Be Fixed?

[Kelric]

Originally Posted by PAtricapillus

Edgar Renteria in Boston. Wilting when the setting is not optimal.

Take Big Papi. In Minnesota, he said they didn't want him swinging for the seats. He had nagging injuries due to the turf in the Metrodome. He gets picked up by the Sox and is second string to Jeremy Giambi... Next thing you know, he is a legend. Right place, right time, top potential achieved.

It's come out that Renteria was dealing with back problems all season with the Red Sox. His offense was exactly what it was the season before (below average), but his defense suffered from the injuries. Ortiz says he was helped big time by the Sox coaching/scouting staff, but yeah... it just clicked for him.

Nomar was a .400 potential hitter, now he's lucky to play healthy.

Injuries, specifically his wrist injury. You can't hit when you can't move your wrist. He fell into the 'getting too muscular trap' as well, IMO.

Jason Giambi was MVP now he's struggling to tread water.

Steroids will do that to you.

Alright, so what's your point? That real life players can fall off a cliff? We know that. There ARE outside factors. Life gets in the way. OOTP is 1s and 0s, there is no 0.5 drug to get in the way of the other 1s and 0s.

I'm fine with OOTP prospects never developing. It happens. I like that. I don't like seeing it as Talent Drops where you now know with 99.99% surety that your #1 pick will never be good again. Many baseball players with athletic tools and 'high potential' will get jobs bouncing around the minors for years while teams hope their 'ratings' develop. In OOTP, you just cut the guy and nobody ever looks at him again.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

Isn't the point that's trying to be made that it happens WAY more often in OOTP than in real life?

If not, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Its unrealistic as it is. You'll have players having decent/good years and no injuries and then BANG -- talent drop.

I understand the point, but this goes back to what sparks was saying about spreads and trendlines - if it is that big of an issue, document it. Run 30 years of a fictional league and compare it with real-life stats. Run another 30 years. Then another. If you can get one of the add-ons for OOTP that calculates Win Shares, you can probably run a study similar to the one Bill James ran about consistency in his Gold Mine 2008 book. If you see too many As and Fs, that would be a great sign.

I guess that's one of the issues I have with player development. It's all pretty nebulous. Other things aren't so nebulous - starting pitchers really don't miss anywhere near as many starts than IRL, for example, and it's such a huge, easy to see issue that I can pull any 5 years at random from any modern-era based league and use those to show it (I did take several years at random from a pet league of mine to show this on another thread). There are players in the league with BABIPs of .500 or near there when there has *never* been a case IRL of a major league hitter getting anything higher than the low .400s for a single season or around .360 for a career (another classic slap hitter, Rod Carew, ended with a .360). K/W ratios are also unreasonably high for some players compared to real-life ratios.

Honestly, I just don't know that I see an issue with player bumps and dips being that far out of line with reality. I don't *like* stats playing that large of a role on a visceral level, but that's not the same as saying I have reasonable doubts about their use.

[PAtricapillus]

Originally Posted by Kelric

Alright, so what's your point? That real life players can fall off a cliff? We know that. There ARE outside factors. Life gets in the way. OOTP is 1s and 0s, there is no 0.5 drug to get in the way of the other 1s and 0s.

I'm fine with OOTP prospects never developing. It happens. I like that. I don't like seeing it as Talent Drops where you now know with 99.99% surety that your #1 pick will never be good again. Many baseball players with athletic tools and 'high potential' will get jobs bouncing around the minors for years while teams hope their 'ratings' develop. In OOTP, you just cut the guy and nobody ever looks at him again.

I was just throwing out cases of how career paths might vary.

Talent drops and players are cut. For the Sox, Greg Blosser, Pat Dodson, Jeff McNeely or Gar Finnvold? I know Finnvold was injured, but he never bothered trying to return to the game.

It might happen once in a while. If it happens with greater frequency, then it is bothersome.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Based on the results of this poll, there are a lot of weird people here

"

[Neags23]

This has officially become stupid and ridiculous.

My 24 year old, 4.5 star CF whom I nurtured through the minors has had OPS's of .844, .808 and this season is at .792 with a .372 OBP (only 255 AB's so far). He's the cornerstone of my outfield and a huge part of my team.

I get the latest league file and in my email I get a report that he's "struggling".

He's struggling? Are you kidding me? We have a very small scale in this league, so I can't tell exactly how far his free fall from stardom will be, but this isn't gonna be pretty.

Ugh... the one part of this game I absolutely cannot stand. If you want to claim this is realistic, I'll kindly disagree. But I don't think anyone could claim that it's fun.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by injury log

Again, I find this rhetorically misleading. It's not that there exists some 'statistcal uncertainty' that makes Tango inapplicable to minor league players; it's that there is (rather extreme) bias in the sampling. The data simply isn't relevant to the minor league population.

While there is some bias in the sampling no doubt, it is a form of statistical uncertainty because you don't know that the bias actually has any affect. The bias may be completely inconsequential or it may be significant. Until there is data to show that the bias is significant it would be better to build a model on known data rather than Markus' imagination as he calls it. After all your taking the top 1% of the top 3% of the best baseball players in the world. The difference, while significant, is probably pretty small. And since most humans develop in the same way, saying there's a significant difference between the way the top 1% and the top 3% develop is a pretty big statement without the data to back it up.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I understand the point, but this goes back to what sparks was saying about spreads and trendlines - if it is that big of an issue, document it. Run 30 years of a fictional league and compare it with real-life stats. Run another 30 years. Then another. If you can get one of the add-ons for OOTP that calculates Win Shares, you can probably run a study similar to the one Bill James ran about consistency in his Gold Mine 2008 book. If you see too many As and Fs, that would be a great sign.

I guess that's one of the issues I have with player development. It's all pretty nebulous. Other things aren't so nebulous - starting pitchers really don't miss anywhere near as many starts than IRL, for example, and it's such a huge, easy to see issue that I can pull any 5 years at random from any modern-era based league and use those to show it (I did take several years at random from a pet league of mine to show this on another thread). There are players in the league with BABIPs of .500 or near there when there has *never* been a case IRL of a major league hitter getting anything higher than the low .400s for a single season or around .360 for a career (another classic slap hitter, Rod Carew, ended with a .360). K/W ratios are also unreasonably high for some players compared to real-life ratios.

Honestly, I just don't know that I see an issue with player bumps and dips being that far out of line with reality. I don't *like* stats playing that large of a role on a visceral level, but that's not the same as saying I have reasonable doubts about their use.

Its very well documented in the 2006 and 2007 beta forums. It is also starting to be documented in the OOTP 9 beta / design forum. This isn't just a thread complaining about something because my star prospect took a dump. Its because the issues have been shown time and time again and we are told its the minority of the people that see a problem.

This thread has disproven that.

[Syd Thrift]

I was on the 2007 beta team and I didn't see this particular issue well documented at all. I saw trendlines well documented but not spread.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Anyway, OOTP 9 will have a much better system in place, and the sudden drops for no reasons are gone. You'll see that in the next beta Jarmenie

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I'd give OOTP 9 full credit.

Since you brought it up in this thread I feel its my duty to say that based on the tests run and the results so far, no Its not better in the new beta, but we do have more evidence its broken. I'll be sure to say when it is better though.

[Kelric]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Since you brought it up in this thread I feel its my duty to say that based on the tests run and the results so far, no Its not better in the new beta, but we do have more evidence its broken. I'll be sure to say when it is better though.

Well we can still prove that OOTP'07/8 has Talent Drops that are not brought about by injuries or poor performance, so this doesn't surprise me either.

[satchel]

According to all the studies I've seen published on these boards, player development in OOTP is fine the way it is.

So your prospects take talent hits. Boo-hoo. So do mine, and I'm not crying about it. I'm greatly amused by leagues which use house rules to prevent talent drops; that's some unrealistic tampering.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by satchel

According to all the studies I've seen published on these boards, player development in OOTP is fine the way it is.

So your prospects take talent hits. Boo-hoo. So do mine, and I'm not crying about it. I'm greatly amused by leagues which use house rules to prevent talent drops; that's some unrealistic tampering.

Lets play a game...

We'll setup a test. Set up a league and edit all the players to be the age of 20 and give them all the hitters pot / act ratings of 150 in power, contact, avoid K, and gap power to 150 / 150.

In three years, what percentage of players would be acceptable to you to have potential ratings less that 60. That would be a drop of 90 points in three years. A MLB all star at the age of 20, to a career minor leaguer at the age of 23. Just to be safe, we'll even turn injuries off so that only the development engine does the damage.

Give me a percentage. 5, 10, 50, 90, 100% pick whatever you want...

[satchel]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Lets play a game...

Alright. What percentage of an organization's drafted players in any given year eventually become significant contributors to their major league club?

Maybe that's not fair, so let's trim it down to the first five rounds. How many of those first five draft picks will eventually see siginificant major league playing time? One of the five? Or two? So let's say that with a five-round rookie draft, 30% won't fade.

[SittingDuck]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Other things aren't so nebulous - starting pitchers really don't miss anywhere near as many starts than IRL, for example, and it's such a huge, easy to see issue that I can pull any 5 years at random from any modern-era based league and use those to show it

And one of the reasons for my suggestions on revising, or improving the injury model. It would curtail this silliness pronto.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by satchel

Alright. What percentage of an organization's drafted players in any given year eventually become significant contributors to their major league club?

Maybe that's not fair, so let's trim it down to the first five rounds. How many of those first five draft picks will eventually see siginificant major league playing time? One of the five? Or two? So let's say that with a five-round rookie draft, 30% won't fade.

Ahh see. That wasn't the question. We are not talking about players drafted in the draft. We are talking about 20 year old Major League players (not potential major leaguers, but guys with actual ratings of 75 out of 100) that are out of professional baseball by the age of 23. At age 20 they were Major League Allstars, at age 23 flipping burgers at Mcdonald's. Still say 30%?

[PAtricapillus]

Originally Posted by Kelric

Well we can still prove that OOTP'07/8 has Talent Drops that are not brought about by injuries or poor performance, so this doesn't surprise me either.

Kelric, here are two interesting cases for scouted, high potential players, developing in the minors:
Craig Hansen and Daniel Bard; #1 picks with raw ability but their mechanics were readjusted and they struggled with confidence. Now they're performing more consistenly well.

In AAA, we often see players dominate AAA pitching, e.g. Earl Snyder with Pawtucket, who can't make the jump to the majors for whatever reason, or they make a big splash and can't maintain their early success.

Jerome Walton, Kevin Maas, Sam Horn, Phil Plantier.

How many 'flashes in the pan' have there been in the majors who have fizzled out for something other than injuries, a la Mark Fidrych who went down with injuries.

The main issue is frequency, and in OOTP it is much higher relative to real life? Anyone do an actual comparison on this, a link?

Jeff Weaver was once a prized prospect, then he met Yankee Stadium.

What type of talent hit should we see from CC Sabathia, he is struggling, perhaps due to overuse last season?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Lets play a game...

We'll setup a test. Set up a league and edit all the players to be the age of 20 and give them all the hitters pot / act ratings of 150 in power, contact, avoid K, and gap power to 150 / 150.

In three years, what percentage of players would be acceptable to you to have potential ratings less that 60. That would be a drop of 90 points in three years. A MLB all star at the age of 20, to a career minor leaguer at the age of 23. Just to be safe, we'll even turn injuries off so that only the development engine does the damage.

Give me a percentage. 5, 10, 50, 90, 100% pick whatever you want...

I've just done a study with guidelines close to this. Injuries off. One season sim rather than the three years you give--all players 20 yo with all ratings 120 and talents 140. I'm sure you know the results, but it would be interesting to hear some answers to the percentages people would (a) expect, and (b) find "acceptable."

Realize that the Tango studies show that the average 20 yo player in the major leagues should be growing in all categories.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I was on the 2007 beta team and I didn't see this particular issue well documented at all. I saw trendlines well documented but not spread.

Then either you weren't looking very closely, or I was very poor in my communication. I posted raw data, I posted empirical studies, I posted studies of issues driven by player creation, I posted a paper modeling the dev model and running thousands of careers. *shurg*

It all adds up to documenting dev issues both with trends and with spread.

The "problem" is that the v2007 development engine was a huge overall modeling improvement over previous development.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Realize that the Tango studies show that the average 20 yo player in the major leagues should be growing in all categories.

Well, Tango does have BB rates getting worse for pitchers from 20 to 22 before they start improving.

Still, Tango's studies show that the average 20 yo player who stays in the Majors to age 21 grows in all categories. He's only looking at players who were in the Majors at both age 20 and age 21, and since most 20 yo players aren't very good yet, the only way a 20 yo will again play in the Majors at age 21 is if he improves. It's not at all surprising, then, that Tango "discovers" that 20 yos improve; it's a foregone conclusion, since any 20 yo who didn't improve wouldn't qualify for the study in the first place.

I put "discovers" in quotes because I don't think Tango would interpret his studies in the way I've just described, considering the care he takes to address selective sampling issues. All that said, I expect OOTP to perform pretty poorly in the experiments outlined in the posts above, though it would be interesting to know just how many players drop out of Tango's study from age 20 to 21 for comparison's sake.

[Kelric]

Originally Posted by PAtricapillus

Kelric, here are two interesting cases for scouted, high potential players, developing in the minors:
Craig Hansen and Daniel Bard; #1 picks with raw ability but their mechanics were readjusted and they struggled with confidence. Now they're performing more consistenly well.

In AAA, we often see players dominate AAA pitching, e.g. Earl Snyder with Pawtucket, who can't make the jump to the majors for whatever reason, or they make a big splash and can't maintain their early success.

Jerome Walton, Kevin Maas, Sam Horn, Phil Plantier.

How many 'flashes in the pan' have there been in the majors who have fizzled out for something other than injuries, a la Mark Fidrych who went down with injuries.

The main issue is frequency, and in OOTP it is much higher relative to real life? Anyone do an actual comparison on this, a link?

Jeff Weaver was once a prized prospect, then he met Yankee Stadium.

What type of talent hit should we see from CC Sabathia, he is struggling, perhaps due to overuse last season?

You guys are confusing why I am posting in this thread. Let me try and clarify. Players bust. I know this. I accept this. It makes being a GM tougher, which is a good thing. I don't want to dominate my game, I want to be challenged by it. I like seeing my 1st round pick not develop and my 13th round pick being a productive big leaguer. I rebuild my teams specifically to find diamond in the rough guys. My favorite aspect of online leagues is firesaling a team, trading all my players off, then rebuilding around draft picks and mediocre veterans that no one else wants. It's fun.

What I do not like is how players that bust are presented in OOTP. It tends to go 'On June 15th, he's the best prospect in the game with 9/8/9 Potential. Waking up on June 16th, he is suddenly only a decent prospect at 6/5/6.' This is incredibly disheartening. I would much rather see a player keep his high Potentials and just never develop the ratings to go with it. Over time, you come to the realization that the guy just doesn't have it.

More frustratingly, this also happens to All-Star caliber players in their early 20s who are out of the game by their mid-20s. Historically, in MLB these guys usually project out to be, if not Hall of Fame, then at least Hall of Very Good. In OOTP, you never know day to day if your healthy, slugging third baseman is going to stay productive or not. Real life does not follow such a drastic trend, most of the time.

Anyways...

The main reason that I posted in this thread is Markus explicitly stating that TALENT DROPS DO NOT HAPPEN IN OOTP WITHOUT BAD PERFORMANCE OR INJURIES. How many times am I going to have to point out those statements of his?

I don't know what game he has been playing, but it isn't the same game I have been playing for six years. Talent drops most certainly do happen to perfectly healthy and well performing players in OOTP. He has yet to acknowledge this, as far as I can tell. The Major League numbers in OOTP turn out nicely balanced because these drops are balanced by just as random improvements that happen to both underperformers and guys performing well.