Study: Effects of Intelligence & Leadership

[PSUColonel]

I agree that it might play a role in the game, but there is really no way to "interact" with what may or may not be going on in the clubhouse

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Yes, it does... intelligence and work ethic.

Originally Posted by thomamon

I feel like I've hit the jack pot!

I've been playing this game for three and a half years and I'm still learning about it. Tidbits like this, dropped in an offhand manner by the developer, are like finding gold nuggets in your wash pan. Hence thom's reaction.

I have known the connection of work ethic to development for a long time; all you have to do is observe the AI in its preference, or avoidance, of draftees and trade fodder according to WE. Intelligence, though, I vaguely thought was related to better, smarter ballplay. Who knows, maybe it is, still . . .

Regarding leadership, I firmly believe that is related to better, smarter ballplay all around. BTW, has anybody ever seen either a skewed distribution of leadership, that is, few blue-rated leaders and a vast majority of reds and oranges, or leadership that changes over time, with age and experience? I cannot prove it here, but I think I'm seeing this in my game.

[nymets3000]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I've been playing this game for three and a half years and I'm still learning about it. Tidbits like this, dropped in an offhand manner by the developer, are like finding gold nuggets in your wash pan. Hence thom's reaction.

I have known the connection of work ethic to development for a long time; all you have to do is observe the AI in its preference, or avoidance, of draftees and trade fodder according to WE. Intelligence, though, I vaguely thought was related to better, smarter ballplay. Who knows, maybe it is, still . . .

Regarding leadership, I firmly believe that is related to better, smarter ballplay all around. BTW, has anybody ever seen either a skewed distribution of leadership, that is, few blue-rated leaders and a vast majority of reds and oranges, or leadership that changes over time, with age and experience? I cannot prove it here, but I think I'm seeing this in my game.

I rarely see players that are average-above average in leadership. Either they are in the dark red-orange section or light blue. I'm not sure if that rating changes after time, would make sense but I don't think it does. I remember having 10-15 year veterans that were all star players stay at a 4 leadership, while I just bring up a 22 year old middle reliever that has a 19. I would like to see leadership have a stronger correlation with being a good player and age then all randomness. Randomness should play a small part though, because there are good veterans that aren't much of a leader(Carlos Beltran, for instance), while there are young players that are leaders.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I've been playing this game for three and a half years and I'm still learning about it. Tidbits like this, dropped in an offhand manner by the developer, are like finding gold nuggets in your wash pan. Hence thom's reaction.

I have known the connection of work ethic to development for a long time; all you have to do is observe the AI in its preference, or avoidance, of draftees and trade fodder according to WE. Intelligence, though, I vaguely thought was related to better, smarter ballplay. Who knows, maybe it is, still . . .

Regarding leadership, I firmly believe that is related to better, smarter ballplay all around. BTW, has anybody ever seen either a skewed distribution of leadership, that is, few blue-rated leaders and a vast majority of reds and oranges, or leadership that changes over time, with age and experience? I cannot prove it here, but I think I'm seeing this in my game.

I was curious of this too.

I took a look at just my 25-man roster, and here was the breakdown.

- 4 blues (oddly, I have one in the rotation, one in the bullpen, one in the infield, and one in the outfield - probably the ideal situation, without trying!)
- 0 greens
- 2 yellows (the gap between the lowest blue and the yellow is from 93 to 45 on a 100 point scale - a huge difference)
- 6 oranges
- 13 reds

Then I took a look at all the players in my organization. I have four minor leagues, 25 men per team, so another 100 players. Out of these 112 total players (not every level is filled on my team)

- 8 blues
- STILL 0 greens
- 2 yellows (the same two as the major league level)
- 23 oranges
- 79 reds

There's a clear dearth of leadership ability here. And it seems to be a "you have it or you don't" theme. Lets see if it continues league-wide. I took my entire league universe here - 3517 players.

- 137 blues
- 17 greens
- 13 yellows
- 745 oranges
- 2605 reds

Wow. This is telling, but in a way, it makes a lot of sense. I have no idea if it changes over time, but at this point in my fictional universe, leadership is definitely skewed. with 137 blues out of 3517 players, that's only 3.9% of ALL players in my fictional universe with blue ratings at leadership. That's, on average, one leader per 25-man roster. Somehow it makes sense to me, but somehow it doesn't.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by nymets3000

I rarely see players that are average-above average in leadership. Either they are in the dark red-orange section or light blue. I'm not sure if that rating changes after time, would make sense but I don't think it does. I remember having 10-15 year veterans that were all star players stay at a 4 leadership, while I just bring up a 22 year old middle reliever that has a 19. I would like to see leadership have a stronger correlation with being a good player and age then all randomness. Randomness should play a small part though, because there are good veterans that aren't much of a leader(Carlos Beltran, for instance), while there are young players that are leaders.

Thanks. It's good to see somebody support my impression of strong leadership being relatively rare instead of evenly distributed like other personality traits. That's a pretty neat aspect when you think of it.

I'd like to see leaders start as moderately rated for that quality and improve with experience and stardom, though. A 22-year-old middle reliever can be a natural leader, of course, but would not have much impact if he is wet behind the ears and barely holding on to his job.

[Afino]

For poops and giggles, I did a rough count of the other personality traits (loyalty, greed, etc)


.....and all of those are very evenly distributed in my fictional universe. Sure, there's slight variances and it's not exact, but all rating levels are in the same general count. So it appears this only applies to leadership.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Afino

There's a clear dearth of leadership ability here. And it seems to be a "you have it or you don't" theme.

Your first sentence is reflective of real life, IMO, and therefore is realistically portrayed in the game if our theory is correct. Your second sentence supports criticism of the feature in my previous post, however.

Still, a very neat addition to the game, among many others. IIRC, OOTP 2006 and maybe OOTP 2007 left personalities out; no wonder people were upset by the transition from 6.5.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Your first sentence is reflective of real life, IMO, and therefore is realistically portrayed in the game if our theory is correct. Your second sentence supports criticism of the feature in my previous post, however.

Still, a very neat addition to the game, among many others. IIRC, OOTP 2006 and maybe OOTP 2007 left personalities out; no wonder people were upset by the transition from 6.5.

Oh, I definitely think leadership on the whole, is portrayed correctly within the game.

I do wish they were fluid, however. Of course, they might already be and we don't realize it.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Afino

I do wish they were fluid, however. Of course, they might already be and we don't realize it.

True, that.

[endgame]

FWIW, at least in my leagues, I've found pairing both high leadership and high work ethic in a player to be one of the more rare combinations. Even when possessing both, the player can still be quite realistically limited by his natural tools.