Talent Developments for same teams every year!!! - Page 3

sporr · 10-22-2003, 06:17 PM

No actual rating changes will show up in the player dev. reports. They will show up if you use the BOSI utility though.

Qrashman · 10-22-2003, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Also, what would turning coaches/scouts back on and editing them all to 'average' then turning them off do? Would anything be harmed in your estimation?

We did that a few seasons ago. Even after disabling the coaches it still added their salaries to expenses. It ended up creating more of a hassle, but it didnt affect anything, so it seemed.

Qrashman · 10-24-2003, 05:06 AM

just for good measure here's the sim from tonight. This is Oakland's player dev:

Quote:

Monday 5/10/2010 :

Erik Young increases his talent in getting strikeouts!
Erik Young increases his talent in avoiding hits!
Erik Young increases his talent in avoiding homers!
Erik Young increases his talent in avoiding walks!
Leandro Navarro increases his talent in avoiding strikeouts!
Leandro Navarro increases his talent in hitting for average!
Leandro Navarro increases his talent in taking walks!

SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

clarnzz · 10-24-2003, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Qrashman

SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Careful buddy, your a couple 1's and 3's from being outta here.

Henry · 10-24-2003, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Qrashman
SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think your getting over excited for nothing here... I looked at your BOSI reports (they only go up to late May on your site, and found this...

Using Perez, Brooks, Cowan, and Rockwood - players who had significant bumps in talent in February...

First of all these guys were 19-24 years of age - a time you would expect players to be improving.

Second, the ratings boosts that followed were all modest... Perez got the most as follows

Feb_Julius Perez increases his Overall Strikeouts from 5 to 6.
APR_Julius Perez increases his Strikeouts vs Righties from 5 to 6.
APR_Julius Perez increases his Home Runs vs Lefties from 1 to 2.

Nothing to write home about...

I couldn't look beyond May, but among these players and these figures, I certainly can't see anything is wrong at this point.

Skipaway · 10-24-2003, 09:16 AM

Following Henry's lead, I just checked a couple of other teams. It seems Oakland is not that different from others.

5/10/2010:
A's 12 increases/1 decrease
Twins 12/3
Mets 20/4
Jays 23/4
Padres 16/4
Cardinals 7/4
Tigers 17/2

Skipaway · 10-24-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Qrashman
I am in the 9th season of my sim league and the same exact teams get ridiculous talent increases every season. White Sox, Dodgers and Oakland (more the first two). Every year they get a bunch of studs. We have no coaches or scouts.

Apparently White Sox and Dodgers lost the magic in 2010? Especially the Dodgers?

Qrashman · 10-24-2003, 02:16 PM

We're only at May, thats why you cand find anything after

Anyway, rating bumps rarely increase by more than 1 point at a time in my league. We've only seen 2 point jumps a handful of times.

Immediate [/i]rating[/i] bumps are irrelevant. With players 19-24, it takes time. The talents will set the ceiling for these players. They WILL eventually reach close to their celing. The talent increases are killing the balance of the league. Eventually, Perez will hit his ceiling, which is determined by his talents, which were increased.

Qrashman · 10-24-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipaway
Apparently White Sox and Dodgers lost the magic in 2010? Especially the Dodgers?

The dodgers had a few huge seasons after switching to v4, but so far this year its been ok. Doesnt matter though, they already had 2 or 3 seasons of massive talent increases. At one time they had 5 of the top 10 pitching prospects all from huge talent increases with guys who started out as scrubs.

As soon as the Dodgers huge increases subsided, Oakland took over (and 2x as bad).

Qrashman · 10-24-2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipaway
Following Henry's lead, I just checked a couple of other teams. It seems Oakland is not that different from others.

5/10/2010:
A's 12 increases/1 decrease
Twins 12/3
Mets 20/4
Jays 23/4
Padres 16/4
Cardinals 7/4
Tigers 17/2

I'm not really sure what you are looking at but I am not talking about rating increases. I'm talking about talent increases. Rating increases are irrelevant to this conversation.

I dont see how anyone could dismiss this notion after seeing Oakland's talent increases in the past season and 2 months of this season.

sporr · 10-24-2003, 03:00 PM

I only dismiss this notion because the programmer has stated flat out that there is no code to reward one team over another assuming scouts/coaches are off. Since you did have coaches or scouts on at some point, the only possibility is that there is some residual effect from them. But even that has been contradicted by the programmer. I don't really think he'd have any reason at all to lie about this. In addition, the fact that nobody else is experiencing anything like this leads me to believe that this is just a case of freak random chance.

Subby · 10-24-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sporr
In addition, the fact that nobody else is experiencing anything like this leads me to believe that this is just a case of freak random chance.

Actually, one of the biggest and longest running leagues out there is also embroiled in this exact same discussion.

When we started in v3, coaches were auto-assigned by the game, but then turned off (but not manually removed from the teams.) Once we went to v4, the connections from those coaches to their original teams were removed (evidenced by the fact that if your turned coaches back on, they were all in the FA pool.)

Since all coaches are presently in the FA pool, we will likely turn them on, set all of their attributes to average, and then turn them off - avoiding the financial issues that Qrash ran into a while back.

sporr · 10-24-2003, 03:12 PM

That's interesting then. So it sounds like the game did have some residual effects from coaches that had been on the teams in the past? Strange thing is that even with all brilliant coaches I wouldn't think that it would have that much of an impact on player development. Looking over Oakland, there are tons of young players on the team, so it isn't surprising that they would experience talent boosts moreso than talent bumps.

Subby · 10-24-2003, 03:16 PM

Sporr - I am not disagreeing with you. I personally am on the fence about residual coaches. I just think there is enough evidence out there to suggest the possibility.

Something to try - if you create a league, the game auto-assigns coaches. If you turn them off, then your team has no coach, obviously. But if you turn coaches <b>back on</b> voila, the same coaches are assigned to your team.

You would think turning coaches/scouts off would put them all in free agency, but it doesn't (at least in v4).

alhill · 10-24-2003, 03:28 PM

Henry,

The original poster is talking about talent increases, not ratings increases. The fact that his prospects aren't developing ratings is irrelevant to the fact that certain teams are getting what seems like suspicious talent increases.

Ratings almost always develop up to a number that correspond with talent. Usually a player with good talent in hits, for instance, will develop to somewhere between a 6 and a 8 in hits. In a no coaches league, usually the player will only make it to a 6. In short, TALENT is key, ratings are a merely a symptom of talent.

When one team has 10 prospects get big TALENT bumps in the same season, in a no coach league, that's strange. Might it just be incredible random? Yeah. But we have the same issue in our league. It's debated pretty often in fact.

We did some preliminary studies that suggested, although it did not prove because we didn't have a big enough sample size, that a team could hire a brill coach, turn coaches off, and continue to accrue the benefits of the brill coach in the form of better talent increases than his opponents. We also know that if you turn coaches off, and then back on, the old coaches are still there with their old teams.

To be totally honest, we've never been comfortable that any of the OOTP team even really understands what happens exactly when your turn coaches off.

Henry · 10-24-2003, 03:37 PM

ok... this is the first time I've read what someone feels is going on rather than just the complaint that it was happening....

We'll have to look into it, but Markus has stated S/C's are OFF when turned off, so I'm sure that's what he feels happens - maybe he needs to look more closely to see if there is a loophole in the code somewhere....

As far as my earlier post, I was meaning to say that the talent increases seem to effect ONLY young players - which is where you would expect the increases - and that the increases to ratings I could see in the BOSI results did not (at least up until MAY) increase the player's ratings anything significant. So I was only pointing out that the "final effects = ratings" did not yet seem to be extensive.

I'll see if Steve or I can pass this on to Markus to see if there is, in fact, a loophole somewhere. In the meantime, any of us could set up a test league and try the scenario you describe to see if it stands by itself.

alhill · 10-24-2003, 03:44 PM

Thanks, Henry. Appreciate your response.

sporr · 10-24-2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alhill
To be totally honest, we've never been comfortable that any of the OOTP team even really understands what happens exactly when your turn coaches off.

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve Kuffrey
Markus said about a week or two back and several times when the question was asked last year that when they are off, they are OFF.

However, maybe there is an affect elsewhere in the code that they aren't aware of.

Qrashman · 10-24-2003, 07:19 PM

Quote:

That's interesting then. So it sounds like the game did have some residual effects from coaches that had been on the teams in the past?

I dont believe it has any effect from the studies that we've done, personally.

Its not that I don't believe Markus. I just think that *possibly* there's something even he doesnt even know about leagues that have converted since v3 or something.

All I know is its very weird and ruining the parity of the league. Oakland had had 8 players in our first 4 sims receive talent three talent increases or more. Last year they probably had 25 players with such increases, while most teams had 2-4.

Henry · 10-25-2003, 12:00 AM

Well..... tonight I set up a 12 team league, 2 divisions, and ran it out 6 years, tracking how many talent increases per team were handed out. I did this without ever turning on scouts/coaches, and I got results that suggest the "spread" of talents boosts can certainly stick with a few teams for a number of years.

I've graphed the results below - the numbers represent the"total" number of talents boosts per team - whether they were singlar or multiple per player.

I plan of taking this out a few more years - then turning scouts on and giving a couple of the unluckiest teams BRILLIANT coachs for a couple of years to see what difference it makes on talent boosts. Then I'll turn it back off to see if there is any "left over" shadow-results of having done that.

So far, based on the results below, however, I'm tempted to believe it's totally possible for a team to get annual boosts in excess of other teams for an extended number of years. The cycle is slow.... and I'm not yet sure it's a problem.

10-24-2003, 09:16 AM	#46
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	Following Henry's lead, I just checked a couple of other teams. It seems Oakland is not that different from others. 5/10/2010: A's 12 increases/1 decrease Twins 12/3 Mets 20/4 Jays 23/4 Padres 16/4 Cardinals 7/4 Tigers 17/2 __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

10-24-2003, 02:16 PM	#48
Qrashman All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NY Posts: 651	We're only at May, thats why you cand find anything after Anyway, rating bumps rarely increase by more than 1 point at a time in my league. We've only seen 2 point jumps a handful of times. Immediate [/i]rating[/i] bumps are irrelevant. With players 19-24, it takes time. The talents will set the ceiling for these players. They WILL eventually reach close to their celing. The talent increases are killing the balance of the league. Eventually, Perez will hit his ceiling, which is determined by his talents, which were increased. __________________ ------------------- Montreal Expos / Calgary Storm, HBL HBL Baseball - Founded March 2001. HBL Waiting List

10-25-2003, 12:00 AM	#60
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Well..... tonight I set up a 12 team league, 2 divisions, and ran it out 6 years, tracking how many talent increases per team were handed out. I did this without ever turning on scouts/coaches, and I got results that suggest the "spread" of talents boosts can certainly stick with a few teams for a number of years. I've graphed the results below - the numbers represent the"total" number of talents boosts per team - whether they were singlar or multiple per player. I plan of taking this out a few more years - then turning scouts on and giving a couple of the unluckiest teams BRILLIANT coachs for a couple of years to see what difference it makes on talent boosts. Then I'll turn it back off to see if there is any "left over" shadow-results of having done that. So far, based on the results below, however, I'm tempted to believe it's totally possible for a team to get annual boosts in excess of other teams for an extended number of years. The cycle is slow.... and I'm not yet sure it's a problem. Attached Images Last edited by Henry; 10-25-2003 at 09:52 AM.

10-22-2003, 06:17 PM	#41
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	No actual rating changes will show up in the player dev. reports. They will show up if you use the BOSI utility though.

10-24-2003, 03:00 PM	#51
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	I only dismiss this notion because the programmer has stated flat out that there is no code to reward one team over another assuming scouts/coaches are off. Since you did have coaches or scouts on at some point, the only possibility is that there is some residual effect from them. But even that has been contradicted by the programmer. I don't really think he'd have any reason at all to lie about this. In addition, the fact that nobody else is experiencing anything like this leads me to believe that this is just a case of freak random chance.

10-24-2003, 03:12 PM	#53
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	That's interesting then. So it sounds like the game did have some residual effects from coaches that had been on the teams in the past? Strange thing is that even with all brilliant coaches I wouldn't think that it would have that much of an impact on player development. Looking over Oakland, there are tons of young players on the team, so it isn't surprising that they would experience talent boosts moreso than talent bumps.

10-24-2003, 03:16 PM	#54
Subby Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 375	Sporr - I am not disagreeing with you. I personally am on the fence about residual coaches. I just think there is enough evidence out there to suggest the possibility. Something to try - if you create a league, the game auto-assigns coaches. If you turn them off, then your team has no coach, obviously. But if you turn coaches <b>back on</b> voila, the same coaches are assigned to your team. You would think turning coaches/scouts off would put them all in free agency, but it doesn't (at least in v4).

10-24-2003, 03:28 PM	#55
alhill Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 79	Henry, The original poster is talking about talent increases, not ratings increases. The fact that his prospects aren't developing ratings is irrelevant to the fact that certain teams are getting what seems like suspicious talent increases. Ratings almost always develop up to a number that correspond with talent. Usually a player with good talent in hits, for instance, will develop to somewhere between a 6 and a 8 in hits. In a no coaches league, usually the player will only make it to a 6. In short, TALENT is key, ratings are a merely a symptom of talent. When one team has 10 prospects get big TALENT bumps in the same season, in a no coach league, that's strange. Might it just be incredible random? Yeah. But we have the same issue in our league. It's debated pretty often in fact. We did some preliminary studies that suggested, although it did not prove because we didn't have a big enough sample size, that a team could hire a brill coach, turn coaches off, and continue to accrue the benefits of the brill coach in the form of better talent increases than his opponents. We also know that if you turn coaches off, and then back on, the old coaches are still there with their old teams. To be totally honest, we've never been comfortable that any of the OOTP team even really understands what happens exactly when your turn coaches off.

10-24-2003, 03:37 PM	#56
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	ok... this is the first time I've read what someone feels is going on rather than just the complaint that it was happening.... We'll have to look into it, but Markus has stated S/C's are OFF when turned off, so I'm sure that's what he feels happens - maybe he needs to look more closely to see if there is a loophole in the code somewhere.... As far as my earlier post, I was meaning to say that the talent increases seem to effect ONLY young players - which is where you would expect the increases - and that the increases to ratings I could see in the BOSI results did not (at least up until MAY) increase the player's ratings anything significant. So I was only pointing out that the "final effects = ratings" did not yet seem to be extensive. I'll see if Steve or I can pass this on to Markus to see if there is, in fact, a loophole somewhere. In the meantime, any of us could set up a test league and try the scenario you describe to see if it stands by itself.

10-24-2003, 03:44 PM	#57
alhill Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 79	Thanks, Henry. Appreciate your response.