Talent Developments for same teams every year!!! - Page 4

clarnzz · 10-25-2003, 12:03 AM

Nice of you to take your time to look into this Henry. I have been wondering this also ever since I saw Subby post it a while back.

Qrashman · 10-25-2003, 03:27 AM

Good stuff, definitely.

Quote:

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.

I agree. I think it cycles. LA had their 2-3 seasons and now its Oakland. But it's just too much. They shouldn't be getting that much of an advantage. I can see maybe 15-20% more but not 200-300%.

Henry · 10-25-2003, 11:28 AM

Well.... I ran out to 8 complete years with Scouts/Coaches turned on in the 8th year. This time I displayed the results in table form because I think it easier to follow.

I'll start with my conclusions, then point out specific examples from the table that support them.

1. Coaches, even Legendary, do not seem to have any major effect. I'm assuming this is because it's still based on what the Coach has to work with. Boston, Chicago A, Florida, Philadelphia had Exceptional Coachs in year 8, Toronto had Outstanding & Legendary coaches.. and the results are both up and down.

2. Talent boosts appear to be cyclic, and one or more teams can easily set up a string of years. Atlanta 3-4 and 6-8. Baltimore 7-8. Boston 3-8. Florida 6-7. Montreal 7-8. New York A 4-8. New York N 4-6. Philadelphia 2-7 (the best run in the league). Tampa Bay 6-8. Toronto 3-4 and 7-8..... The two Chicago teams were the only ones that couldn't get a sustained run in the 8 year period.

3. Talent increases alone had very little to do with team success - in terms of making it to the playoffs. The shaded highlights show the playoff teams each year. Atlanta was all over the board years 1-4 yet won all four years. Chicago N pulled out a win in year 4 with no significant help from talent increases. Montreal won in Year 1 with only 4 bumps. New York A won years 1-5 with a steady increase in bumps - but couldn't hold on to it through 6-7-8 even though the boosts kept coming. Philadeplphia apparently DID take advantage of it's long run by winning in years 6-8. Tampa Bay also won with high bumps in 6-7-8 but also won in Year 4 with only 10.

Conclusion ?

Being honest, I don't see a problem. The boosts are cyclic, appear random, and don't (by themselves) have any direct effect on a teams chance to win.... also, coaches don't seem to change that picture very much.

Henry

ps: A comment was made earlier by someone that the "talent boosts" were killing the parity of the league (might have been Q) but I don't think you can simply assume that. Ratings will not necessarily fulfill talent figures. I've ran tests in the past that have shown talent reach a very high plateau - and the player's rating NEVER approached them. In fact, some of these players would age and see those high talent ratings drop - never seeing their "performance" match their "potential". This is where the "hidden factor" comes in I believe.

Remember that talent ratings do not have any immediate effect on the team - only when those talents are converted into performance ratings would you see any enefit to the team.

Qrashman · 10-25-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

ps: A comment was made earlier by someone that the "talent boosts" were killing the parity of the league (might have been Q) but I don't think you can simply assume that. Ratings will not necessarily fulfill talent figures.

I agree to an extent but when one team constantly gets talent upgrades they can trade those new stud prospects for anything they want and still have plenty for the future. That's where we are seeing the problem.

Henry · 10-25-2003, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Qrashman
I agree to an extent but when one team constantly gets talent upgrades they can trade those new stud prospects for anything they want and still have plenty for the future. That's where we are seeing the problem.

I see... but I'm not sure what you can do to eliminate the issue. The results your seeing now are very likely totally random - playing around with them to limit talent boosts is, in effect, "controlling" the situation.

Boston and Philadelphia above would, per your concern, be in that position for years at a time - but if I were to play out another 10 years.. I would guess those teams would be "thin" compared to others that took their place.

Is it unfair? Maybe - but again, I think this is only one variable in the mix of many - and there's more than one way to skin a cat...

Qrashman · 10-25-2003, 09:48 PM

Sim leagues are different than solo leagues, though. You say "If I sim another 10 years..." but how many sim leagues even last 10 years?

I know you can't please every group, but I think something needs to be tweaked a little bit. I'm going to try to do some research on my league for the past 5 seasons.

Henry · 10-25-2003, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Qrashman
Sim leagues are different than solo leagues, though. You say "If I sim another 10 years..." but how many sim leagues even last 10 years?

Maybe what is needed here is some kind of "equalizer" option for those that want a perfectly level playing field - although my gut reaction to that is the entire way OOTP is developed is to recreate a real world scenario - and the real world certainly isn't "level".... whatever would be "tweaked" to level things out would have to be an option only...

clarnzz · 10-26-2003, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
Maybe what is needed here is some kind of "equalizer" option for those that want a perfectly level playing field - although my gut reaction to that is the entire way OOTP is developed is to recreate a real world scenario - and the real world certainly isn't "level".... whatever would be "tweaked" to level things out would have to be an option only...

I'm still not sure what to make of it. There are so many factors involved and so much randomness, I don't even think you could draw many conclusions from any test. Even generating the exact same player over and over again for multiple teams and then seeing if the developments follow certain teams, still likely would yeild no conformation. I guess if Markus says it's off when it's off we are just going to have to believe it.

I think an equalizer would just make things more boring and pretty much cancel out the fun in developments. If you know it's going to all be equalled out between all the teams in the end, there wouldn't be much reason to care about developments at all. "There goes my big upgrade for this season".

Henry · 10-26-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by clarnzz
I think an equalizer would just make things more boring and pretty much cancel out the fun in developments. If you know it's going to all be equalled out between all the teams in the end, there wouldn't be much reason to care about developments at all. "There goes my big upgrade for this season".

That's the opinion I was boardering on when wrote my last post. It's almost like I want to say "this isn't the right game" if a totally equal playing field is what your looking for. The whole concept of OOTP is to put you in a RW situation - and we know that isn't leel, as I said.

Another point is I did not look at talent declines either - which you almost have to to see if this is really a problem or not....

alhill · 10-28-2003, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry

Well.... I ran out to 8 complete years with Scouts/Coaches turned on in the 8th year. This time I displayed the results in table form because I think it easier to follow.

I'll start with my conclusions, then point out specific examples from the table that support them.

1. Coaches, even Legendary, do not seem to have any major effect. I'm assuming this is because it's still based on what the Coach has to work with. Boston, Chicago A, Florida, Philadelphia had Exceptional Coachs in year 8, Toronto had Outstanding & Legendary coaches.. and the results are both up and down.

When you say coaches, do you mean major league hitting and pitching coach or minor league coaches? Minor league coaches influence talent bumps; major league coaches don't (at least for minor league players).

Quote:

2. Talent boosts appear to be cyclic, and one or more teams can easily set up a string of years. Atlanta 3-4 and 6-8. Baltimore 7-8. Boston 3-8. Florida 6-7. Montreal 7-8. New York A 4-8. New York N 4-6. Philadelphia 2-7 (the best run in the league). Tampa Bay 6-8. Toronto 3-4 and 7-8..... The two Chicago teams were the only ones that couldn't get a sustained run in the 8 year period.

interesting

Quote:

3. Talent increases alone had very little to do with team success - in terms of making it to the playoffs. The shaded highlights show the playoff teams each year. Atlanta was all over the board years 1-4 yet won all four years. Chicago N pulled out a win in year 4 with no significant help from talent increases. Montreal won in Year 1 with only 4 bumps. New York A won years 1-5 with a steady increase in bumps - but couldn't hold on to it through 6-7-8 even though the boosts kept coming. Philadeplphia apparently DID take advantage of it's long run by winning in years 6-8. Tampa Bay also won with high bumps in 6-7-8 but also won in Year 4 with only 10.

um maybe in a single player league where the AI makes silly player moves, but in multi-player leagues, talent increases make a big difference.

Quote:

Conclusion ?

Being honest, I don't see a problem. The boosts are cyclic, appear random, and don't (by themselves) have any direct effect on a teams chance to win.... also, coaches don't seem to change that picture very much.

Henry

ps: A comment was made earlier by someone that the "talent boosts" were killing the parity of the league (might have been Q) but I don't think you can simply assume that. Ratings will not necessarily fulfill talent figures. I've ran tests in the past that have shown talent reach a very high plateau - and the player's rating NEVER approached them. In fact, some of these players would age and see those high talent ratings drop - never seeing their "performance" match their "potential". This is where the "hidden factor" comes in I believe.

Remember that talent ratings do not have any immediate effect on the team - only when those talents are converted into performance ratings would you see any enefit to the team.

This isn't really correct. Ratings rarely make it to the ceiling for a talent. But the correlation between talent and ratings is undeniable.

Let's use the getting hits rating as an example. Player X has a "Good" rating in getting hits. That means, unless something really strange happens to him, that he will end up with somewhere between a 6 and a 8 in his getting hits ratings. It's true that he is not likely to get to the 8, but he is 99% likely to get to the 6. If you view the 6, the floor for the talent, as the base potential, the rating does indeed fulfill the talent figure.

Let's compare Player X with Player Y, who is average in getting hits. This means, unlike Player X, with a band of 6-8, Player Y has a band of 4-6. Is it possible that player Y could end up with the same rating as Player X; Player Y could succeed in the unlikely feat of becoming an average player with a 6 rating, while Player X could end up being the very common good player with a 6 rating. But it is unlikely.

In a no coaches league, the most likely scenario is that Good Player X will end up with a 6 in hits, and average Player Y will end up with a 4 in hits. So yes, talent is everything, ratings follow along.

So technically, the talent does not determine the exact future rating of the player because a player will rarely reach his talent ceiling. Nonetheless, the rating and the talent correlate extremely closely because most players never make it to their talent ceiling. Thus it evens out.

Henry · 10-28-2003, 04:16 PM

I think I'll address this when I get some time to write a longer description - but right now we're running down too many assumptions and myths to make this valuable.

In short, even my analysis was not correct becasue I didn't include BOTH increases and decreases in talent which could have (and probably would) show a significant difference in the results.

Also, when I suggest talent isn't killing parity, I understand that ratings follow talent - but what I'm saying is this happens "later"... sometimes a few weeks later - sometimes a few months later - sometimes not at all... and all the while, talents continue to go up and down each week. It is only with the best players in the league that talent goes in one direction until age catches up to him. Average players will see both ups and downs to talent - many times before their ratings can follow.

To analyze this in the detail it deserves is going to take a significant effort - and yet I'm bothered that the reason we're even thinking of doing it is to even the playing field - something OOTP never claimed to try and do. That's what every other game on the market does - yet OOTP is more real....

alhill · 10-28-2003, 06:19 PM

I don't think that people want to level the playing field. They want to know what the playing field is. Like I said before, there is clearly going to be statistical deviation between the talent changes in various teams. Nobody wants every team to get equal good and bad dev. The reason this thread started, however was because one league appears to have gotten systematic and dramatic positive dev over time on an order that was beyond random statistical deviation.

That doesn't have to be a bad thing. In a coaches and scouts enabled league, then you would assume that teams with better coaches would accrue the benefits of that. But we have been told that that shouldn't happen in a coaches-disabled league. If it does indeed happen, then people would like to know why so they could make decisions accordingly.

Also, I don't think anyone claims that talent kills parity immediately. But it kills it over time if certain teams are always more likely to get good dev than others. If it indeed is random and cyclical, then no problem; with time things even out. If it isn't, then it's like playing with loaded dice and is a lot less fun. It would be much harder to recruit people for a league if you tell them "every team in this league will start equally except for one thing: Team X's prospects will develop better every year than everyone else's. Enjoy."

I don't think anyone is expecting dev to be even over a given year or a given week. But they do want to know that the deck isn't loaded against them.

Henry · 10-28-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alhill
If it indeed is random and cyclical, then no problem; with time things even out.

It is indeed random. There is no hidden code - nor does there appear to be anything left over from previous coaching decisions. I think the issue is now that the cyclic pattern could, in fact, go for years at a time. This is also realistic.

The problem is that everyone is treating this as if t's the only way to be succesful in OOTP - to be on an equal level as everyone else in terms of talent boosts.

As pointed out in the test I ran over 8 years - the number of talent boosts had very little to do with which teams won thier divisions - so why are we claiming a parity issue... if that was true, teams with the increased talent boosts would be winning all the time.

The point is that talent is only one, single variable. There is so much more to this game that plays into the results, that mastery of one specific variable isn't really going to get you to the top.

Randy Rhoads · 10-28-2003, 08:15 PM

I'm in Qrash's HBL league and my last 3 first round picks (might be more) have lost talent. And it's not like over a period of time, it's within the first couple of months or so.

Henry · 10-28-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Randy Rhoads
I'm in Qrash's HBL league and my last 3 first round picks (might be more) have lost talent. And it's not like over a period of time, it's within the first couple of months or so.

Here are some results from my UBA league... This stuff happens guys - and it's normal...

Boston B Player Development News
Friday, 8/1/1902
Monday 6/2/1902 :

Chris Salvatore's talent in hitting triples drops...
Ryan Rayborn's talent in avoiding walks drops...

Monday 6/16/1902 :

Jame Sonnier has lost some momentum, his stealing ability drops to C ...
Keith Felder's talent in hitting triples drops...

Monday 6/23/1902 :

Bud Chapa has learned reading pitchers better, his stealing ability raises to B ...
Jame Sonnier's talent in hitting triples drops...

Monday 7/7/1902 :

Ernest Gallo is getting faster, his speed increases to B ...

Monday 7/14/1902 :

Keith Felder's talent in hitting doubles drops...

Monday 7/21/1902 :

Keith Felder's talent in avoiding strikeouts drops...
Keith Felder's talent in hitting for average drops...

Monday 7/28/1902 :

Jame Sonnier's talent in hitting homers drops...

==========================

Brooklyn B Player Development News
Friday, 8/1/1902
Thursday 5/2/1902 :

Harold Smith increases his talent in avoiding strikeouts!
Harold Smith increases his talent in hitting for average!
Harold Smith increases his talent in taking walks!

Monday 6/2/1902 :

Scott Cork increases his talent in taking walks!
Scott Cork increases his talent in avoiding strikeouts!
Philip Ortegon increases his talent in avoiding strikeouts!
Philip Ortegon increases his talent in hitting for average!
Philip Ortegon increases his talent in avoiding strikeouts!

Monday 6/16/1902 :

Kurt Anderson has lost some momentum, his range at SS drops to B ...
Glenn Savell increases his talent in taking walks!

Monday 7/7/1902 :

Donald Palombo has lost some lower body strength, his duration drops to D ...

PineTar · 10-29-2003, 12:23 PM

Quote:

It is indeed random. There is no hidden code - nor does there appear to be anything left over from previous coaching decisions. I think the issue is now that the cyclic pattern could, in fact, go for years at a time. This is also realistic.

I don't think that many of this thread's participants are sold on this being a random phenomenon Henry. The purpose of this thread (I think) was to try and convince Markus to go back and recheck the various parts of his code where there could be some corruption in terms of residual effects of coaches ratings still having influence when you turn off coaches. I guess everyone would have to take him at his word if he posted on here that this had been done. In this post, Markus has posted 3 times IIRC. Once to say talent bumps are random. Once to say that coaches influence this. And once to apologize for basically not comprehending that indeed the HBL has no coaches. I know Markus is a busy guy patching the patched patch and working on ITP, but it sure would be great if he'd dedicate a couple of hours to reviewing his code so he could lay this one to rest (or fix it) for good.

Quote:

The problem is that everyone is treating this as if t's the only way to be succesful in OOTP - to be on an equal level as everyone else in terms of talent boosts.

I think you tend to approach the issues presented from a single player mentality. This problem is especially of concern for those of us in online leagues. Al pretty well summed this point up in his earlier post. I think it is important that everyone knows where they stand in terms of potential for talent increases/decreases. From an online league perspective I think it is important that the game allow every team the same probability of getting talent boosts in a no coaches league.

Quote:

As pointed out in the test I ran over 8 years - the number of talent boosts had very little to do with which teams won thier divisions - so why are we claiming a parity issue... if that was true, teams with the increased talent boosts would be winning all the time.

In online leagues with intelligent humans I think an uneven probability for talent boosts becomes a much greater concern. We all know that the AI is not optimum.

Quote:

The point is that talent is only one, single variable. There is so much more to this game that plays into the results, that mastery of one specific variable isn't really going to get you to the top.

True, but having less chance than others at getting talent boosts will insure that you never get to the top.

In terms of your posted UBA Player Development report... most of Boston's drops come from Sonnier and Felder. I'd bet dollars to donuts that those guys are in their thirties and full on coppaging.

Henry · 10-29-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PineTar
I don't think that many of this thread's participants are sold on this being a random phenomenon Henry. The purpose of this thread (I think) was to try and convince Markus to go back and recheck the various parts of his code where there could be some corruption in terms of residual effects of coaches ratings still having influence when you turn off coaches. I guess everyone would have to take him at his word if he posted on here that this had been done. In this post, Markus has posted 3 times IIRC. Once to say talent bumps are random. Once to say that coaches influence this. And once to apologize for basically not comprehending that indeed the HBL has no coaches. I know Markus is a busy guy patching the patched patch and working on ITP, but it sure would be great if he'd dedicate a couple of hours to reviewing his code so he could lay this one to rest (or fix it) for good.

You know as well as I do that I can't speak for Markus or his schedule. Whether it takes a couple hours, or a couple weeks for him to research this - or whether he feels comfortable such research is not necessary - is totally up to him. On this question, I will thus leave it up to him and cease stating my understanding of the situation.

I think you tend to approach the issues presented from a single player mentality. This problem is especially of concern for those of us in online leagues. Al pretty well summed this point up in his earlier post. I think it is important that everyone knows where they stand in terms of potential for talent increases/decreases. From an online league perspective I think it is important that the game allow every team the same probability of getting talent boosts in a no coaches league.

The concept of the game is to mirror real-life. Real life is not "fair". If you were to purchase any team today, each team purchase would bring with it a different set of problems and a different approach to winning. I think OOTP mirrors this very well. What is being asked for here, whether it's realized or not, is a "level playing field". Equal chances for talents boosts, equal chances for drops, equal financial resources, equal chances for development of rookies, etc. In that world, how you manage your team is the only variable. I think OOTP offers so much more than that - and I wouldn't want (even in an online league) to lose that difference. This part of the discussion is central to what OOTP is - and I like it like that

In online leagues with intelligent humans I think an uneven probability for talent boosts becomes a much greater concern. We all know that the AI is not optimum.

True, but having less chance than others at getting talent boosts will insure that you never get to the top.

I disagree. There are three possible scenarios here. (1) solo play where the AI controls all teams (2) solo play where you control one team against the AI, and (3) online leagues where all players are human. In #1 and #3 all things are equal. Any limitations or areas in the game that can be taken advantage of are available to everyone. #2 however pits the solo player against the AI - so limitations in the game can, in this situation only, effect the outcome.

In terms of your posted UBA Player Development report... most of Boston's drops come from Sonnier and Felder. I'd bet dollars to donuts that those guys are in their thirties and full on coppaging.

I pulled this info from my player development report becasue I didn't have time to research my various draft picks - but the point I was trying to make is that ups and down - as they stand today - are accurate. If I were to look at a leagues 1st round draft picks I'm sure I would find what you find in real life - that not all of them meet their projected potential. I'm sure you'll find some that do - some that don't. Being a 1st round pick is no guarantee that talent boosts are coming.

PineTar · 10-29-2003, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
In #1 and #3 all things are equal.

The very point of this thread is to get confirmation on your assumption about #3. Are all things equal?

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
Equal chances for talents boosts, equal chances for drops, equal financial resources, equal chances for development of rookies, etc. In that world, how you manage your team is the only variable. I think OOTP offers so much more than that - and I wouldn't want (even in an online league) to lose that difference.

I guarantee you stand in the vast, vast minority in your desire for those differences in online league play. I can only hope that Markus does not share that view.

LJR · 10-29-2003, 02:59 PM

Then count me in on the minority...part of my fascination with OOTP is that its not like FHLsim or something of that ilk where player development is very predictable. This presents no challenge and quickly makes the game less enjoyable in my opinion. I appreciate the randomness of the OOTP player development whether it favors certain teams or not...although with my style of managing in online leagues, I rarely hold onto young players long enough to see if they will develop as there are usually GMs in online leagues that are willing to deal more developed 25-26 year olds for the raw potential of 19-21 year olds. What frustrates me the most about player development is that I've found on my teams that players tend to increase their talents before the allstar break but after the allstar break, i cringe whenever I open the player development link since its negative 80-90% of the time....that may just be coincidence as I've never done a study, but that's been my brief experience.

D Love · 10-29-2003, 03:01 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Henry
Equal chances for talents boosts, equal chances for drops, equal financial resources, equal chances for development of rookies, etc. In that world, how you manage your team is the only variable. I think OOTP offers so much more than that - and I wouldn't want (even in an online league) to lose that difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, maybe I've lost track of this thread, but are you trying to say there should be TEAM variables in the game? If I have coaches turned off and I run 2 test sims of a league for 10 years, are you saying that Joe Shmo's ratings development when on Team A should differ from his ratings development in the 2nd test sim where everything else is the same except that he is placed on Team B?

I don't think anyone wants TEAM changes. They shouldn't be programmed in. In an online league or otherwise, these variations between teams should be the result of the online owner's manuevers (repeated overagressive spring training allocations, overanxious callups, etc.). THAT is what makes teams have these tendencies you see in real life.

The player-to-player individual variances is great. But basing it at all simply on the team the player is on is silly.

10-25-2003, 11:28 AM	#63
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Well.... I ran out to 8 complete years with Scouts/Coaches turned on in the 8th year. This time I displayed the results in table form because I think it easier to follow. I'll start with my conclusions, then point out specific examples from the table that support them. 1. Coaches, even Legendary, do not seem to have any major effect. I'm assuming this is because it's still based on what the Coach has to work with. Boston, Chicago A, Florida, Philadelphia had Exceptional Coachs in year 8, Toronto had Outstanding & Legendary coaches.. and the results are both up and down. 2. Talent boosts appear to be cyclic, and one or more teams can easily set up a string of years. Atlanta 3-4 and 6-8. Baltimore 7-8. Boston 3-8. Florida 6-7. Montreal 7-8. New York A 4-8. New York N 4-6. Philadelphia 2-7 (the best run in the league). Tampa Bay 6-8. Toronto 3-4 and 7-8..... The two Chicago teams were the only ones that couldn't get a sustained run in the 8 year period. 3. Talent increases alone had very little to do with team success - in terms of making it to the playoffs. The shaded highlights show the playoff teams each year. Atlanta was all over the board years 1-4 yet won all four years. Chicago N pulled out a win in year 4 with no significant help from talent increases. Montreal won in Year 1 with only 4 bumps. New York A won years 1-5 with a steady increase in bumps - but couldn't hold on to it through 6-7-8 even though the boosts kept coming. Philadeplphia apparently DID take advantage of it's long run by winning in years 6-8. Tampa Bay also won with high bumps in 6-7-8 but also won in Year 4 with only 10. Conclusion ? Being honest, I don't see a problem. The boosts are cyclic, appear random, and don't (by themselves) have any direct effect on a teams chance to win.... also, coaches don't seem to change that picture very much. Henry ps: A comment was made earlier by someone that the "talent boosts" were killing the parity of the league (might have been Q) but I don't think you can simply assume that. Ratings will not necessarily fulfill talent figures. I've ran tests in the past that have shown talent reach a very high plateau - and the player's rating NEVER approached them. In fact, some of these players would age and see those high talent ratings drop - never seeing their "performance" match their "potential". This is where the "hidden factor" comes in I believe. Remember that talent ratings do not have any immediate effect on the team - only when those talents are converted into performance ratings would you see any enefit to the team. Last edited by Henry; 10-25-2003 at 01:24 PM.

10-25-2003, 09:48 PM	#66
Qrashman All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NY Posts: 651	Sim leagues are different than solo leagues, though. You say "If I sim another 10 years..." but how many sim leagues even last 10 years? I know you can't please every group, but I think something needs to be tweaked a little bit. I'm going to try to do some research on my league for the past 5 seasons. __________________ ------------------- Montreal Expos / Calgary Storm, HBL HBL Baseball - Founded March 2001. HBL Waiting List

10-28-2003, 08:15 PM	#74
Randy Rhoads Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 27	I'm in Qrash's HBL league and my last 3 first round picks (might be more) have lost talent. And it's not like over a period of time, it's within the first couple of months or so. __________________ Lindsay: How do you think I feel? Bob Loblaw’s a handsome, professional man and I’m only used to... well, none of those things. Tobias: Okay, Lindsay, are you forgetting that I was a professional twice over— an analyst and a therapist. The world’s first analrapist.

10-29-2003, 02:59 PM	#79
LJR Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: May 2003 Location: CA Posts: 43	Then count me in on the minority...part of my fascination with OOTP is that its not like FHLsim or something of that ilk where player development is very predictable. This presents no challenge and quickly makes the game less enjoyable in my opinion. I appreciate the randomness of the OOTP player development whether it favors certain teams or not...although with my style of managing in online leagues, I rarely hold onto young players long enough to see if they will develop as there are usually GMs in online leagues that are willing to deal more developed 25-26 year olds for the raw potential of 19-21 year olds. What frustrates me the most about player development is that I've found on my teams that players tend to increase their talents before the allstar break but after the allstar break, i cringe whenever I open the player development link since its negative 80-90% of the time....that may just be coincidence as I've never done a study, but that's been my brief experience. __________________ Irvine Gang Green (BSA): West Division Champs: 2021, 25,26,28,29,31,35 NL Pennant - 2026, 2033 World Champs 2026, 2033

10-25-2003, 12:03 AM	#61
clarnzz All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Following everyone off a cliff. Posts: 1,522	Nice of you to take your time to look into this Henry. I have been wondering this also ever since I saw Subby post it a while back.

10-28-2003, 04:16 PM	#71
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	I think I'll address this when I get some time to write a longer description - but right now we're running down too many assumptions and myths to make this valuable. In short, even my analysis was not correct becasue I didn't include BOTH increases and decreases in talent which could have (and probably would) show a significant difference in the results. Also, when I suggest talent isn't killing parity, I understand that ratings follow talent - but what I'm saying is this happens "later"... sometimes a few weeks later - sometimes a few months later - sometimes not at all... and all the while, talents continue to go up and down each week. It is only with the best players in the league that talent goes in one direction until age catches up to him. Average players will see both ups and downs to talent - many times before their ratings can follow. To analyze this in the detail it deserves is going to take a significant effort - and yet I'm bothered that the reason we're even thinking of doing it is to even the playing field - something OOTP never claimed to try and do. That's what every other game on the market does - yet OOTP is more real....

10-28-2003, 06:19 PM	#72
alhill Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 79	I don't think that people want to level the playing field. They want to know what the playing field is. Like I said before, there is clearly going to be statistical deviation between the talent changes in various teams. Nobody wants every team to get equal good and bad dev. The reason this thread started, however was because one league appears to have gotten systematic and dramatic positive dev over time on an order that was beyond random statistical deviation. That doesn't have to be a bad thing. In a coaches and scouts enabled league, then you would assume that teams with better coaches would accrue the benefits of that. But we have been told that that shouldn't happen in a coaches-disabled league. If it does indeed happen, then people would like to know why so they could make decisions accordingly. Also, I don't think anyone claims that talent kills parity immediately. But it kills it over time if certain teams are always more likely to get good dev than others. If it indeed is random and cyclical, then no problem; with time things even out. If it isn't, then it's like playing with loaded dice and is a lot less fun. It would be much harder to recruit people for a league if you tell them "every team in this league will start equally except for one thing: Team X's prospects will develop better every year than everyone else's. Enjoy." I don't think anyone is expecting dev to be even over a given year or a given week. But they do want to know that the deck isn't loaded against them.

10-29-2003, 03:01 PM	#80
D Love All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 904	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Henry Equal chances for talents boosts, equal chances for drops, equal financial resources, equal chances for development of rookies, etc. In that world, how you manage your team is the only variable. I think OOTP offers so much more than that - and I wouldn't want (even in an online league) to lose that difference. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Um, maybe I've lost track of this thread, but are you trying to say there should be TEAM variables in the game? If I have coaches turned off and I run 2 test sims of a league for 10 years, are you saying that Joe Shmo's ratings development when on Team A should differ from his ratings development in the 2nd test sim where everything else is the same except that he is placed on Team B? I don't think anyone wants TEAM changes. They shouldn't be programmed in. In an online league or otherwise, these variations between teams should be the result of the online owner's manuevers (repeated overagressive spring training allocations, overanxious callups, etc.). THAT is what makes teams have these tendencies you see in real life. The player-to-player individual variances is great. But basing it at all simply on the team the player is on is silly.