Player Development & Stats/Ratings

[Trav876]

I've searched the forums but haven't been able to find a clear answer except someone saying that "ratings drive stats."


But my question is, if it's only based on ratings, then how much actual control does the manager/GM have over the development of players?



E.g. it wouldn't matter if you have a guy benched in the Rookie League, not getting AB's, when his ratings would dictate he should be in AAA. In real life this would be a screw up because his development would suffer.


If in the game, only "ratings" drive stats, then you could put him up into AAA he should all of a sudden do well.


Take the reverse example to better understand what I'm asking. Let's say a guy's ratings aren't great, and his potential is low. But you've put him in positions to succeed and his stats are good. Shouldn't his potential then improve because you've helped "make him a better" player?



In real life, if a prospect is a top prospect and they've invested lots into him (high draft, pick, maybe trades, etc.), they'll give him more AB's, more opportunities, etc. This then spurs his development.


In OOTP, does giving guys more AB's tend to help them improve? Obviously not always, because sometimes a guy isn't good enough. But sometimes I'll see a guy tearing it up in the minors, and his ratings & potential still suck. Kind of strange...you'd think potential should at least increase? At least temporarily until he starts sucking.


If not, it seems like this should be a feature if doable, to make it more realistic. Otherwise, it's simply only based on ratings and really doesn't matter what you do with your minor leaguers (you could leave them all in the rookie league on the bench, but so long as their ratings are MLB good, they'd come up to the MLB and do fine. There's less chance to ruin a guy and less chance to make a guy succeed, which is a huge part of real life development).

[CBeisbol]

Well, no

Ratings do not drive stats

The underlying stats, which can be seen in the player editor, drive the resulting stats that are seen in the game

The ratings are a reflection of the underlying stats.

Development is driven by, among other things, playing time.

A simplified example

A player is created who has underlying stats of a .150 batting average(at the major league level). That batting average is reflected as a 20 (on the 20-80 scale) contact rating. The player plays full time in the rookie league and produces a .300 rookie league batting average.
The player also "develops" . At the end of the season the underlying stats are for a .175 batting average. This is reflected as a 25 contact rating.

That's a simplified version of my understanding of the game.

[Trav876]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Well, no

Ratings do not drive stats

The underlying stats, which can be seen in the player editor, drive the resulting stats that are seen in the game

The ratings are a reflection of the underlying stats.

Development is driven by, among other things, playing time.

A simplified example

A player is created who has underlying stats of a .150 batting average(at the major league level). That batting average is reflected as a 20 (on the 20-80 scale) contact rating. The player plays full time in the rookie league and produces a .300 rookie league batting average.
The player also "develops" . At the end of the season the underlying stats are for a .175 batting average. This is reflected as a 25 contact rating.

That's a simplified version of my understanding of the game.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. So stats CAN actually drive ratings then? I had seen this incorrectly on other parts of the forum, if so.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Trav876

Thanks for taking the time to respond. So stats CAN actually drive ratings then? I had seen this incorrectly on other parts of the forum, if so.

There are two levels of stats

There are the underlying stats which ARE the players. There's no Mike Trout. Only a .300 batting average, .400 OBP and. 600 SLG (or whatever). These are what drives the entire game.

Then those underlying stats are responsible for the results generated IN the game. Each user of OOTP gets the same .300/.400/.600 Mike Trout, but each Mike Trout hits slightly different.

Your Mike Trout has a .300/.400/.600 baseline. But might hit .295/.411/.588 in your game

The underlying stats, reflected in the ratings, drive the results that you see. It unknown, to me, if the results (stats generated by the game) feedback into the development thus changing the underlying stats.


There are stats, which you can see in the player editor that are inputs
Then, there are stats which result from playing the games, which are outputs.

Ratings give an idea of what the input stats ARE thus an idea what the output stats WILL BE.

The input stats drive everything.
The output stats might feedback into the input stats. I don't know for certain.

[ALB123]

Originally Posted by Trav876

Take the reverse example to better understand what I'm asking. Let's say a guy's ratings aren't great, and his potential is low. But you've put him in positions to succeed and his stats are good. Shouldn't his potential then improve because you've helped "make him a better" player?

I'm a little bit confused...What do you mean by "putting him in positions to succeed"?

In real life, if a prospect is a top prospect and they've invested lots into him (high draft, pick, maybe trades, etc.), they'll give him more AB's, more opportunities, etc. This then spurs his development.

In OOTP, does giving guys more AB's tend to help them improve? Obviously not always, because sometimes a guy isn't good enough. But sometimes I'll see a guy tearing it up in the minors, and his ratings & potential still suck. Kind of strange...you'd think potential should at least increase? At least temporarily until he starts sucking.

This is a complex issue - I can't say that I completely understand or agree with how OOTP implements rating increases & decreases, but I do see things in my own organization that usually make sense to me on this topic.

First of all, by default those player ratings, Current & Potential, are in relation to MLB level. So, it is absolutely possible to see a 3B, for example, crushing the ball in Rookie Level but not see much movement at all in his Potential Rating. I use the Stars system, btw. What I believe is happening is your Scouting Director is saying, "The kid had a great Rookie Level season, but I still don't foresee him making it past AA, let alone making it to the majors. So, to me, his Potential is no different than it was before his first game in Rookie Level."

If the player was really kicking butt, I would expect to see his Current overall rating increase. Maybe it will be only a half-star increase. In my personal opinion, this makes perfect sense. Again, it is certainly nice to see a prospect perform exceptionally well in Rookie Level ball, but we need to remember...it's only Rookie Level ball and those initial ratings were applied before the player ever saw a pitch as a minor leaguer.

I've had several cases where I've drafted players who are 4 & 4.5-Star Potential players but only 0.5-Stars Currently. By the end of his first year in Rookie Level, which was pretty good, that player has gone up to a 1.0 or maybe 1.5-Stars in his Current Overall Rating, but his Potential Rating has actually dropped to 3 Stars. Usually, if things go well with his development...like, consistent quality play and the ability to advance each season from Short-Season A to A to High A there are very good odds that you'll see that kid's Potential Rating back up to a 4 or 4.5 Stars. I'd be shocked if I had a single 4-star or higher prospect who's Potential Rating didn't drop at least a full Star on his path to the big leagues.

If not, it seems like this should be a feature if doable, to make it more realistic. Otherwise, it's simply only based on ratings and really doesn't matter what you do with your minor leaguers (you could leave them all in the rookie league on the bench, but so long as their ratings are MLB good, they'd come up to the MLB and do fine. There's less chance to ruin a guy and less chance to make a guy succeed, which is a huge part of real-life development).

What do you mean when you say "their ratings are MLB good"? How does a player get MLB good ratings if you sit him on the bench all season? I don't understand what you're saying here, if you don't mind rewording it to give me another shot, I'd appreciate it.

Ratings definitely help identify talent & skill. There is no question about that, especially when you see 4 to 5-Star rated players. But, I don't think you can run a successful organization based solely on Potential Ratings. I've had too many highly-rated players turn into 2 Star players or get hurt and never live up to expectations.

[Trav876]

Originally Posted by ALB123

I'm a little bit confused...What do you mean by "putting him in positions to succeed"?

This can be done several ways in real life. I'm wondering if the game reflects this. I think it's easier to describe how to NOT put a guy in a position to succeed, i.e. set him up for failure. Such as:

1) Rushing a guy through the minors. His ratings look like he could be an MLB guy soon, but he has a .200 BA in Single A. You then bring him up to AAA. He does worse. This would be "not" putting him in a position to succeed. I would hope to see the game be realistic and decrease his ratings, because you didn't manage him well. You made him worse. In real life this happens. Guys never pan out and it could have been due to a number of issues (coaching, improper level of competition, etc.).


2) Let's say you force a guy to play every game, even though he's super fatigued (not as likely to happen in real life, of course). His numbers end up sucking...or not being as good as they could, right?


3) Giving one guy more AB's who you'd like to see develop, versus a different guy who's just a roster filler. Even if maybe the roster filler is better "overall" at the time. This would be a way to set a guy up for success.



I'm sure there are many others we can come up with.

Originally Posted by ALB123

If the player was really kicking butt, I would expect to see his Current overall rating increase.

Originally Posted by ALB123

By the end of his first year in Rookie Level, which was pretty good, that player has gone up to a 1.0 or maybe 1.5-Stars in his Current Overall Rating, but his Potential Rating has actually dropped to 3 Stars. Usually, if things go well with his development...like, consistent quality play and the ability to advance each season from Short-Season A to A to High A there are very good odds that you'll see that kid's Potential Rating back up to a 4 or 4.5 Stars.

OK, so this makes it sound like you are saying the players' stats CAN affect their ratings & overall. This is good, if so...this makes sense. Otherwise, the alternative is just that the overall "stars" are simply random based on the randomness of the Development Engine, and stats really become irrelevant for evaluating a guy. And what you'd do with the prospect or how they happen to perform, don't really matter. Because if his ratings are good, he'll be good, it's just that he probably had an outlier down year.

Originally Posted by ALB123

I
What do you mean when you say "their ratings are MLB good"? How does a player get MLB good ratings if you sit him on the bench all season? I don't understand what you're saying here, if you don't mind rewording it to give me another shot, I'd appreciate it.

For example, let's say you take a guy who is a 2 star overall rating in MLB, has like 40-50 "main ratings" (eye, contact, etc.), so has a shot on being MLB. But you decide to put him into rookie league and bench him.


What should happen (to be realistic) is that he would likely fizzle out, at least a bit. You would/should see a decrease in ratings. I don't know if OOTP does this- do stats (or lack thereof), therefore reflect ratings? If instead of being benched, the guy hit .100 with 400 AB's in the minors (maybe the coaching is bad...maybe the team is losing and he doesn't handle losing well, etc.), would his ratings then decrease too? I guess it's hard to know if your scout just mis-evaluated him, or if he actually did get worse. If you had your scouting accuracy on 100%, would you still see the ratings drop? This is what I'm hoping would happen as far as realism, but I don't know, which is the basis of my original question.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Ratings do not drive stats

This is absolutely incorrect. A player's ratings drive his performance in OOTP. Here is a quote from the first sentence of the Player Ratings section of the OOTP 21 manual:

The Player Ratings shows additional detail about the ratings that drive a player's performance in OOTP.

Player ratings, combined with the game engine and its use of league total modifiers, is what drives all statistical outcomes.

The stats you see in the player editor are an estimate of the resulting stats that the player would generate with his ratings in a neutral, modern Major League environment. Those stats do not impact results in OOTP in any way, shape or form. They simply show what the game estimates the ratings would produce for that player under those specific conditions.

As the Player Editor section of the OOTP manual explains in the definitions of Resulting Stats under the Offensive Ratings Editor section:

This section ... simply tells you how a player with the ratings you have entered is expected to perform in a neutral, modern Major League environment.

There are buttons below those stats in the player editor that allow you to enter stats and then ask the game to create new current player ratings or new potential ratings based on those stats. That doesn't mean the stats are "driving" anything. You're just asking the game to create a new set of player ratings based on a goal of the player hopefully performing at around that level in a neutral, modern Major League environment.

Ultimately, player ratings drive everything, although there is a "top-down" effect from the league total modifiers, which is what governs the overall statistical output of players and the league, This is to make sure performances are in line with the given era of baseball, tendencies for that year, etc.

Now, when you're playing historical games, OOTP uses a player's real life statistics in the historical database to create his initial ratings based on the range of years and settings you specific. It may also update his ratings if you've set up your game to recalculate ratings after each season according to stats in the database. But these stats are then converted into ratings, and the ratings, game engine, and league total modifiers drive all outcomes.

As far as player development goes, I'm not an expert in that area, but the development engine handles all of it. Especially if you're using the coaching system, spring training and minors, there are certainly things you can do to help players develop better. But, to my knowledge, it's only their potential ratings, your decisions, any coaching and training, and the development engine that determine how quickly or how well they develop. But only their current player ratings, the game engine and league total modifiers will drive their actual statistical performance.

[Trav876]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

But, to my knowledge, it's only their potential ratings, your decisions, any coaching and training, and the development engine that determine how quickly or how well they develop

So is this, in effect, "bridging" their overall & potential? Is that what your decisions (as a GM, manager, etc.) can then affect?

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

This is absolutely incorrect. A player's ratings drive his performance in OOTP. Here is a quote from the first sentence of the Player Ratings section of the OOTP 21 manual:




Player ratings, combined with the game engine and its use of league total modifiers, is what drives all statistical outcomes.

The stats you see in the player editor are an estimate of the resulting stats that the player would generate with his ratings in a neutral, modern Major League environment. Those stats do not impact results in OOTP in any way, shape or form. They simply show what the game estimates the ratings would produce for that player under those specific conditions.

As the Player Editor section of the OOTP manual explains in the definitions of Resulting Stats under the Offensive Ratings Editor section:



There are buttons below those stats in the player editor that allow you to enter stats and then ask the game to create new current player ratings or new potential ratings based on those stats. That doesn't mean the stats are "driving" anything. You're just asking the game to create a new set of player ratings based on a goal of the player hopefully performing at around that level in a neutral, modern Major League environment.

Ultimately, player ratings drive everything, although there is a "top-down" effect from the league total modifiers, which is what governs the overall statistical output of players and the league, This is to make sure performances are in line with the given era of baseball, tendencies for that year, etc.

Now, when you're playing historical games, OOTP uses a player's real life statistics in the historical database to create his initial ratings based on the range of years and settings you specific. It may also update his ratings if you've set up your game to recalculate ratings after each season according to stats in the database. But these stats are then converted into ratings, and the ratings, game engine, and league total modifiers drive all outcomes.

As far as player development goes, I'm not an expert in that area, but the development engine handles all of it. Especially if you're using the coaching system, spring training and minors, there are certainly things you can do to help players develop better. But, to my knowledge, it's only their potential ratings, your decisions, any coaching and training, and the development engine that determine how quickly or how well they develop. But only their current player ratings, the game engine and league total modifiers will drive their actual statistical performance.

Hmm.
How about that. Looks like I was wrong.

I will say it's not the ratings you see displayed that drive the game. Those are subject to scouting error (accuracy) and less precise measurement systems.

It's still the underlying (input) ratings that drive the game (and in some instances, like historical or when you recalculate new ratings, statistics that create those ratings).

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Hmm.
I will say it's not the ratings you see displayed that drive the game. Those are subject to scouting error (accuracy) and less precise measurement systems.

Yes, that's true, but only if you're using the scouting system. If you're not using the normal scouting system, all the ratings you see are 100% accurate. But you're right that potential scouting inaccuracy is certainly something the OP should keep in mind if he's using the normal scouting system.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Trav876

So is this, in effect, "bridging" their overall & potential? Is that what your decisions (as a GM, manager, etc.) can then affect?

Yes, that's probably a fair way to think of it. For example, if you spend more money on your player development budget, this can improve the chances your younger players will reach or exceed their potential and do so more quickly. Here's a quote from the manual page I linked:

The more money you spend in player development, the better the chances are of your younger players developing, and more quickly. However, it is no guarantee.

One of the Player Development pages from the OOTP 21 manual explains a number of other factors than can effect player development, including coaching/management, playing time, player potential and individual qualities, age, level of challenge/competition, injuries, spring training, chance, and your player development modifiers.

Reading that page will hopefully tell you how everything works, assuming that you're using all the relevant features in OOTP, such as spring training, the coaching system, minors, etc.

[ALB123]

Now that I have a really good base of knowledge about OOTP, I really should take some time to go back and read a lot of the manual. There are a lot of finer points that I don't have a complete grasp on. A big one is the Player Editor. I'm always terrified of going in there since there is no Undo button. I didn't know, however, exactly what was going on with all of that player (batter) data on the right side of the Editor screen. I should know it inside and out by now and I don't.

Trav876, yes...you can absolutely ruin prospects by making poor decisions. I know because I've done it a few times and it sucks. Now that I think about it, it would be easier to destroy a prospect than to make sure you get every ounce of potential out of him. Of course, we don't intentionally try to blow up a prospect...sometimes the baseball Gods don't do us any favors.

I think a good suggestion to get a better handle on this would be to play a historical setup starting just before your favorite period in baseball. If you want a totally alternate reality when compared to real life, enable the OOTP Development Engine - make sure player rating yearly recall is disabled. This way you know the Development Engine is in total control. Then go play some seasons, enough to have a few drafts so you can see pre-draft player ratings and then keep an eye on their development.

I can't even explain how much enjoyment I get out of playing OOTP this way. Now it's time to go venture into the scary Player Editor and have a look around. I go into it a lot, but only to give players nicknames and get the heck out before I totally mess everything up.

Thanks, everybody, for dropping some knowledge into my brain. I need to bookmark this - Charlie Hough's last few posts were extremely enlightening to me.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by ALB123

Now that I have a really good base of knowledge about OOTP, I really should take some time to go back and read a lot of the manual. There are a lot of finer points that I don't have a complete grasp on. A big one is the Player Editor. I'm always terrified of going in there since there is no Undo button. I didn't know, however, exactly what was going on with all of that player (batter) data on the right side of the Editor screen. I should know it inside and out by now and I don't.

Make a game you don't care about just so you can explore without doing too much damage,

Or don't
Sometimes knowing too much about what goes on under the hood takes away from the experience of playing the game.

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Yes, that's true, but only if you're using the scouting system. If you're not using the normal scouting system, all the ratings you see are 100% accurate. But you're right that potential scouting inaccuracy is certainly something the OP should keep in mind if he's using the normal scouting system.

100% accurate
Not 100% precise

The "true" ratings are 1-250
The display ratings are less than that

[Trav876]

Originally Posted by ALB123

I think a good suggestion to get a better handle on this would be to play a historical setup starting just before your favorite period in baseball. If you want a totally alternate reality when compared to real life, enable the OOTP Development Engine - make sure player rating yearly recall is disabled. This way you know the Development Engine is in total control. Then go play some seasons, enough to have a few drafts so you can see pre-draft player ratings and then keep an eye on their development.
:

What I have been toying with, and partly why I was wondering all of this, is historical transactions & play with no recalc. It’s kind of cool to, like you said, have an “alternate reality“ where different players pan out in different ways from all the minor-league guys that I remember from over time.

But that’s where I was wondering if it was basically just random on how their ratings develop (if you don’t recalc, that is, nor have a player development budget- which you don’t in historical transactions), or if for example doing things to help them succeed, could then possibly boost their ratings/potential or at least bridge the overall to the potential.

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Yes, that's probably a fair way to think of it. For example, if you spend more money on your player development budget, this can improve the chances your younger players will reach or exceed their potential and do so more quickly. Here's a quote from the manual page I linked:



One of the Player Development pages from the OOTP 21 manual explains a number of other factors than can effect player development, including coaching/management, playing time, player potential and individual qualities, age, level of challenge/competition, injuries, spring training, chance, and your player development modifiers.

Ah, that reading from the player development part of the manual was very helpful. Thanks!

Looks like there are definitely things you can do (or not do) to affect how a player develops

[ALB123]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Sometimes knowing too much about what goes on under the hood takes away from the experience of playing the game.

Yes. I do agree with that. There are many things that I don't want to know about, ever.

Originally Posted by Trav876

What I have been toying with, and partly why I was wondering all of this, is historical transactions & play with no recalc. It’s kind of cool to, like you said, have an “alternate reality“ where different players pan out in different ways from all the minor-league guys that I remember from over time.

But that’s where I was wondering if it was basically just random on how their ratings develop (if you don’t recalc, that is, nor have a player development budget- which you don’t in historical transactions), or if for example doing things to help them succeed, could then possibly boost their ratings/potential or at least bridge the overall to the potential.

Ah, that reading from the player development part of the manual was very helpful. Thanks!

Looks like there are definitely things you can do (or not do) to affect how a player develops

I haven't played with Historical Transactions enabled yet. I don't know if I ever will...I mean, maybe I'll try it with a test saved game, but for right now, I prefer 100% alternate reality. Although, now that I think about it, it might be very fun to play with Historical transactions turned on if I started with a team like the 1994 or 1995 Yankees and see how well I can do with the squads that real dynasty had. Hmmm...That does sound like a good idea for some point in the future.

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Hmm.
How about that. Looks like I was wrong.

I will say it's not the ratings you see displayed that drive the game. Those are subject to scouting error (accuracy) and less precise measurement systems.

It's still the underlying (input) ratings that drive the game (and in some instances, like historical or when you recalculate new ratings, statistics that create those ratings).

But the ratings change DURING the season too, so the statistics must have an effect during the season.
Recalculate does it after the season to. Although it is not clear if say 3 year recalc does it 3 year lookback or ahead... It appears to be look ahead.

If you take a player and change his POWER to 250 in the editor he will hit more homeruns.

Also note the aging and dev modifier effect the ratings too

I still like to think that everything effects every outcome
weather
stadium
pitch type
fielding range
fatigue
(actual decision if playing out the game)
each rating of batter, pitcher and fielders
(ie ball hit between ss and 3b, each fielders range, fatigue are considered)
manager decisions on fielding postitions
player and global strategy
morale etc

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by Trav876

What I have been toying with, and partly why I was wondering all of this, is historical transactions & play with no recalc. It’s kind of cool to, like you said, have an “alternate reality“ where different players pan out in different ways from all the minor-league guys that I remember from over time.

But that’s where I was wondering if it was basically just random on how their ratings develop (if you don’t recalc, that is, nor have a player development budget- which you don’t in historical transactions), or if for example doing things to help them succeed, could then possibly boost their ratings/potential or at least bridge the overall to the potential.


Ah, that reading from the player development part of the manual was very helpful. Thanks!

Looks like there are definitely things you can do (or not do) to affect how a player develops

please note you can't, to my knowledge, be specific on their development.....ie work in spring training on..
60 % power
20 % eye
10% fielding

(like you can in the HOCKEY and other games)
you can't take fast runner and make them a base stealer or improve their baserunning instincts, or learn to bunt (i guess you are born with those traits ; )


Yes the best thing to do is take a any season and play around....you wont hurt anything
Try extremes so we can more quickly see the impact.
250 power potential with 10 power current
decrease the aging factor and see if players skills don't erode quickly
give a guy 30 or over 250 potentials in everything while keeping current stats the same
give everyone the best chemistry scores on a team

Sim 3 months at a time (turning off all notifications that will stop the sim)

Take the data and export it db or spreadsheet after each year
You may be surprised, elated or disappointed with what you see to try and create your ultimate universe

Yes it is alot of work....alot of frustrating work.
But so is playing out a season and being disappointed not seeing any changes with decision you made.

You will find a lot of opinions on interpretting the manual, or how things works. I wish some more effort was made to update/expand the manual and put ingame help, tooltips.

Like stratomatic uses stats to create a card that is based on probabilities of dice roll, ootpb uses stats to create ratings which drive outcomes

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

But the ratings change DURING the season too, so the statistics must have an effect during the season.

Actually, I'm virtually certain that statistics have no such effect. In OOTP, statistics are just a measure of results. They don't drive player development or determine player ratings. For example, in my current league, I recently had a couple of players in the prime of their careers actually lose a bit of their rating at their primary position during the season, even though they were defensively outperforming pretty much everyone else in the league at those positions. If their stats affected their rating, it would have gone up or stayed the same and not declined.

To the best of my understanding, the in-season and overall development engine is largely age-based, position-based and random, although there are many decisions you can make as a GM or manager that can influence a player's development positively or negatively (as discussed above). But unless OOTP Developments has changed something in recent years, I don't think a player's in-season stats really affect anything.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Or don't
Sometimes knowing too much about what goes on under the hood takes away from the experience of playing the game.