Development Ratings Dependent Upon Performance?

[Rosco Peabody]

Just wondering if anyone knows how an individual player's performance reflects on his development.

For instance, here are three scenarios:

1. I bring a Single A prospect up far too quickly, exposing him to Major League talent too early and he gets crushed all year.

2. I bring him up at a casual pace, making sure he adjusts to each level

3. I rig the system such as if he were a pitcher, I control the other team and cause every player to get out or something like that and he has a perfect ERA and record at the end of the season.


Will this player develop in exactly the same way in each of the three scenarios or will one be a better player than another?

[andyhdz]

Who knows Ive heard of positives, negatives, and neutrals in all three scenarios.

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by andyhdz

Who knows...

Yes, that's what I'm trying to figure out, if someone knows.

I just don't know if that is factored into the game engine. It's not an opinion question. There should be a factual answer.

[andyhdz]

Who knows Ive heard of postives, negatives, and neutrals in all three scenarios. Scenario A) I brought him up too early now he's broken. I brought him up too early but he developed more quickly because he was exposed to major league talent. B) I brought him up at just the right pace but he was bored with competition and stagnated. I brought him up at just the right pace and he developed fine. c) His performance affected his development. His performance had no effect on his development. Heard them all.

[TGH-Adfabre]

1) If you ran any of the three scenarios 1,000 times the players would develop differently. There is variance in identical environments.
It is my understanding that performance can, not will, have an effect on performance. If a players morale is low, or high?, enough it can affect development.
How much and for how long has not, AFAIK, been made clear by the developers.
I think the first scenario presents a potential detriment to the players development. I would not do it, unless he was still better than alternatives, just out of Role Playing adherence.
I have a hard time believing that the final scenario provides any bonus. I would think it just avoids any penalties.

[Painmantle]

My understanding of how OOTP works is that in the minors a player will develop regardless of Playing time. but more PT could expedite the process. Theoretically a player could run out of time to develop and therefore not reach his potential.

Once a player reaches the ML Level and is not fully developed PT is a Major contributing factor in his development. And lack of it can stunt his growth.

I would never bring up my Future Star CF early to use him as a 5th OF or defensive replacement. Or my Future Star SP and use him as a Mop up guy or Loogy.

Basically the guy needs to play (or a better way to say it, Is it is better for his development if he does), especially if you bring him up to the ML roster.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

Yes, that's what I'm trying to figure out, if someone knows.

I just don't know if that is factored into the game engine. It's not an opinion question. There should be a factual answer.

Why should there be a factual answer? Not sure what that means. If it means you want 1+2=3 every time then I'd be 100% against. Correct me if I missed the point.

The developers know. Probably others who are deeply knowledgeable of the programming involved. The rest of us well, I have ideas but I'm no genius.

I'm glad there is some mystery involved. Just like real life there are no sure things especially in Baseball talent evaluation. Co-incidentally I was looking at the 1991 MLB draft today where only 10 of 44 1st round picks had career WAR of 10 and above. Only 4 had career WAR over 20.


Edit

I think most would agree that scenario 1 is almost always bad. I don't do it so don't know of any prospects who were successful despite bad handling. Number 3 I'd never do. Number 2 gives mixed results.

[chazzycat]

According to the manual, playing time only matters in the minors. Once a player is in the majors (actually before that - once they are added to the 40 man roster) they develop normally regardless of actual playing time.

BUT there is another component which is called the "challenge". Like if you promote a rookie too fast and they are overmatched then they won't develop properly.

IMO its fine to promote a rookie to a bench position. The playing time doesn't matter, and you can use your managerial discretion to give the player more favorable matchups, possibly avoiding the "overmatched" bit.

http://manuals.ootpdevelopments.com/...er_development

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by RchW

Why should there be a factual answer? Not sure what that means.

I just reread my response and I realize it sounds like I'm a jerk. I apologize. I didn't mean for it to read like that.


I just meant that there are obviously some things that definitely contribute to development and there must be some things that obviously do not. Obviously there are plenty of reasons that randomness and percentages come into play. I'm not suggesting there are any things that guarantee that a player will develop in a certain way. One of the greatest parts of OOTP is the true randomness that it has.

I just figured that there are some things that must be known. I don't think anyone would suggest that something innocuous like changing the uniform color or changing someone's name would change development. So therefore, we can give a definitive "No, that does not affect a player's development".

I guess I was just wondering if someone, maybe a developer, knew if performance COULD affect development. If the answer was "no", as in "No matter what you do on the field, a player's development is decided by the 'percentages' and 'randomness' of the game's engine", then my question would be answered. Also, if a developer said, "Sometimes, performance on the field CAN affect it", then my question also would be answered.

[endgame]

RchW covered the basics, I think, of what would have been my response. As to the answers from developers, regardless if you ever acquire one- and I doubt in this case that'd happen -it'll roughly translate, "all things affect all things, but only marginally." I liken it to Poe's Fly Away lyric, "everything matters in such an invisible way."

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

I just reread my response and I realize it sounds like I'm a jerk. I apologize. I didn't mean for it to read like that.


I just meant that there are obviously some things that definitely contribute to development and there must be some things that obviously do not. Obviously there are plenty of reasons that randomness and percentages come into play. I'm not suggesting there are any things that guarantee that a player will develop in a certain way. One of the greatest parts of OOTP is the true randomness that it has.

I just figured that there are some things that must be known. I don't think anyone would suggest that something innocuous like changing the uniform color or changing someone's name would change development. So therefore, we can give a definitive "No, that does not affect a player's development".

I guess I was just wondering if someone, maybe a developer, knew if performance COULD affect development. If the answer was "no", as in "No matter what you do on the field, a player's development is decided by the 'percentages' and 'randomness' of the game's engine", then my question would be answered. Also, if a developer said, "Sometimes, performance on the field CAN affect it", then my question also would be answered.

No you were fine. I hope my response didn't suggest any jerkiness (I'm BBQing jerk chicken right now).

My personal opinion is that sustained over-performance in the minor leagues will result in a ratings boost. I try to keep up with all my prospects but every so often somebody comes out of the woodwork and when I check it out the reason is big numbers.

I'll have more later but food and wine are calling.

[TGH-Adfabre]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

According to the manual, playing time only matters in the minors. Once a player is in the majors (actually before that - once they are added to the 40 man roster) they develop normally regardless of actual playing time.

BUT there is another component which is called the "challenge". Like if you promote a rookie too fast and they are overmatched then they won't develop properly.

IMO its fine to promote a rookie to a bench position. The playing time doesn't matter, and you can use your managerial discretion to give the player more favorable matchups, possibly avoiding the "overmatched" bit.

http://manuals.ootpdevelopments.com/...er_development

Thanks for posting, I have not read about development in the manual in years.

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by RchW

(I'm BBQing jerk chicken right now).

....Jerk chicken is like my favorite thing ever... I'm so jealous right now...

Here in Boston, we're still waiting for the good weather to come. Today was the first halfway decent day in awhile and it still was overcast for part of the day

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

....Jerk chicken is like my favorite thing ever... I'm so jealous right now...

Here in Boston, we're still waiting for the good weather to come. Today was the first halfway decent day in awhile and it still was overcast for part of the day

Here's to Jerk Chicken everywhere. It was awesome with rice and corn.

[msupoke]

Originally Posted by RchW

My personal opinion is that sustained over-performance in the minor leagues will result in a ratings boost. I try to keep up with all my prospects but every so often somebody comes out of the woodwork and when I check it out the reason is big numbers.
:

Are you sure the big numbers are not the result of the ratings boost?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by msupoke

Are you sure the big numbers are not the result of the ratings boost?

Could be either way. I'm ok with that.

[RonCo]

Barring random stuff, I think it's fair to say ratings create performance rather than the other way around.

But, then the right question may be "what are ratings?"

[NoOne]

i make sure the high potential play in the minors. so no idea on comparing playing time... but,

i'm fairly certain performance has between little and nothing to do with development in the minors. I'll spare any anecdotal tales. ratio of succes/fail seems about the same regardless. i promote based on ratings... even if they didn't acheive good numbers at the previous level. this sort of thing is quite common for me to see.

if it does add a wrinkle, which is certainly possible, it's likely some small bit beyond the resolution of the eye

--

players don't get better due to performance... it's not logical. there nervous system doesn't improve, they don't magically gain muscles they didn't have from working out, they don't gain coordination or learn new mechanics through divine intervention after a good month. their work, preperation, and talent are what provide results when given enough opportunities to present itself.

that being said, a vidoe game is not real life. this would be a "gamey" aspect, if it were true that performance helps... and no big deal.

--

as far as mystery? this is competition...vs humans i'd rather beat you than sit in awe of mystique of a RNG if i were in an online league, i'd know the relative odds of everything possible to know from the feedback they give; limited only by my imagination/ability.

this isn't entirely unlike real life, either. statcast or w/e mlb's new data tracking system is called will provide some cool data once it accumulates. the curtain is about to be pulled back a bit. too much money in real life to worry about mystique, though... obviously a video game doesn't provide quite the same impetus.

[Painmantle]

I can't remember the last time I read the OOTP Manual It seems the ML understanding I had has been corrected, It's true what they say, Never too old to learn something!