Issue with talent level after league progression

[Aaron]

One issue I have always encountered with OOTP is talent level as a league progresses. Others say to sim a ways out, delete history and have a "clean" set up. Problem with this is when you're wanting to use the MLB roster set.

When you create a fresh MLB league talent levels look great, above avg, avg, and so on during the initial season. Talent levels soon spiral out of control, for me anyway.

I'm currently running multiple test leagues to find a fix for another issue i'm having but I would really like to find a fix for this particular issue before I even invest anymore time. This has been an issue for some time in OOTP and I would hope someone has found the magic cure besides simming years out and deleting league history. It seems to be more of an issue for pitchers than hitters.

I want to stress I am not describing player A was this good when the league started but has aged and is now a lower level talent. I am speaking in regards to talent level (stars) as a whole at one range when the league is created and another merely a few years later.
I'm seeing talent levels that are in the four star range become avg to below avg levels in just 3-4 seasons. Mid level talent become scrap heap as the league graduates new players into the league.

Has anyone found a better solution than what has been mentioned in prior additions of this game? I want a stable league, otherwise i would use the dynamic evolving league option.

[Canuck]

Funny, in my Cubs game that got to 2023 every other team except mine was pretty bad. I won over 110 games 4 years in a row.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Canuck

Funny, in my Cubs game that got to 2023 every other team except mine was pretty bad. I won over 110 games 4 years in a row.

Maybe I'm not being clear but my issue is the talent level of the players created after the initial season. The talent level of those generated by the game are generally better/higher than those you start with. For example, talent levels in the mlb roster pack that are a four, three, two (ect.) star talent range will quickly be watered down by the more talented players that are created. Meaning talent ranges that were say worthy of a four star rating at first, will drop to two or lower after just a few seasons. The five star players are much more talented than the five star players from the inaugural season.

Has anyone found a fix for this or do you just have to grin and bare it? It irritates the hell out of me to see guys with the talent level of a three star player have that talent range watered down. Making that range a one star. It kills the immersion for me. Like I said, if I wanted dynamic evolution of my leagues so fast, I would leave it on in the first place.

[HH20xx convert]

Originally Posted by Aaron

Maybe I'm not being clear but my issue is the talent level of the players created after the initial season. The talent level of those generated by the game are generally better/higher than those you start with. For example, talent levels in the mlb roster pack that are a four, three, two (ect.) star talent range will quickly be watered down by the more talented players that are created. Meaning talent ranges that were say worthy of a four star rating at first, will drop to two or lower after just a few seasons. The five star players are much more talented than the five star players from the inaugural season.

Has anyone found a fix for this or do you just have to grin and bare it? It irritates the hell out of me to see guys with the talent level of a three star player have that talent range watered down. Making that range a one star. It kills the immersion for me. Like I said, if I wanted dynamic evolution of my leagues so fast, I would leave it on in the first place.

In the thread 'Poor talent in recent draft years' there are a whole bunch of people not happy with the low ratings of players created in 14, and lots of discussion about how the ratings change apparently doesn't change the underlying talent, just the scout's evaluation. Sounds like the opposite of your experience.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by HH20xx convert

In the thread 'Poor talent in recent draft years' there are a whole bunch of people not happy with the low ratings of players created in 14, and lots of discussion about how the ratings change apparently doesn't change the underlying talent, just the scout's evaluation. Sounds like the opposite of your experience.

I think you missed about half of the discussion, because there is an underlying talent change. The draft classes created by OOTP14 are, particularly with position players, less talented in absolute rating terms than their equivalents from previous versions. What doesn't change over the long term (or so the devs say, I'm not far enough in to know) is the overall statistical outcomes of the league relative to current MLB realities, due to the talent level being universally lower by enough to still generate somewhat even output numbers.

[HH20xx convert]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

I think you missed about half of the discussion, because there is an underlying talent change. The draft classes created by OOTP14 are, particularly with position players, less talented in absolute rating terms than their equivalents from previous versions. What doesn't change over the long term (or so the devs say, I'm not far enough in to know) is the overall statistical outcomes of the league relative to current MLB realities, due to the talent level being universally lower by enough to still generate somewhat even output numbers.

I didn't miss half the discussion. Someone who reads the entire thread, carefully, is unlikely to reach your conclusion, in my opinion. OK with me if you disagree. The thread starter can review that thread and reach his own conclusions if he wishes.

[DrSatan]

I believe the problem is with the MLB roster set player ratings compared to player ratings in future draft classes.

The MLB roster set ratings are great if no new players ever enter the league. In the first 3-4 seasons, avg players will get regular playing time and put up decent stats. After a few seasons the talent pool gets saturated and there's no longer room for the avg players from the MLB roster set.

I think the solution is to inflate ratings across the board on the MLB roster set. I've been experimenting with this and it seems to be working. Stats aren't incredibly inflated, because while hitters ratings have increased, pitchers have also. Inflating the ratings will allow average players to get a job, and prevent your FA list being full of 3-4 star players.

Like I said, I've only been casually experimenting with it, and it seems to be working so far.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

I believe the problem is with the MLB roster set player ratings compared to player ratings in future draft classes.

The MLB roster set ratings are great if no new players ever enter the league. In the first 3-4 seasons, avg players will get regular playing time and put up decent stats. After a few seasons the talent pool gets saturated and there's no longer room for the avg players from the MLB roster set.

I think the solution is to inflate ratings across the board on the MLB roster set. I've been experimenting with this and it seems to be working. Stats aren't incredibly inflated, because while hitters ratings have increased, pitchers have also. Inflating the ratings will allow average players to get a job, and prevent your FA list being full of 3-4 star players.

Like I said, I've only been casually experimenting with it, and it seems to be working so far.

I'm curious, what is your injury frequency? I always leave mine at default but I am starting to think setting it to high may scale the created players down by the time they make the majors. I'm not a fan of the setting but its the only solution I can think of.

[sprague]

hey aaron,
i understand your question and will try to answer it for you
i noticed that right from ootp12- in a year or two my mlb players (wtih no ratings changes) had gone from 4 to 3 to 2 because of how much more highly rated the fictional and even the real-life minor league players were

the problem is not the created players after the first year, they are created exactly as they should be for the game
the problem is in the mlb roster set. the roster set (which is excellent by the way) is however made based on a players ACTUAL mlb stats- while created players are coming in based only on ratings

in ootp a player who hits .300 and has 30 HR might be rated as a .315 36 homer guy. thus the mlb player set really should have all of their ratings boosted by 10% to match the players the game will create later. the real life .300 hitter in 2013 should be rated at 315 right away, and the modifiers toned down to create actual mlb numbers.

ok so you cant go in and boost all major league players in the mlb roster set. but what you can do is decrease the player creation modifiers- underneath the set up stuff like number of starters, frequency of hit and run ect.
these creation modifiers will all be 1.000. decrease them but ever so slightly. maybe make them all except fielding and running .995 maybe .990. that will decrease the quality of the new drafts coming into the game for you.
sim out 30 years at .995 and 30 years at .990 and see if one of those gives you what you are looking for.

so there is a way around your issue just you have to test out a couple of runs to see what looks like the right talent level in the coming draft classes to match your overall wants

another reason the more you learn about how to use ootp the more amazing it becomes- even if not exact right out of the box, we can tweek it as we want the more we learn how to tweek

[conception]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

I believe the problem is with the MLB roster set player ratings compared to player ratings in future draft classes.

The MLB roster set ratings are great if no new players ever enter the league. In the first 3-4 seasons, avg players will get regular playing time and put up decent stats. After a few seasons the talent pool gets saturated and there's no longer room for the avg players from the MLB roster set.

I think the solution is to inflate ratings across the board on the MLB roster set. I've been experimenting with this and it seems to be working. Stats aren't incredibly inflated, because while hitters ratings have increased, pitchers have also. Inflating the ratings will allow average players to get a job, and prevent your FA list being full of 3-4 star players.

Like I said, I've only been casually experimenting with it, and it seems to be working so far.

One reason why I just don't play with real life players much is because the roster sets always have most prospects with a fixed ceiling that is relatively low. In my mind a large number of prospects have a ceiling that they can reach if everything goes well, it's just that chances are many of them won't reach that ceiling. Instead of nearly every player in the minors having 1 star ceilings, I'd like to see more guys with 2-3 star ratings.

It's simply no fun to load up a real roster set and pull up your favorite organization, only to see nearly every prospect you've read about having a low star, journeyman at best potential. If John Sickels or Baseball America says these guys have a chance to become viable major leaguers in a best case scenario, then they should have that potential in the game.

[DrSatan]

The "ceiling" on prospects has always bothered me with this game. What I mean by "ceiling" is the Potential ratings. Why would I ever bother drafting a player if my scouts say his Potential is never going to be close to MLB worthy? I'm talking ratings so low he may never see A-ball. Why are these guys even created? It's seems more realistic that there would be several rounds worth of players with MLB Potential, but my scouts would tell me which players had the best shot (blue chip) of reaching their potential and which players were more of a wild card (HS, small college, foreign, etc).

Now you might ask "What about talent change randomness?" I say it should still be in the game, but sometimes there needs to be some explanation as to what happened with a player. I don't like the roll of the dice talent changes as they occur now. I should say, I don't like they way they are displayed in the game. I would like to see some explanation, such as an email from a scout, or just include something in the Player Development Reports.

To me talent change or Potential ratings changes should strongly incorporate personality ratings. If a guy is smart, and works his butt off, it would seem more likely that he reach his potential or even increase that potential. If he's a lazy slob, I expect to see that in the Development Reports, and then I may decide to cut or trade that joker.

Ultimately, I would like to see the Development report include more info like scout/mgr feedback. Things like:

Player X learned a new pitch, could be a future starter
Player X is a retarded person, and you shouldn't keep this guy around
Player X is a works harder than anyone, and the extra work has increased his potential as a power/contact/switch hitter
Player X started off rough, but thanks to the batting coach's mentoring, he's turned it around and has become a leader on the team.

This also creates an opportunity for minor league coaches to have a real impact on the game. That "handles rookies" rating should have a large impact on player development, and even player personality (especially leadership, and work ethic).

Really, how many guys wake up one morning and can hit, or forget how to pitch? Something usually happens like coaching, changed stance, confidence is increased or shot, pychological crap, workout routines, injuries, etc.

I'm just saying there's usually a reason, and I would like to get the reason. I'm not talking every little change for every single player, but I should get something when a top prospect is failing, or when somebody not on the radar suddenly starts going off. If I'm the GM of an MLB team, I would expect some sort of feed back when my #1 pick w/ the fat signing bonuses craps out.

[mgoetze]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

The "ceiling" on prospects has always bothered me with this game. What I mean by "ceiling" is the Potential ratings. Why would I ever bother drafting a player if my scouts say his Potential is never going to be close to MLB worthy?

Because you signed a few Player Development Contracts which obligate you to provide players to your affiliates even if you can't find that many who have MLB potential (and there just aren't that many). Oh and of course every once in a while the scouts get it wrong.

If you don't like managing this aspect, feel free to turn on ghost players and cut your draft to 5-10 rounds.

[conception]

Originally Posted by mgoetze

Because you signed a few Player Development Contracts which obligate you to provide players to your affiliates even if you can't find that many who have MLB potential (and there just aren't that many). Oh and of course every once in a while the scouts get it wrong.

If you don't like managing this aspect, feel free to turn on ghost players and cut your draft to 5-10 rounds.

The point that he was trying to make is that it would be much more interesting if it were possible to have players outside that range have a chance to be viable, and when they are viable, there should be an actual reason for that. Player Y shouldn't emerge from the rough just because he randomly got better, he should emerge from the rough because he had some sort of chance to develop a skill.

I don't think real life scouts are drafting random guys just to fill a roster. They look at players and write "this guy has a frame that should develop as he gets older, but he may never possess the contact skills he needs to be a great hitter." Guys emerge from the lower rounds with this skill set all the time.

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by conception

The point that he was trying to make is that it would be much more interesting if it were possible to have players outside that range have a chance to be viable, and when they are viable, there should be an actual reason for that. Player Y shouldn't emerge from the rough just because he randomly got better, he should emerge from the rough because he had some sort of chance to develop a skill.

I don't think real life scouts are drafting random guys just to fill a roster. They look at players and write "this guy has a frame that should develop as he gets older, but he may never possess the contact skills he needs to be a great hitter." Guys emerge from the lower rounds with this skill set all the time.

This guy gets it. I'm not saying there should be 30 rounds of blue chips, but the way it is now says there's nothing worth drafting after the 4th round. Really, there isn't much worth drafting after the 2nd round. That statement is based on what the scouts say the potential ratings are. There should be much higher potential ratings across the board, but the odds of making it to that potential should be different. So, when I ask my scout for a recommendation in the 6th round, I get comments like "He has the physical attributes to be a good player, but he's a project for now", or "Currently plays position X, but doesn't have the speed/height/arm, to play that position at the MLB level". Then, during continued evaluation during the development process I could get scouting reports telling me how the guy is working out. Like I said before, it could be wrapped into the development report or done on demand.

Bottom line, please change the way potential ratings are used, and give me an explanation for extreme talent change randomness.

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by mgoetze

Because you signed a few Player Development Contracts which obligate you to provide players to your affiliates even if you can't find that many who have MLB potential (and there just aren't that many). Oh and of course every once in a while the scouts get it wrong.

If you don't like managing this aspect, feel free to turn on ghost players and cut your draft to 5-10 rounds.

You should eat a Snickers.