Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 25 Available - FHM 10 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Prior Versions of Our Games > Out of the Park Baseball 14 > OOTP 14 - General Discussions

OOTP 14 - General Discussions Discuss the new 2013 version of Out of the Park Baseball here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-24-2013, 07:29 PM   #21
SunDevil
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 373
Team-building with Billy Beane and Theo Epstein

Team-building with Billy Beane and Theo Epstein | Red Sox Blog | providencejournal.com | The Providence Journal

Quote:
1. Team chemistry
A team consisting of great players almost always will beat a team of great people. But as the Red Sox learned in the last year or two, dysfunction in the clubhouse can ruin a team of great players -- especially in an under-the-microscope market like Boston.
"If you don't pay enough attention to makeup, you can wake up and have a situation like we experienced here where all of a sudden the whole does not quite equal the sum of the parts," Epstein said. "Any potential conflict or any bad fit really gets amplified here."
Having deep pockets allowed the Red Sox to pay a premium for the likes of Jonny Gomes, a clubhouse leader on three playoff teams since 2008 -- including last year's Athletics. There was room in the budget to pay for the personality traits that are intangible yet necessary to a winning team.
Not even Beane, whose portrayal in "Moneyball" made him a paragon for objectivity in player evaluation, would disagree that clubhouse chemistry has value.
"Chemistry really enhances everything," he said. "We had a good team. We had talent. But when you start winning and you have those types of personalities, you can really be successful."
On the flip side, the low-budget Athletics can look at clubhouse malcontents like they so famously looked at bad-bodied players -- as opportunities to obtain undervalued assets.
"(Beane) can find a talented player who might get labeled as less valuable than he should be because of something that happened in his past, some reputation," Epstein said. "He's not nice to the media. He doesn't seek out ways to enhance his reputation. That just creates an undervalued asset that Billy can pluck and make it work."
SunDevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 07:42 PM   #22
OakDragon
Hall Of Famer
 
OakDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Jose, CA USA
Posts: 3,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by joefromchicago View Post
Or maybe losing a guy who hit .305 and won the ROTY award the previous year and was hitting .285 when he got injured and was replaced by a couple of guys who collectively hit something like .200 may have had something to do with it.

In truth, there's no reason to construct the fictitious category of "chemistry" when what you're really describing is talent. Nobody talks about "chemistry" in individual sports like tennis, but whether Venus Williams has a bad year because of injuries or the Giants have a bad year because of injuries, it's largely the same thing. It's not the "chemistry" that is suffering, it's the level of talent.
Nobody talks about chemistry in individual sports because it requires team members interacting with each other.
OakDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 08:45 PM   #23
Honorable_Pawn
Hall Of Famer
 
Honorable_Pawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 6,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by goalieump413 View Post
But it's even more brilliant game design when good team chemistry means players aren't grumpy when either they personally suck, or the team's record sucks. Since morale has been a viewable, and presumably important, element to the game for a while, I'd guess that somehow, it all matters and affects player performance.

This post gave me an interesting idea.

Maybe there could be three (hidden? hinted at?) general player characteristics. They are the following:

A
B
C

A gets a morale bonus when interacting with A
A is unaffected by B
A gets a morale penalty when intereacting with C

C gets a morale bonus when interacting with C
C is unaffected by B
C gets a morale penalty when interacting with A

B's are neutral.

66% are B's
17% are A's
17% are C's


These bonuses/penalties are based upon the total composition of the roster. The personality types of the leaders on the team magnify the effect. i.e. players with high leader ability modify the team total composition more than players with lower leader abilities. Coaches more so up to the manager with the greatest impact.


This is the basic idea...I'm sure that it could be expounded upon. It would need to be balanced, meaningful, and minor.
__________________
PBA Quickstart for OOTP
Background Images Collection

All PBA games broadcast live on Steam.
Honorable_Pawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 02:11 AM   #24
fredandres
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by joefromchicago View Post
Or maybe losing a guy who hit .305 and won the ROTY award the previous year and was hitting .285 when he got injured and was replaced by a couple of guys who collectively hit something like .200 may have had something to do with it.

In truth, there's no reason to construct the fictitious category of "chemistry" when what you're really describing is talent. Nobody talks about "chemistry" in individual sports like tennis, but whether Venus Williams has a bad year because of injuries or the Giants have a bad year because of injuries, it's largely the same thing. It's not the "chemistry" that is suffering, it's the level of talent.
You're looking at team chemistry as a category, when you should be viewing it as a non measurable feeling.

The Giants had incredible team chemistry prior to coming back from two elimination games in the playoffs. Winning the World Series only improved the perception of great chemistry. Had they lost to Detroit, their team chemistry would have still been viewed as strong. I view Detroit's 2012 team chemistry as strong, despite their World Series loss.

Having played team sports for the majority of my young adult life, I can directly attest to both positive and poor team chemistry. Winning certainly helps aid chemistry, but I've played on teams with poor chemistry and winning records.
fredandres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 03:01 AM   #25
RchW
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
After a losing championship game or series one would never say that it sucks to lose but at least we had good chemistry. OTOH after winning it all one would never say that the championship is great but out team chemistry sucked.
__________________
Cheers

RichW

#stopthestupid

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit
RchW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 03:39 AM   #26
fredandres
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW View Post
After a losing championship game or series one would never say that it sucks to lose but at least we had good chemistry. OTOH after winning it all one would never say that the championship is great but out team chemistry sucked.
You're comparing extremes and using chemistry as a value.

Don't quote me and then not actually read what I typed.
fredandres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 03:39 AM   #27
goalieump413
All Star Reserve
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW View Post
After a losing championship game or series one would never say that it sucks to lose but at least we had good chemistry. OTOH after winning it all one would never say that the championship is great but out team chemistry sucked.
I respectfully disagree. Often, you'll hear players, coaches, or front office personnel (not just from baseball, but other team sports) try to cushion the blow of losing a championship by finding something positive to reflect upon. How hard they tried. How much more they still have to achieve, etc. And not just for public consumption. In a way, it can be more "team building" to lose as a team than win as individuals.

On the other side of the argument, look at the Baltimore Ravens. The team wins the Superbowl, then subsequently gets gutted from within by financial opportunism. Players demand the big bucks because they're a champion who, as it turns out, just so happen to to have their contract up for extension. Also, some players leave the team because, although they won the championship, they were individually willing to put up with some crap in order to win. Now that the winning is done, they're gone, man!

Anyhow, regardless of the inner workings of OOTP, it sure seems that a foundation exists that we might see as a "chemistry" factor. Even if it's a random effect on the game, some might see it as "chemistry" while others may never experience it.

Sure is fun though, isn't it?
goalieump413 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 05:57 AM   #28
Nefaro
Bat Boy
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12
Somewhat akin to this question - are there any OOTP performance advantages to having the same players year after year due to familiarity playing with the same teammates? Like the feature in FOF2k7 where players who've played together, on the same team for a long time, add to the "Team Cohesion"?

While I think the personality conflict/affinity modelling in that other game is far too overdone, and don't use that facet at all, I believe the cohesion thing to be a good idea. Does OOTP model something similar?

Sorry for a bit of a sidetrack here, but I thought this somewhat related to the topic.
Nefaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 09:07 AM   #29
RchW
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredandres View Post
You're comparing extremes and using chemistry as a value.

Don't quote me and then not actually read what I typed.

I didn't quote you. Why be hostile? It's a good discussion and I bear no malice.

Edit

Chemistry is a value, to some. This discussion proves it.
__________________
Cheers

RichW

#stopthestupid

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

Last edited by RchW; 04-25-2013 at 09:20 AM. Reason: info
RchW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 09:10 AM   #30
joefromchicago
Hall Of Famer
 
joefromchicago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredandres View Post
You're looking at team chemistry as a category, when you should be viewing it as a non measurable feeling.
Then there's no reason to add it to OOTP. If it can't be measured, then it can't be modeled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredandres View Post
The Giants had incredible team chemistry prior to coming back from two elimination games in the playoffs. Winning the World Series only improved the perception of great chemistry. Had they lost to Detroit, their team chemistry would have still been viewed as strong. I view Detroit's 2012 team chemistry as strong, despite their World Series loss.
How about the 2012 Astros? How would you evaluate their "chemistry?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredandres View Post
Having played team sports for the majority of my young adult life, I can directly attest to both positive and poor team chemistry. Winning certainly helps aid chemistry, but I've played on teams with poor chemistry and winning records.
If "chemistry" doesn't have an effect on performance, then that's even more reason not to introduce any kind of "chemistry" element into OOTP.
joefromchicago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 10:27 AM   #31
dkgo
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredandres View Post
You watch much baseball?

The Giants have won two World Series in three seasons with chemistry. One could argue that the leadership and chemistry lost by Posey's injury contributed to their second place finish in 2011.
Really, you think the key things posey brings to the table are leadership and chemistry, not the career 145 ops+ along with excellent defensive play at catcher?

Chemistry is something made up in the media along with "clutch" since they need to be able to sell storylines to casual fans since most don't understand statistics and variance.
dkgo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 11:21 AM   #32
RchW
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkgo View Post
Really, you think the key things posey brings to the table are leadership and chemistry, not the career 145 ops+ along with excellent defensive play at catcher?

Chemistry is something made up in the media along with "clutch" since they need to be able to sell storylines to casual fans since most don't understand statistics and variance.
I agree. Consider the White Sox won a WS with Pierzynski who has a reputation of not being liked by anyone even his own teammates. In both cases (SF Giants and CWS) the stellar performance of each catcher was the key to success. The "chemistry" on each team came from the sum of each individuals performance, not vice versa.
__________________
Cheers

RichW

#stopthestupid

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit
RchW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2014, 09:53 AM   #33
Mike Lowe
Hall Of Famer
 
Mike Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,129
I found this thread very interesting, and it relates directly to an experience I'm having now, months and months after this discussion took place.

My Brewers modern day team was in first place in a pretty mediocre division by the end of May in an online league (started in 2012, currently in 2014 season). We went 1-0 in March, 16-11 in April, and 15-13 in May. Towards the very end of May, I end up calling up the following AAA player:

AAA
.289/.396/.614
114 AB
23 R
33 H
7 2B
3 3B
8 HR
28 RBI
20 BB
24 K
2 SB

His personality is listed as "often being a distraction to the team with his bad attitude." We end up going 9-19 in June, but he produces the following line:

.336/.377/.644
149 AB
22 R
50 H
4 2B
0 3B
14 HR
32 RBI
8 BB
30 K
3 SB

So is he part of the problem, or part of the solution? FWIW, days after him being called up, I get an email about how my "bench" RF who was starting before him got into a fight, or was upset with this AAA player, or something along those lines. Point being, the issue was brought to my attention. I sent the player back to AAA for a few games because the sudden losses had me worried, but he was producing too much for me to leave him in AAA.

Thoughts?! Thanks!
Mike Lowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 09:54 PM   #34
MarkVIIIMarc
Minors (Rookie Ball)
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 35
This is a difficult question. Lets think of ball teams like our work places. After watching the olympics and looking at baseball stats I am going to assume most top athletes are close enough to eachother in how far they can hit the ball or what not.

I know for sure at my workplace when we have had terrible personalties on board we all suffered. Good leadership lessened it. Bad or a lack of leadership made it worse. Problems seem like a bigger deal. I am distracted from logistics (or studying film if this were baseball) by having to babysit and think about babysitting.

So yes I believe in chemistry and leadership. I also believe and believe the game has it modeled, that winning fixes all but the most obnoxous problems and losing makes them worse.

Like at work when we have too big of a jerk on the force. On big money days all is ok, but in the dog days of summer he whines and causes the whole place to suck.
MarkVIIIMarc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 11:57 AM   #35
DelinoDeShields
Minors (Single A)
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida, America.
Posts: 54
It's a mystery. I've never seen Markus explain exactly how he's programmed it, much like how baseball gods never speak.

Anecdotally, I've had more success completely ignoring it than specifically building a team with it.
DelinoDeShields is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:07 PM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments