Player development

[Markus Heinsohn]

Any suggestions regarding the player development code in OOTP 4?

[Chappy]

I'm new to the boards, so forgive me if this has been brought up before.

It seems to me that if a player in the OOTP universe hits .300 30 HRs his rookie year, you can expect him to have the same output for the rest of his career. It would be neat if this was less predictable.

I'd like to see more significant improvements in players during their primes.

I'd also like to see more 'flukes' or Kevin Maas type players who bang 20 HRs in their first 200 career at bats and 20 more in their next 800 at bats. Conversely, it would be cool to have some Puckett type players who hit .280 for their first 2 seasons before blossuming into hitting machines. These instances should be rare, but I think they should exsist.

And as a final request, I'd like to see occasional permanent damage to players who suffer season ending injuries (you know, some players never fully come back, while others do re-claim their glory).

[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: Chappy ]</p>

[Steve Kuffrey]

I think that maybe a bit more probability that players who are good can have off years and players who are average can have a career year then go back to average. I think that player fatigue will help some of these issues but we need a higher probablilty.

[Treches]

Don't exactly know how hard it would be code but I would love the player development feature to be in contact with the current stats. I mean, it's quite odd to see a C-at-steals player getting 50 SB and decreasing his stealing ratings, or a 5-at getting hits batting .310 and decreasing his hitting talent. That would be terrific, IMHO.

[Glen]

I agree with the things that have been mentioned before. I would add an occasional "boom" or "bust" kind of code. You could draft a guy that looks to be average or lower in the later rounds and have him turn out to be Mike Piazza, someone that was a late developer... or something like that.

Maybe I'm just rambling.

Glen

[J P Falcon]

I would like to see a players improve their defence a bit more during the regular season then they do now. If you check the player development sections of each team you see increases and decreases in offensive and pitching performance but not in defence. Perhaps some type of formula could be used where the player's defence gets a boost after he succeeds in making a number of error free putouts or assists. I don't like the idea of sacrificing other abilities during spring training just to try improving defensive skills. Afterall, Ozzie Smith became a much better hitter while with the Cardinals without losing his defensive abilities and Tony Gwynn became a much better right fielder without sacrificing his offense.

[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: J P Falcon ]</p>

[Henry]

Some of this has been tried in Spring Training, but changing positions should be better handled ? I guess what I mean is best described in a hypothetical scenario... I have a team with no real 3B... just a string of fill-ins. Let's say I have another player I'd like to try and turn into a 3B. This is something that usually takes time - not something you can pull off in Spring Training, so...

Some kind of a system that labels the guy as "in training". When in such a mode, any position you play him at, or when he is in Spring Training, the CPU does a little more with this guy... "testing" him to see if he has the capability. Then, you can get a dynamic report from your coach that let's you know how he's doing.

If at some point, the coach says "he's ready" you've been successful. If at some point he says "no way" then you can put a stop to the experiment. The time can be anywhere from a month or so to an entire year ??

What do you guys think ?

[sporr]

[quote]Originally posted by Chappy:
<strong>And as a final request, I'd like to see occasional permanent damage to players who suffer season ending injuries (you know, some players never fully come back, while others do re-claim their glory).</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'd extend this to even other long-term injuries. I don't know if you could tie this to a player's durability rating, maybe that wouldn't be the best way. It's noticeable that some players rebound from an injury and get better (Schilling), while others never reach the levels that they did before their injury. Along the injury lines, some players have nagging injuries that aren't necessarily day-to-day, but they still affect performance (such as Chipper playing all season with bone chips).

Sorry for the tangent. As for development, I'd like to see coaches have a more measureable influence on player development.

[643gdp]

I'd like to see some changes specific to pitcher development. If you look at all pitchers in MLB history, the ones who last the longest are the fireballers, those who regularly strikeout more than the average pitcher, season after season. It is the control pitchers, those who rely on their walk control, who lose effectiveness first and retire earlier. I'd like to see those general trends implemented in the game, especially for pitchers over 35. Once a pitcher reaches 35 or so, his expected "remaining years" would be very dependent on the source of his effectiveness: if he's a strikeout guy, then we burns out slower, but if he's a control artist, his control fades more quickly.

I'd like to also see knuckleballers implemented so that their effectiveness is heavily dependent on their stamina, their IP, rather than age. The knuckleball is a pitch that a 50 year old can throw as well as a 30 year old, but the 50 year old's other skills and lack of stamina is what makes him retire. With the new pitch types coming into the game, this would be possible.

Thanks for asking!
Jay Wigley

[Seamhead]

This may be pushing it a bit, but I'm in favor of the above post with a few wrinkles. Craig Wright wrote about a pitcher's "formative years" in The Diamond Appraised and the effect of too many innings or batters faced in a pitcher's youth. The theory being that a young pitcher who throws a lot has a better chance of developing arm problems compared with a young pitcher who is "protected" by his manager or pitching coach. Not every young pitcher with a ton of innings under his belt throws his arm out and not every young pitcher who is coddled goes on to have a brilliant career, but it would be fun to have a code that might increase a pitcher's chance of injury if he's worked too hard at a young age.

[Jestre]

I agree with Falcon's post about defense. A players fldg % never changes from day 1. I have seen range changes, why can't a players ability to field balls change??? I'd also like to see players qualify for the fielding leaderboards even if they are playing a rated position that isn't their primary position. As it is if you have a player playing a position that isn't his primary position he won't show up on the fielding reports even if he qualifies.

[High Voltage Marker]

This is so hard to answer and even simulate because no player is ever a sure bet. Every year, you play these games with these roster and you don't expect Darrin Erstad to go from .355 to .250 something. You don't expect to see Richard Hidalgo, who had a breakout year, and come back and fluke. I mean there are so many examples of this and certainly some players go along a normal learning curve, but most players do not. In OOTP3 it seemed so easy to predict a players stats for the next year because they all followed the generic curve of getting skills, pinnacle, and leveling off into retirement. There needs to be more flukes (Kevin Maas), more draft pick follies (Brien Taylor?), and more late pick surprises (Mark Buehrle) than there are. As it is now, success comes to easy. Now putting this into a code, well I just play the game,I have no idea how you would incorporate this.

[Draft Dodger]

I believe the ONLY area I think I like High Heat better is the way they manage minor league player development and position familiarity.

I'd love to be able to set lineups for each level - decide who gets the most playing time and where they play. It's unrealistic to only have one player at each position per level, as otherwise the computer will decide who plays.

This would also allow you to move a minor leaguer at a logjam position to a more needed position (he would learn the new position over time), or allow you to develop utility players.

This has been mentioned a million times, but it should be easier to move a player from bullpen to rotation without needing to do this in spring training; either shouldn't be such an in-stone role.

While on the subject of spring training with regards to player development - it's one area I'd like to see changed. I don't think the current system is a good representation of real life.

To me, spring training is less about player development than it is about measuring a player's progress/ability. It's seeing if that 3b is ready to play at the major league level, or that guy from the bullpen is ready to be the 5th starter, not about improving your power.

It's more work, but if I'm making my wishlist, I'd like to see an actual exhibition schedule - you can choose playing time for everyone and see how well they are performing, and decide your cuts after that. There would be development, but maybe it would be more of an overall thing, represent a "team focus" - the manager might want to focus on overall team defense, or speed, or hitting, etc, and and spring training increases would be on a team level (not a drastic bump per player, just a subtle nudge in the area of focus).

[Henry]

Tons of ways to simulate inconsistency, but the easiest is probably to simply run each player through a hidden random sequence each year... something like this;

80% normal year based on talent
10% bad year, reduce one or more talent numbers
10% good year, increase one or more talet numbers

In this way, it should even out over the player's career (but maybe not) and it will give you the random good/bad year your looking for.

[Joe M.]

I think sure fire prospects are just that right now. They don't falter when hitting the bigs. Many a time a player has tore up AAA and then can't hack it in the big show. They are the type of player that would succeed if there was a AAAA league but not one with the highest caliber of players. A way of duplicating this would have the star minor leaguers rating slowly take a hit to the Gm's view until eventually they are not worth they're weight on the 25 man roster anymore.

I don't favor making all of these players scrubs that can't reclaim their past glory however. Let's say they get traded and find their way back onto a major league club, get some at bat and all of a sudden those ratings start to get better as that player gains some confidence against good pitching.

This would definitely make managing your veterans and future tougher than it is now as you would never know if it would be safe to trade your vet 3b to free up room for that stud who might not ever touch a major league curveball.

[hellfrozeover]

One other thing I'd like to see is that certain players should be able to age better than others. Some players may need to retire by the time they reach age 37, while others i.e. Mike Morgan, Rickey Henderson, Julio Franco, any knuckleball pitchers, are still playing in their 40s, and playing well enough to deserve a spot in the starting lineup. Maybe you could put in a hidden aging variable which decides that certain players will be able to play decently in their 40s, and some may have to retire early, and the rest (majority) retire around the normal age.

I also would like to see a change in spring training. I don't think it should be so hard to change a starting pitcher to a middle reliever or closer, because it would require less training and no need to work on endurance. It should be difficult to switch from closer to starter because it requires at least 3 pitches that can be thrown with control and a lot of endurance.

I also agree with what someone mentioned about spring training being about viewing how people were playing and cutting players, but perhaps this type of thing should be implemented. Then you could add an offseason training which would allow players to develop like that.

Just some ideas, please let me know what you think.

[Kohlman]

I agree with Draft Dodger. The ability to set your lineups for your minor league teams would be nice. Seeing the potential, starting certain players to see if they pan out, from A right on up to the Majors.

An exhibition schedule would be nice also. Development through actual games prior to the season.

The problem with an exhibition schedule, is, sure you would be able to manage your human exhibition games by playing younger guys, keeping the older veteran innings lower, pitching an inning here, 2/3's there, but the CPU managed teams would not have the ability to do such, without a huge amount of coding. Am I wrong in this deduction?

[JQLorenz]

A few thoughts..


1. Prospects

It seems that the average age of an OOTP prospect is older than I would have guessed. In a day where more and more high schoolers are drafted out of college I'd like to see more raw talent.

Also it appears that most players take several years to get to major league level, even with the best minor league coaches. I rarely have a player younger than 24 who makes an impact, I'd expect this to be the norm but you should occassionally see the 21 yr old who makes a big impact.

2. Older players

I agree that some players should age differently than others. It seems they all tail off until the point they're totally useless around age 40. Thus not allowing for Roger Clemens, Rickey Henderson or Pete Rose types..

It also seems that if you offer a contract extension to an older player, he'll play as long as he's signed. While this is ideal in some cases, many times players will retire once they past their primes.


3. Position Changes

I'd like to see more flexibility in position changing for young players. A lot of times a player will be drafted at a position only to change later. Sometimes that's because there's already a great prospect in the organization at that position, or sometimes because he'd be more valuable somewhere else or because he can't field well enough there.

For instance someone drafted a SS is often moved to 2B or the OF. While spring training allows training at a new position, it also greatly deters growth. I believe a move from a skilled position to a less-skilled position shouldn't really impact a players growth. Further consider that many times teams use Fall or Winters leagues to instruct players at a new position it further supports the point.

For instance seldomly does any player switch to Catcher from a position, but often drafted Catchers will switch to 3B/1B. Infielders to Outfielders too.

[Qrashman]

These have probably all been metioned, but I'll put my case in for them:

Older Players - I'd like to see some guys go out on the top of their game. Retire with a 5 run rating, not wait until they deteriorate to a 1.

I'd like to see older players still play well. Maybe once in a while you can have a 41 year old with a 5 run rating. It seems that when a pitcher hits 37, you know for sure he's going downhill.

Prospects - I don't like how run ratings (pitchers) and hit ratings (batters) are generally the last ratings to be effected. Often you'll see a player with a 5 in everything but a 0 in hits or runs.

Minor League Stats - I think the minor league stats are based on what the player would do if he were in the major leagues with his current ratings. I'd like to see real stats. My star 2b shouldn't be batting .110 in AA ball. I mean, it happens, but I havent seen many players hit over .220

Position changes - way too easy to turn a closer into a top notch starter in ST.

Either way, this game rocks.

[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: Qrashman ]</p>

[davesbored]

One thing I hate is how star players like Edgar Martinez or Clemens will be put into AA or A ball if his skills start to decline. I think there should be some kind of lock where you or the AI can't send ANY player down to the minor leagues unless it is for a rehab stint.