[Paul Reuschel's Mustache]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I want to share something I’ve been noticing in OOTP 26 that has real implications for how we evaluate minor league performance.

What I found is that potential ratings now influence statistical output in the minors, The higher the potential, the greater the effect.

...players with high potential consistently produce better minor league stats than players with equal current ratings but lower ceilings. That’s new in OOTP 26. In previous versions, performance was more clearly driven by current ratings alone.

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

The whole reason for some of the complaints in the thread is that we've actually made major changes to the game engine in the last few versions to make the engine more expansive and more realistic in areas like expanding out the whole behind the scenes ratings scale to 600 (which was responsible for some of the hiccups around development and some other engine areas the last year or two, which caused some frustration).

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

The basic principle here though, that two players with equal current ratings and greatly divergent potential ratings, that the guy with the very high potential ratings would get a slight bump to current performance, I think generally makes sense.

In real-life, top prospects do not normally put up .150/.180/.220 lines anywhere, whereas lesser players might, even if in theory both should have somewhat similar current ratings (by default of being assigned to the same level, or by the lesser prospect even being significantly older than the top prospect).

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

The question of whether top prospects should get a slight boost to current performance is a valid one to debate given that they do in fact perform better in general in reality.

Your contention that this is because of their current skills solely is certainly valid, but is also not the only possible explanation, as even MLB scouts and personnel would likely debate the exact role of skills versus tools here, where a top player can get by on raw physical ability at lower levels, but get exposed once reaching MLB.

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

As far as the purpose of minor league stats though, I think you're trying to use these for something that even real life minor league stats cannot be solely used for, to gauge MLB readiness.

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I think you’re shifting the discussion away from what the actual problem is.

This is about whether minor league stats in OOTP reflect actual current ability. And what these tests show repeatedly is that they don’t.

You’re saying this is “just like real life,” but it’s not. In real life, a guy who hits .300 in AAA has real tools, even if they don’t carry over. In OOTP, a guy with no tools at all is hitting .300 just because he might someday develop them.

If the engine is giving players a performance bump because of potential, then it’s not simulating baseball. It’s simulating projection models. That’s fine for development curves. It’s not fine for in-game performance.

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Ultimately, we probably have a fundamental difference in our conception of how this should work, which is fine.

Potential ratings are tools, current ratings are ability. The fact is, that players in real-life with loud tools (potential ratings) often play over their ability (current ratings) in the minors and only get exposed in MLB.

So then, what's happening here is that the game is really just simulating that part of reality, that loud tools do help players perform better, up to a certain point.

Originally Posted by LD84

I cannot believe what I am reading

So Lukas
You are pretty much stating that current ratings should have no bearing on minor league performance but should for major league performance?

That is what I am taking away from your responses.

If so, then I have no words.

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger;5196742

Not in the least. I'm saying that players with very loud potentials (tools), more or less get a boost to their current ratings in the minors.

Originally Posted by LD84

Then we have a very fundamental disagreement in how sports management games should be designed and coded.

To me, current ratings should be just that. Current ratings that apply to where the player is currently at relative to other players ratings and the league they are in.

Potential ratings should be where the player could potentially reach one day.

I find it utterly absurd that potential ratings should have any bearing on statistical output at any level.

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

At this point, I understand Lukas isn’t likely to acknowledge this as a flaw, and I get that. He has a job to do and a product to protect.

But for anyone else reading: the tests speak for themselves. Whether you use extreme values or more common ratings, the pattern holds. Minor league sim performance is affected by potential, even when current ability is nonexistent. That makes stats misleading and forces users to rely more on ratings than results whether they want to or not.

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

You and anyone else are certainly free to disagree that things should be that way or feel they should work another way.

So now that I've clarified why some things might work the way they do, I'll bow out and let you folks debate if that's the right way for them to work or not.

Four-plus pages to go through. Here's an overview of the first two pages. These quotes are not the complete respective posts. Lots of good posts followed the last one here. Fascinating discussion.