[NoOne]

Nobody is being mean.

Stats can be calculated from output, like fwar or woba etc, but anything like exit velo and such is simply not part of the game engine. you see something that takes basic outcome of a PA and generates some play-by-play that would represent that result and fairly well-distributed to seem realistic

The visible players on the field are not teh same as players on the field in a game like 'mlb the show'. They are pre-ordained puppets that don't work on physics or ai decisions etc.

it could add some of the statcast stuff.. e.g. a dobule to field position ranges can be given some random exit velo that makes sense for distance and such. But, it's just a superficial layer. *With any odd field configurations, that exit velow might have to be 500mph to make sense, lol. the distance isn't really part of the math for outcomes, either, but you see they incorporate it into the game as a superficial layer.

For the most part the increment of the game is a PA - though maybe error% chance plays out every pitch? Regardless, this is why overlall pitching stuff and pitch selection impact results but doesn't actually consider any single pitch as part of the plate appearance math.

Yes, they probably could overlay some of that stuff into play-by-play generation. It just might not be useful information. it would be randomly generated numbers to fit the outcome that was calculated for the PA. But, neither are the visible players moving around "meaningful" and people still like that.

i think some stuff woudl be easy to calculate but making sure everything is in teh right proportion and jives with every single outcome.. have to look statcast info by statcast info and look for oddities that need to be ironed out. e.g i bet incorporating exit velo and launch angle could be done with a few lines of code because that stuff strongly correlates to result of the contact.

statcast keeps track of crazy stuff like how high a ball was hit.. 4' 7" or something was the highest hit ball that ended up a home run in 2025, for example... i think it's a bit higher but in that range. you'd have to dive into distribution of such things and implement it side-by-side with the loop of code for play-by-play. some things might require a whole boatload of work to display it correctly and none of it would impact how any game plays out. 100% superficial for people to read in play-by-play.

i'd rather see time and effort invested elsewhere, but i'm just 1 data point and i don't bother with much of the superficial stuff. I already turn off 3d and facegen, replays, wpa graphs, game logs etc, lol, but i do keep box scores. As long as it doesn't slow down the game or able to turn it off, cool beans.

----------------

slumps and hot streaks are a top-down inductive thing that probably aren't true. A pitcher may strt to tip pitches or go throug a divorce off field, but otherwise have their probabiltiy of outcomes shift by real cause and effect and not just some whimsical streak.

They've shown that once you recognize or cold or hot streak, the player is already out of it, for the most part.

law of independent results... if there is a cause for a shift, sure, but things don't magically happen without a causal factor or several causal factors.

a 'confidence' rating might be rational. It woud definitely have to be hidden if it is causal to results and not a superficial display. You'd know exactly when to sit certain playrs, lol. Random things liek 'playing going through divorce' or 'child died of cancer' or 'was out drinking and loading up on the booger sugar until 5am' etc.. could impact ratings in a rational and distributed way to represent increasingly detailed effects on results. Even though it isn't currently in the game, the probability of it is already baked into it because it is part of reality and that's the source.

However, how good you did yesterday and the day before on its own does not impact probabilities. law of independent resutls. flip a coin and even if it shows heads 10x im a row, it's still 50/50 each flip. Doesn't mean baseball palyers aren't complicated and numerous things we don't see go into how well they will play one day to the next.

i think ootp sticks to this well. I don't know of any part that doesn't. Development of prospects doesn't seem to be based on results -- i'll leave open the possibility of being completely overmatched doing something harmful to the process. We could test that by moving all first year mil playrs to AAA and comparing to normal development probabilities. That would tell us if being overmatched mattered, not necessarily if results matter to development.

i recall them saying it has little to no impact somewhere in the forums (too many years to be 100% confident about that memory), but nuance is possible like shoving a 20/80 18year old in AAA, even if they did state such a thing in a broad way.