Scouting, Player evaluation, Trade settings, Player Development Setting-

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by jfb8300

Well, unless I'm doing it wrong it looks like fictional leagues with feeders have serious developmental issues. Of course there are previous documented issues with feeder leagues, so this isn't much of a surprise.


I've simmed hundreds of seasons over the past couple days tweaking development rates and this is the closest I can get to 2017 MLB ages:


Bat Age: .900

Bat Dev: 2.500

Pit Age: 2.200

Pit Dev: 1.625

Chart shows real life 2017 in blue, OOTP 30 and 31 years into a fictional sim in orange. Amount of players logging 200 PA, or 40 IP by age.

first, this is awesome stuff.

there are other factors that will influence this though, like player AI evaluation. basically anythign that affects player usage or considers age etc, even trading settings, possibly. i assume this is mostly default or 'challenge mode' etc?

stats lag behind ratings / ratings are lead indicators, so i'd assume that heavy stats in player eval may help keep older players around ~+1 extra year at least.

this graph shows that most don't make it to mlb by 25 (older post above thought it was odd)... and important to know any RL "line" is in itself lacking some integrity... it may be a lower, middle or higher range etc of what was possible. . impossible to re-run that bit of time over and over again, so it's always a bit of a guess. more data creates better guesses.

[itsmb8]

Originally Posted by jfb8300

Well, unless I'm doing it wrong it looks like fictional leagues with feeders have serious developmental issues. Of course there are previous documented issues with feeder leagues, so this isn't much of a surprise.


I've simmed hundreds of seasons over the past couple days tweaking development rates and this is the closest I can get to 2017 MLB ages:


Bat Age: .900

Bat Dev: 2.500

Pit Age: 2.200

Pit Dev: 1.625

Chart shows real life 2017 in blue, OOTP 30 and 31 years into a fictional sim in orange. Amount of players logging 200 PA, or 40 IP by age.

Looks incredible and really promising, but as you can imagine I'm really hesitant on using this lol.

[jfb8300]

Originally Posted by itsmb8

Looks incredible and really promising, but as you can imagine I'm really hesitant on using this lol.

The problem is, there are too many variables that need taken into account to get realistic results. I'm sure the default development rates are being tweaked every version, but who's to say what conditions are being used.

Feeders alone can be set up in an incalculable number of ways, thus affecting drafted players and development. Prior to these aging test sims I sent a week trying to get the feeders to produce the real life amount of ~63% College players, ~26% High School players, and ~11% previous years fail to sign players.

That setup gave me 96 College teams : 80 High School teams for a 6 level deep minors. Which is incredibly far away from what the game creates by default. I expected development rates would need slowed down with so many more college players being drafted, but it was quite the opposite.

An no matter how high pitching aging is set, there are always too many 35+ year old pitchers in the league.

And this doesn't even touch on what NoOne said about AI evaluation, which was stat heavy in this sim at 25/50/15/10.

So basically I give up

[itsmb8]

Originally Posted by jfb8300

The problem is, there are too many variables that need taken into account to get realistic results. I'm sure the default development rates are being tweaked every version, but who's to say what conditions are being used.

Feeders alone can be set up in an incalculable number of ways, thus affecting drafted players and development. Prior to these aging test sims I sent a week trying to get the feeders to produce the real life amount of ~63% College players, ~26% High School players, and ~11% previous years fail to sign players.

That setup gave me 96 College teams : 80 High School teams for a 6 level deep minors. Which is incredibly far away from what the game creates by default. I expected development rates would need slowed down with so many more college players being drafted, but it was quite the opposite.

An no matter how high pitching aging is set, there are always too many 35+ year old pitchers in the league.

And this doesn't even touch on what NoOne said about AI evaluation, which was stat heavy in this sim at 25/50/15/10.

So basically I give up

Youre saying that was used with feeders? How might using those modifiers look with a modern setup w/ no feeders

[PSUColonel]

Are people still using the default 65/20/10/5 even when running fictional leagues, or even MLB leagues well into the future?

[Rain King]

I never use those settings. They aren't even the default fictional settings, they are simply to help the AI fill out lineups as close to real-life as possible at the very beginning of an current year MLB save.

[Orcin]

I use 65/20/10/5 for all leagues now. I find the AI to be more competitive with these settings and 100% accuracy on scouting.

[Klew1986]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I use 65/20/10/5 for all leagues now. I find the AI to be more competitive with these settings and 100% accuracy on scouting.

would you recommend this for a new game? I have never done 100% accuracy on scouting. What is the benefit?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I use 65/20/10/5 for all leagues now. I find the AI to be more competitive with these settings and 100% accuracy on scouting.

There is an issue with doing this however...you don’t need to pour money into your budget for scouting (which removes realism) and it’s likely the AI still does. You could always just turn scouting off all together, but again, you’d be sacrificing a good chunk of rralism

[Rain King]

I honestly mostly run in "God Mode" and don't do much managing/playing myself. So, I use settings to try to make the AI more realistic, not more "competitive". Those settings probably do make the AI smarter.

[itsmb8]

What is a good AI Eval setting for a stats heavy base, or going stats only? I dont feel like I would want stats heavy because IMO a lot of decisions are based on how the player is producing. If they were rating heavy, I feel like breakout stars like Aguilar and Muncy would've be given opportunities because of what their ratings say even though their production would be much higher.

[itsmb8]

Originally Posted by jfb8300

Well, unless I'm doing it wrong it looks like fictional leagues with feeders have serious developmental issues. Of course there are previous documented issues with feeder leagues, so this isn't much of a surprise.


I've simmed hundreds of seasons over the past couple days tweaking development rates and this is the closest I can get to 2017 MLB ages:


Bat Age: .900

Bat Dev: 2.500

Pit Age: 2.200

Pit Dev: 1.625

Chart shows real life 2017 in blue, OOTP 30 and 31 years into a fictional sim in orange. Amount of players logging 200 PA, or 40 IP by age.

Have you done any more testing on this than what you did originally? How is it still working out for you

[frank_olaf]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

One thing I keep going back and forth on...is weather or not to show overall and potential ratings.

I like having them to help me sort players in the draft, free agent lists, etc...

but I hate them in that I often feel they are not truly reflective of any given player's abilities, and that they become too much of a crutch, and prevent me from really truly analyzing players.

I also have a tendency to alter the AI evaluation settings when doing this to 40/30/20/10.

When I use overall ratings (20-80 5 point scale) I tend to have AI evaluation at either 55/25/15/5 or the defaults.

PSUColonel, just to clarify, when you say you use 40/30/20/10 when doing this, do you mean when you turn overall and potential ratings off?

I always play with them off and have my AI settings at 40/35/20/5. I'm can't remember what my logic for this was but I think I wanted more of an emphasis on stats. Although, having read through this, i'm thinking of upping the ratings weight.

[jfb8300]

Originally Posted by itsmb8

Have you done any more testing on this than what you did originally? How is it still working out for you

Still working on it. Using a bigger sample size and been playing with injury settings as well. Will hopefully post something later today.

[PSUColonel]

I just cannot bring myself to use overall ratings (stars or 20-80) because of the many, many situations like the one below. The lack of consistency just ruins it for me, so I turn them off. It's a shame this has never been able to be fixed. If I had to guess, it probably never will be either, or it already would have been. Same day, first day of a MLB startup....the issue started right after installing the latest update...but this just happens all the time and I can't even report it as a bug anymore because I think it's just the way OOTP is....so that's why I have overall ratings turned off.

[Cactusguy21]

when you say 65/20/10/5, are you referring to the player evaluation numbers? So 65 is ratings, 20 is this years stats, 10 last year, and 5 two years ago?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Cactusguy21

when you say 65/20/10/5, are you referring to the player evaluation numbers? So 65 is ratings, 20 is this years stats, 10 last year, and 5 two years ago?

yes

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by frank_olaf

PSUColonel, just to clarify, when you say you use 40/30/20/10 when doing this, do you mean when you turn overall and potential ratings off?

I always play with them off and have my AI settings at 40/35/20/5. I'm can't remember what my logic for this was but I think I wanted more of an emphasis on stats. Although, having read through this, i'm thinking of upping the ratings weight.

No, I turn the OVERALL current and potential ratings off. I still use the current and future component ratings.

[frank_olaf]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

No, I turn the OVERALL current and potential ratings off. I still use the current and future component ratings.

Yeah, that's the same as I have. I turn off the overall current and potential but leave the current and potential on for the individual ratings (like contact, power, eye, stuff control etc).

Are you using 40/30/20/10 in that situation?

Thanks.

[jfb8300]

So this graph is an average of 2016-2018 MLB players obtaining 200PA or 40IP in a season.

The OOTP numbers are from a fictional 24 team league with college heavy feeders and default injuries in seasons 30, 31, and 32 after creation.

This is the closest I've managed to get the graph after simming some 500+ seasons. Why they are so extreme, I don't know. But this is what makes the graph work at least in the league configuration that I run.

Batters age: .200
Batters dev: 1.300

Pitchers age: 2.000
Pitchers dev: 2.000