Understanding Minor League Performance in OOTP 26

[TheSpeakerfortheDead]

I'm not sure why we are arguing anything is an issue when nobody has provided actual data at all.

Random single season anecdotes are not any where near enough data to make a conclusion on something like this. Do some testing in bulk in an isolated environment and see if the likely outcome that it is just noise is true first.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

What you're stating here might apply in a regular job, but doesn't really apply to baseball as such though.

Players viewed as having high potentials, are generally seen that way based on things like physical tools, which provide them with with an advantage compared to other players, especially at the lower levels of the game.

Often, players with raw ability can dominate at lower levels just based on those tools, even if their game remains raw overall.

Once they get to higher levels, especially MLB, then that advantage goes away, because the overall physical level is much higher. Many of those formerly highly regarded players, who have performed well at every level up until MLB then fail, because their actual abilities (current ratings) are not high enough and they can no longer depend on their physical tools (potentials).

This is a pretty well known phenomenon in most sports.

I understand people's confusion with how they expect actuals to work, but at the same time I am completely on board with this explanation. AAAA players are a real thing in MLB. Can't miss prospects that plateau in AAA and can't cut it in MLB.

[low]

Originally Posted by TheSpeakerfortheDead

I'm not sure why we are arguing anything is an issue when nobody has provided actual data at all.

Random single season anecdotes are not any where near enough data to make a conclusion on something like this. Do some testing in bulk in an isolated environment and see if the likely outcome that it is just noise is true first.

A lot of people in this thread are missing the point.

[FlexD]

I'm on board with jpeters, I created a rookie 45/80 put him straight in AAA, he hit 60 HR's , 159 RBI, his stat line was as follows, 400/513/832. Put him in the Majors, he hit 202/260/318....12 HR....37 RBI....The minor league mechanics of calculating stats is off. I don't post much but I've been around OOTP for a long time and something is off with the stat engine in the minors....

[OutS|der]

So in OOTP world minor league stats are meaningless cause they are fake due to being pumped up by players potential. No idea now when to promote a player since I can't use their stats.

People got hung up with using the number 1 for ratings and missing the point completely. A Player with a massive point difference in talent should not perform anywhere near the level of the second player. Potential or not.


Current talent should dictate stats. You can have potential dictate lineups and **** but when it comes down to performance it should be and only be based on current ability. Players with "raw" ability means they have more ability than someone without so of course they perform better.

[Brad K]

Those who think there's a problem, well, you're making progress along the typical path. Keep trying.

• There is no problem
• OK maybe, but there is insufficient data to show there's a problem.
• Whether it's a problem or not it won't be experienced in normal use.
• Yes, it's present in normal use, but you'll barely notice it.
• It exists but it's a feature not a bug. <<< YOU ARE HERE
• Etc.
• Etc.
• Etc.

This is the process that must be followed. Carry on.

[OutS|der]

Stats should always reflect current ability/current ratings and nothing else. Anything else isn't realistic and confusing.

[hockey31]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Stats should always reflect current ability/current ratings and nothing else. Anything else isn't realistic and confusing.

Agreed man, this year every save is unplayable after x years, development is awful. I understand there's bugs and growing pains, but this should be addressed prior to any new game modes or unwanted additions. This is a/the fundamental part of the game, and to brush it off like it's arbitrary is just weird.

[Paul Reuschel's Mustache]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Current talent should dictate stats

.....when it comes down to performance it should be and only be based on current ability.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Stats should always reflect current ability/current ratings and nothing else. Anything else isn't realistic and confusing.

Honestly, I don't think it's that simple. At the MLB level, yes, that makes sense.

But there have always been hitters, for example, that blow through the minors and EVERYONE expects them to become an MLB superstar.

But what happens? Turns out that they can't hit an MLB-quality curve or get their bat consistently around on fastballs that are 5 mph faster than anything they've ever faced.

So when they get to the MLB, they flatline.

If you reflected that lower limit in their potentials, then you suddenly remove a class of prospects from the game (AAAA players) that actually exist in the real world.

The Show is the final crucible for prospects, and not all of them should make it.


https://www.baseball-reference.com/r...d=philli003cha

[Matt Arnold]

Yes, as Lukas and some others have mentioned, this is meant to be closer to reality, where you have a number of prospects like a Kristian Campbell, who can tear up the minors, but still take some time to adjust to the majors. It was part of the adjustments to generate more realistic career paths for players.

We're probably a little too aggressive at the adjustment right now, though, as pointed out by some on here. It could be something we can tone down in a patch.

[WhiskyTango]

Originally Posted by brad k

those who think there's a problem, well, you're making progress along the typical path. Keep trying.

• there is no problem
• ok maybe, but there is insufficient data to show there's a problem.
• whether it's a problem or not it won't be experienced in normal use.
• yes, it's present in normal use, but you'll barely notice it.
• it exists but it's a feature not a bug. <<< you are here
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

this is the process that must be followed. Carry on.

)

[HRBaker]

.

[whaleheader]

This thread originally was based on a game bug. It's now morphed into another topic.

Accurately evaluating players is difficult. It's difficult in real life; it should be similarly difficult in the game. It's often the ability to better evaluate players that separates the winners from the losers.

Players' classic statistics often reflect good/bad luck and the inherent differences in talent at every level. If you exist in a stats-based world that demands that true talent and classic stats match in a purely linear manner, you are pushing for a game that doesn't match reality.

AA is a pivotal level that separates players who lack power, command of the strike zone (both with pitching and batting), and the ability to make adjustments.

Major League Baseball is an even bigger break point. Baseball history is filled with players who dominated the level before these break points, but, because of flaws in their games, they failed miserably at the higher levels.

Some players dominate at the lower levels because some of their abilities compensate for their deficiencies. Again, what separates the best real teams from their opponents is the ability to more accurately assess the balance of those strengths and weaknesses and/or the ability to help players improve on or compensate for the parts of their game that can prevent them from tapping into their potential at higher levels.

In real life, players are now regularly being advanced based on their underlying metrics, not on their traditional production. The game doesn't have to become physics-based to incorporate that reality. The scouting system and stats system can work just as well as long as game players accept the reality that, in a lot of cases, GMs either need to learn which attributes increase the risk of flame out (and trade these players to their opponents who don't) or need to experience the failure of these players at the critical break point levels.

I applaud the developers for trying to more realistically represent these types of players and player development in general. It makes the game better, not worse.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Yes, as Lukas and some others have mentioned, this is meant to be closer to reality, where you have a number of prospects like a Kristian Campbell, who can tear up the minors, but still take some time to adjust to the majors. It was part of the adjustments to generate more realistic career paths for players.

Wouldn't career paths like Campbell or Jackson Holliday be modeled better as coming out of the draft with current ratings that are good enough to play at AAA? Good enough to tear through the minors and not good enough to easily succeed in the MLB, while avoiding this bad situation where potential affects stats.

The challenge would be to get the AI to still put some of these players through the low minors, though nowadays teams are getting more and more aggressive with early promotions.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by whaleheader

This thread originally was based on a game bug. It's now morphed into another topic.

This thread wasn’t based on a bug. It identified and reported a change in game behavior, specifically that in OOTP 26, potential now plays a direct role in minor league statistical output. That wasn’t the case in previous versions. I think the impression that there’s a bug comes from how much more noticeable the effect is when potentials are maxed, but the underlying mechanic is present across the board.

[whaleheader]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

This thread wasn’t based on a bug. It identified and reported a change in game behavior, specifically that in OOTP 26, potential now plays a direct role in minor league statistical output. That wasn’t the case in previous versions. I think the impression that there’s a bug comes from how much more noticeable the effect is when potentials are maxed, but the underlying mechanic is present across the board.

Your original complaint was predicated on a test whose results ended up being generated by a bug. (There is clearly a bug for player results in the minor leagues with over 550 potentials.)

I'm fine with discussions morphing or expanding into other topics, but your "Edit for clarity" just takes the subsequent information shared by the developer to buttress your other complaints in the first and subsequent posts. It wasn't until the end of the third page that the thrust of the discussion changed. At that time you even suggested that Lukas was "shifting the discussion away from what the actual problem is..."

FYI, nobody has proven that the original example's impact permeates throughout the statistical output in the minor leagues. As a matter of fact, Lucas stated the following:

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

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.

That's it, that's all that's actually being discussed here once you cut to the chase.

This discussion doesn't even affect the vast majority of the players in OOTP. We're only talking about a very, very small subset of players with elite potentials here. The vast majority of of guys in OOTP who do not have stratospheric potentials will more or less play to their current ratings, even in the minors.

This change does not break the game or make minor league stats useless. Instead, it more realistically represents a small subset of players that the engine wasn't realistically replicating.

[WhiskyTango]

The debate is actually whether a simulation software replicates or emulates real world scenarios and results. The quicker, simpler method is to emulate or mimick, meaning results appear "real-worldy" given the law of averages, but as demonstrated here, start falling apart around the fringes. That is the tradeoff for obvious reasons. Given the plethora of variables factored into OOTP data generation it should be obvious the mission here is to emulate or mimick, not replicate. Getting terms right helps discussions.

What is being blurred in this discussion is the line between noticing a change in the ability to mimic - that is, produce results which seem right - and whether that change indicates the process is somehow producing inaccuracies. The answer to both questions is - yes.

Imagine if OOTP were attempting to replicate all data points, how a variation would completely skew output though remaining completely true to the inputs. Nobody obviously would want that! and the R & D would be massive.

So, the OP is right in pointing out likely what is a change in the outputs, as one of the devs admitted - that is, a change in the ability to massage inputs into recognizable outputs. But that is not to suggest the game is somehow deficient because it is not replicating.

[Brad K]

The change wasn't mentioned in the change document. Strike 1.

It was dismissed variously as irrelevant, inaccurate, or insufficiently documented. Strike 2.

"We meant to do it" is a two strike foul ball.

Hoping for some sort of recovery here.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

Wouldn't career paths like Campbell or Jackson Holliday be modeled better as coming out of the draft with current ratings that are good enough to play at AAA? Good enough to tear through the minors and not good enough to easily succeed in the MLB, while avoiding this bad situation where potential affects stats.

The challenge would be to get the AI to still put some of these players through the low minors, though nowadays teams are getting more and more aggressive with early promotions.

Yes. This is exactly how those players should be modeled. Some players blaze through the minors because someone made a "mistake" and put them into an environment where their current skills were considerably greater than the guys around them. They only stabilize once they are put into an environment where they are at the right level--which could even be the majors.

The idea of using potential ratings to influence current results is a bad model.