Player development

[Charlie Hough]

By the way, based on the earlier discussion about players with very high potential becoming stars, I have been running a test with a new saved game starting in 1950. I will share before-and-after screenshots and more details on player ratings later, but here is the list of players that I am tracking:

Willie Mays
Mickey Mantle
Eddie Mathews
Joe Cunningham
Whitey Ford
Carl Erskine
Ray Herbert
Roy Sievers
Sam Jones

Most of these players are future MLB stars who receive very high potential ratings when they are created in a 1950 historical game using historical minors. Most had only one, two, or three stars of current ability, but they all had 4.5 to 5.0 stars of potential.

Thus far, nearly all of these players have developed into stars or are on track to realize their full potential, and it is only 1953. Mathews, Mantle, Cunningham and Ford made huge leaps in just a couple of years. A couple of players such as Mathews are now even a bit better in certain ratings than their original potential indicated, so they've developed beyond their potential.

Absolutely no one has failed to develop positively toward their potential. Willie Mays has been a bit slower to develop than most of the others, but he was already in MLB in 1951 and has been playing regularly, putting up solid stats for a young player who is now only 21. His recent ratings increase going into 1953 will likely make him a very good player, and he still has potential ahead of him, especially in home run power.

Sam Jones and Roy Sievers have not been as impressive because they had the lowest potential of all of these players, and they were already in their early 20s when the game started. Sievers did not have a great season in 1930, so his initial ratings were considerably lower than they would have been if they were based on 1949. Both Jones and Sievers were players who did not become MLB regulars or did not reach MLB stardom until they were nearly 30.

Now that they are in their mid-20s in OOTP, their potential stars are not as high as they were when they were created. Once you're around 26 or 27 years old in OOTP, that's when the development engine will typically start leveling off your development, so these will probably never become as good as they were in real life. It's just an unfortunate timing issue. The same thing tends to happen with players such as Kent Tekulve, who didn't make his MLB debut until he was 27 and didn't become a top reliever until he was 30. In OOTP, he is unlikely to do the same. He probably won't reach his potential. Then again, cases like those late developers are extremely rare in baseball, so it's realistic.

[Andrej72]

I read somewhere earlier that if you use the development engine then players can learn new positions.

In my case when I imported Aaron in 1953 he has ratings for LF and 2B, and I think he did not start ro play RF later in his career. So, if I make him start at RF later on, can he really learn that position?

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Andrej72

In my case when I imported Aaron in 1953 he has ratings for LF and 2B, and I think he did not start to play RF later in his career. So, if I make him start at RF later on, can he really learn that position?

Yes, players can learn new positions in OOTP, whether it is a modern, historical or fictional game. If he already has infield or outfield defensive ratings, a player can potentially learn other infield or outfield positions. However, a player cannot learn to be a 2B, SS or 3B if he is left-handed.

As soon as you play a player at a new position, he will be given a position rating there. It will be very low because he is just starting to gain experience. But, if you keep playing him in that position, he will gain more experience, and he will get better. If you play with spring training turned on, spring training games are a great way to give a player a lot of time at a new position and help him gain experience quickly. But you can do it during the regular season too.

For example, in my 1930s Boston Braves game, I signed Jake Dunn from the Negro Leagues in 1930. He was a SS for the Detroit Stars, and we purchased his contract and kept him in the minors for 1930. Then I used him as a backup player at SS in 1931 and 1932. Then, in 1933, his offensive and infield defensive ratings were better than my backup 3B, so I wanted to start playing him at 3B. I used him against left-handed pitchers at 3B, and I played him as a backup shortstop behind Arky Vaughan.

He played 17 games at 3B and 17 games at SS. During that time, he quickly went from no rating at 3B to a 1, 2, 3, and eventually a 4 rating (on a 10-point scale). He also developed a potential of 7 at 3B. Since his infield defensive ratings were already very good, he committed only two errors at 3B and had a fielding percentage of .939. The stats show that his range and overall defensive effectiveness were not as good as he was at shortstop, but he definitely had a better fielding percentage and made fewer errors at 3B. If he continues to play at 3B, he will get better and will probably be as good at 3B as he is at SS.

For more information on teaching players new positions in OOTP, you can read this recent thread: https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=350060

[Andrej72]

So it might make sense to put Aaron ro RF till he plays in the Triple A team to gain experience there as well. As I read in various sources big sluggers with weaker throwing arm are put ro RF. As I can recall Hank has an outfield range rating like 40, so he might fit better to RF. I think I read somewhere that even though player can learn new positions, but their initial arm, range, error rating will not change or improve. That essentially means that e.g. an 1915 "edition" of Babe Ruth will have to be a pitcher for his whole career. His OF (arm, range, error) ratings are around 20-30. I think IRL he did not play any other position than pitcher till 1918.

[Andrej72]

An other example of alternate history. Larry Pennel IRL never played in the majors, and became an actor instead. However in my save, in spite of being a fringe player, in 46 games 41 AB he slugged 5 homers 13 RBI .390 BA .469 OBP .902 SLG. I use him exclusively as PH versus RHPs.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Andrej72

I think I read somewhere that even though player can learn new positions, but their initial arm, range, error rating will not change or improve.

This is not true. With the development engine, players can improve in all of their ratings.

For example, here is a comparison of Eddie Mathews' ratings from spring of 1950 to the spring of 1953, using a 10-point scale:

1950
Outfield Range: 7
Outfield Error: 7
Outfield Arm: 6

1953
Outfield Range: 9
Outfield Error: 8
Outfield Arm: 6

Here are the ratings for Mickey Mantle, after that same span of time:

1950
Outfield Range: 7
Outfield Error: 6
Outfield Arm: 6

1953
Outfield Range: 8
Outfield Error: 7
Outfield Arm: 6

However, this does not mean that Babe Ruth will become an outfielder if you start a game when he was only a pitcher in MLB. If you start a game in 1914, he will have no fielding ratings or potential as an outfielder, unless you base fielding ratings on a player's entire career. However, if you start in 1917 and use a three-year period for fielding ratings, OOTP will rate him at OF and 1B, since he played at those positions in 1918.

I will try to encourage OOTP Developments to give us the option to create fielding potential ratings and potential pitcher stamina based on a player's peak seasons, remaining peak seasons or his entire career like we can do with the core batting and pitching ratings. That way, Ruth would only have good ratings as a pitcher when he is first imported into a historical game, but he will have the potential to become an outfielder or play first base. If you start using him at those positions, or the development engine updates his current ratings at those positions, then he could reach his potential or even exceed it.

[Andrej72]

"However, this does not mean that Babe Ruth will become an outfielder if you start a game when he was only a pitcher in MLB."

But then the possibility is there, right? I can start him playing as outfielder, but with those extremly low outfield ratings he cannot throw back a ball, and that will cost a lot of games until he becomes competent enough. Or eventually one can use spring training matches to train new positions. As I read Ruth first played at 1B during 1918 spring training.

[Brad K]

A player will not develop acceptable fielding ratings in a category he didn't play real life or that the game doesn't recognize he played real life. The categories are IF, OF, C, and P. While the manual claims the game follows the defensive spectrum it doesn't do so completely.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

By the way, based on the earlier discussion about players with very high potential becoming stars, I have been running a test with a new saved game starting in 1950. I will share before-and-after screenshots and more details on player ratings later, but here is the list of players that I am tracking:

Willie Mays
Mickey Mantle
Eddie Mathews
Joe Cunningham
Whitey Ford
Carl Erskine
Ray Herbert
Roy Sievers
Sam Jones

Most of these players are future MLB stars who receive very high potential ratings when they are created in a 1950 historical game using historical minors. Most had only one, two, or three stars of current ability, but they all had 4.5 to 5.0 stars of potential.

Thus far, nearly all of these players have developed into stars or are on track to realize their full potential, and it is only 1953...

I assume you are doing a test that's pretty close to the OP. But asking to be sure: What setting are you using? Recalc, development, TCR...

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

The problem you saw with Oliver, however, was likely due to missing data in the OOTP fielding stats database.... and I'm not sure how it would even make him a 1B.

I think - but am not sure - that 1B is the default position that OOTP gives a player who imports without fielding stats. I seem to recall that's what OOTP always did with Roy Gleason for 1964 (in an MLB historical; if using minors it will know that he's an outfielder... and also a first-sacker in 1966...)

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by thehef

I think - but am not sure - that 1B is the default position that OOTP gives a player who imports without fielding stats. I seem to recall that's what OOTP always did with Roy Gleason for 1964 (in an MLB historical; if using minors it will know that he's an outfielder... and also a first-sacker in 1966...)

Everyone should be able to get a rating at 1B. It irritates me that a player can come up as a 1B then RL switch to another position and lose his 1B rating. Players aren't pushed out of 1B by better fielders. They're pushed out by better hitters.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by thehef

I assume you are doing a test that's pretty close to the OP. But asking to be sure: What setting are you using? Recalc, development, TCR.

Yes, I am using the exact same conditions. In fact, he started his saved game based on the settings that I use in my games. We originally discussed this via PM, and he decided to try my settings. However, my game started in 1950, so I wasn't trying to import Willie Mays in the same year, at the same age. My test is designed to look at how players with very high potential tend to develop, and so far it reinforces the impression I have always had, which is that historical players with star-level potential at a young age tend to develop into stars.

Also, yes, 1B tends to be the default position in OOTP when historical fielding ratings are missing, but I had not looked at any cases of this since OOTP 23, so I wasn't sure if that's still how it works.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Brad K

A player will not develop acceptable fielding ratings in a category he didn't play real life or that the game doesn't recognize he played in real life.

This should absolutely not work this way. The development engine is supposed to be independent of real-life stats, but I just ran a test where I had Harvey Kuenn play a full season at LF, and even though the player editor says he now has an experience of 157 at LF, he still has no position rating there. His outfield defensive ratings did not change either. He has far more experience at LF than 2B, where he is currently rated, but OOTP has not added a positional rating for him at LF. It appears that OOTP has locked the resulting ratings for certain positions, so experience has no effect and cannot create a resulting rating.

I don't know if this is broken or if it is deliberate, but it should not work this way. I don't think OOTP works that way in modern MLB games, where players already have experience and past stats at certain positions. I don't know why these limitations would exist for historical games, particularly if you are not using recalc and are using the development engine.

I will submit this as a request for OOTP 25. When using development, historical players need to have the ability to learn new positions like they normally can in real life.

[Reed]

Good discussion.
My question would be what happens to potential to a player like Sandy Koufax or Pete Dowling (who quit baseball after a good year at age 24) if you are playing 3 year (or 1/5 year recalc) but have retire according to history OFF. Will their potential staY static or follow their aging arc? What if you set tcr to 1 vs 100 in this case for someone like Koufax? If set to 1 will he still play at an elite level forever?

[Brad K]

With three year recalc and dev I've had Koufax and Ken Hubbs play well for six to eight years past their retirement although not all the time.

I believe TCR affects changes during the season and the end of season rating doesn't carry into the next season.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

This should absolutely not work this way. The development engine is supposed to be independent of real-life stats, but I just ran a test where I had Harvey Kuenn play a full season at LF, and even though the player editor says he now has an experience of 157 at LF, he still has no position rating there. His outfield defensive ratings did not change either. He has far more experience at LF than 2B, where he is currently rated, but OOTP has not added a positional rating for him at LF. It appears that OOTP has locked the resulting ratings for certain positions, so experience has no effect and cannot create a resulting rating.

I don't understand the example. You say dev should be independent of RL stats but you tested a player who has RL stats at the tested position.

For historical players I think they should be able to be trained to play any position they played anytime in RL at any time in OOTP. I don't like it at all that Caesar Tovar loses his IF ratings at a point then gets them back later. However a player who never played a position category RL should not always be able to do so under dev only. Perhaps most of he time he should not.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Reed

Good discussion.
My question would be what happens to potential to a player like Sandy Koufax or Pete Dowling (who quit baseball after a good year at age 24) if you are playing 3 year (or 1/5 year recalc) but have retire according to history OFF. Will their potential staY static or follow their aging arc? What if you set tcr to 1 vs 100 in this case for someone like Koufax? If set to 1 will he still play at an elite level forever?

Brad nailed it. I've had Britt Burns win as many as 300 games in a combined recalc/development league. I've had Koufax pitch well into his late 30's and I've had him retire as young as 35. I find if a player gets hit with a significant injury they may decline faster and therefore retire faster.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I don't understand the example. You say dev should be independent of RL stats but you tested a player who has RL stats at the tested position.

For historical players I think they should be able to be trained to play any position they played anytime in RL at any time in OOTP. I don't like it at all that Caesar Tovar loses his IF ratings at a point then gets them back later. However a player who never played a position category RL should not always be able to do so under dev only. Perhaps most of he time he should not.

This is how I would love to see it done as well. I think if it's a position the player didn't play in real life there should be quite a few failures. I also think the AI has to value defense enough that moving Miguel Sano to SS, doesn't work, unless it's to get George Brett or Mike Schmidt into the lineup at 3B. Doing it to get Brandon Inge playing time at 3B, not so much.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I don't understand the example. You say dev should be independent of RL stats but you tested a player who has RL stats at the tested position.

I base fielding ratings on a three-year period, so OOTP ignores any real life stats beyond that range when determining positional ratings, as well as current and potential fielding ratings. Apparently, it also locks players out of any possibility of learning positions that aren't adjacent to the positions they played within the range of your setting.

Thus, if played an infield position in the range of years specified for player creation, you can learn other infield positions, but apparently you can't learn to play the outfield. If you played in the outfield within that range, you can learn other outfield positions, but you probably can't learn to play in the infield based on my test result. I would assume that there are similar restrictions for a case such as Babe Ruth, and maybe he can't learn to be anything but a pitcher if your fielding ratings range doesn't include any of the seasons when he started to play other positions.

Thus, with a three-year period for calculating a player's initial fielding ratings and potential, Harvey Kuenn was locked out of any possibility of learning to play in the outfield. That's because he did not play there in real life until several years into his career, which was outside the range of my setting.

This is a completely unexpected and unwanted problem, and I'm not sure if it's intentional, but it shouldn't be. Otherwise, you're not only defeating part of the purpose of the development engine, but you're causing it to work differently for historical players than it does for other types of OOTP players.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I base fielding ratings on a three-year period, so OOTP ignores any real life stats beyond that range when determining positional ratings, as well as current and potential fielding ratings. Apparently, it also locks players out of any possibility of learning positions that aren't adjacent to the positions they played within the range of your setting.

Thus, if played an infield position in the range of years specified for player creation, you can learn other infield positions, but apparently you can't learn to play the outfield. If you played in the outfield within that range, you can learn other outfield positions, but you probably can't learn to play in the infield based on my test result. I would assume that there are similar restrictions for a case such as Babe Ruth, and maybe he can't learn to be anything but a pitcher if your fielding ratings range doesn't include any of the seasons when he started to play other positions.

Thus, with a three-year period for calculating a player's initial fielding ratings and potential, Harvey Kuenn was locked out of any possibility of learning to play in the outfield. That's because he did not play there in real life until several years into his career, which was outside the range of my setting.

This is a completely unexpected and unwanted problem, and I'm not sure if it's intentional, but it shouldn't be. Otherwise, you're not only defeating part of the purpose of the development engine, but you're causing it to work differently for historical players than it does for other types of OOTP players.

I might be misunderstanding, so I will just ask, would you be interested in playing OOTP if you turned it on one day and Roberto Clemente was playing SS?

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I might be misunderstanding, so I will just ask, would you be interested in playing OOTP if you turned it on one day and Roberto Clemente was playing SS?

It depends on whether I'm using recalc or development. In a strict recalc game, I can understand some people wanting to prevent a player from learning positions that he never played in real life. I'm sure that's why these position restrictions were implemented in the code, but the problem is that they're not just being applied to recalc games. They also affect games where the user has chosen to use development instead of recalc.

Now, if someone wants to use development but still doesn't want Clemente to have any chance to learn positions that he never played in real life, then they should have the option to prevent that.

However, for me personally, even in a recalc game, if the AI decides that it wants to have Clemente learn to play shortstop because it's severely lacking at that position in the organization, and it wants to invest the time in spring training and the regular season to do, with all the risks of errors and issues along the way, I don't necessarily mind it. I certainly want the freedom to do that with players on my own teams.

I especially do not want Clemente prevented from doing that in a development game. When you're using development, you're actively asking OOTP to allow players to evolve and develop in ways that they never did in real life. So, why would you say that you want them to evolve and develop in every other aspect of the game, but not in potentially learning new positions?

The mere fact that Clemente never played shortstop in real life should never mean that he is forced to do the same thing in a development game. The only reasons he played the positions that he did in real life were the original real life circumstance, development, and management decisions at the time. Things could have been completely different with different circumstances and decisions, so in a development game where we are inviting alternate history, it should be entirely possible for those differences to play out and for him to learn new positions.

It already happens with every other aspect of a player's ratings, potential and abilities in a development game. Why would it be disallowed and blocked when it comes to learning new positions? It makes no sense to me, and it contradicts a significant aspect of the development engine. Of course, if other people want to keep those blocks and restrictions in place, then they should have the option to keep them. But we need the option to eliminate them, and, in a development game, I think it makes more sense to make that the default.

These are going to be rare occurrences anyway. It's not as if dozens of historical players are suddenly going to start being played in new positions and learning them. It doesn't happen that way with modern MLB or fictional games, so it wouldn't happen with historical games.