Player development

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

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.

Okay, I don't totally disagree. My issue is that I often play recalc with development on as well. This keeps things really close to real life, but allows the development engine to take over when guys run out of recalc years. If the game is going to allow players to learn positions, it really needs to ensure that the player doesn't lose that ability once recalc is run for the following season.

My problem with players playing out of position continues to be that it often makes zero sense. For example, Scott Rolen moving to SS and doing so with horrible ratings. Meanwhile, the player that the AI has in his place at 3B is rated to play SS with way better ratings than Rolen. Moving Miguel Sano to SS with a red 1 rating and playing Joe Can't hit a lick at 3B,

I also think over the last few versions with how fictional and the MLB Quickstart are filled with so many players that can play all over the field, roster construction for the historical game has really suffered. All too often I see a team without adequate subs for tired players.

[Brad K]

Even if OOTP doesn't allow it often there would be a significant increase in offense provided by middle infielders.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Okay, I don't totally disagree. My issue is that I often play recalc with development on as well. This keeps things really close to real life, but allows the development engine to take over when guys run out of recalc years.

I have good news for you. This was changed in OOTP years ago, and the development engine takes over for players whose stats run out in the database, even if development is disabled. This happens with recalc turned on and development disabled, and if you're not having players retire according to history. So, you can just turn off development now, if that's what you prefer.

Here is a quick example of what happened with Harry Chase in a game that started in 1919, which was his last season with the Giants and his last season in the database. The first image shows his ratings when the game was created. The second image shows his ratings two years later. He will continue to decline, and probably pretty rapidly, especially since he's 38 years old now.

I pushed for this and eventually got Markus to add it to the game a number of versions ago, so I'll take at least partial credit.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I have good news for you. This was changed in OOTP years ago, and the development engine takes over for players whose stats run out in the database, even if development is disabled. This happens with recalc turned on and development disabled, and if you're not having players retire according to history. So, you can just turn off development now, if that's what you prefer.

Here is a quick example of what happened with Harry Chase in a game that started in 1919, which was his last season with the Giants and his last season in the database. The first image shows his ratings when the game was created. The second image shows his ratings two years later. He will continue to decline, and probably pretty rapidly, especially since he's 38 years old now.

I pushed for this and eventually got Markus to add it to the game a number of versions ago, so I'll take at least partial credit.

Have you tested it on a guy like Sandy Koufax? Or Britt Burns? I know Koufax used to do the Bill Murray Groundhog deal into his 40's with development off. You could always tell he was having the same season over and over again.

[Andrej72]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Have you tested it on a guy like Sandy Koufax? Or Britt Burns? I know Koufax used to do the Bill Murray Groundhog deal into his 40's with development off. You could always tell he was having the same season over and over again.

I think that Brad showed his in his topic. Sandy Koufax was still a star at 37 (if I remember correctly).

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Andrej72

I think that Brad showed his in his topic. Sandy Koufax was still a star at 37 (if I remember correctly).

Yes he did, but I know Brad is using a combo of recalc and development. What Charlie is talking about in his post is recalc with development turned off. In the past this a guy like Koufax that ended his career with a season most could only dream of having in their prime, would repeat that final season over and over well into his 40 if development was off.

[Charlie Hough]

I never tested Koufax specifically, but the potential effects are going to be the same for everyone, depending on their age and randomness. No one stays at the same level indefinitely anymore. In any historical game where Koufax doesn't retire and the development engine takes over, he will probably remain a huge star for at least several years because he retired so early and was so dominant when he did. Even if he starts declining once he's in his mid-30s, he starts from such a high point that his ratings can decline a fair bit, and he can still be a star.

However, as all players age, the chance that they will start declining increases. That chance, and the potential severity of the decline, increases significantly as they reach their mid-30s and beyond. If Koufax manages to reach his late 30s without significant decline, there is a much higher chance that he's going to start dropping. It could be slow and gradual, or it could be quick and dramatic.

For example, in my test with Hal Chase, his ratings dropped from 1919 to 1920, but then they remained the same for the next two seasons, when he reached the age of 39. But, during those two seasons, the Giants stopped using him much at all, and after those two years with very few at-bats, he retired. He was still a very serviceable player with pretty decent ratings, but I suspect that the lack of playing time likely influenced his decision to retire. Had he kept playing, though, he probably would have seen another decline and possibly a significant one as he reached 40 or a bit beyond.

In another game, I had a starter who was one of the top pitchers in MLB at the age of 37, but he suddenly collapsed when the game moved to the next season. He wasn't even good enough to pitch in the majors anymore, so I sent him to the minors for one year and then released him.

Just as in real life, some players defy age. Most do not. Many will go through a slow and gradual decline, and some will suddenly collapse. That's how the development engine works, especially as players get older.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I never tested Koufax specifically, but the potential effects are going to be the same for everyone, depending on their age and randomness. No one stays at the same level indefinitely anymore. In any historical game where Koufax doesn't retire and the development engine takes over, he will probably remain a huge star for at least several years because he retired so early and was so dominant when he did. Even if he starts declining once he's in his mid-30s, he starts from such a high point that his ratings can decline a fair bit, and he can still be a star.

However, as all players age, the chance that they will start declining increases. That chance, and the potential severity of the decline, increases significantly as they reach their mid-30s and beyond. If Koufax manages to reach his late 30s without significant decline, there is a much higher chance that he's going to start dropping. It could be slow and gradual, or it could be quick and dramatic.

For example, in my test with Hal Chase, his ratings dropped from 1919 to 1920, but then they remained the same for the next two seasons, when he reached the age of 39. But, during those two seasons, the Giants stopped using him much at all, and after those two years with very few at-bats, he retired. He was still a very serviceable player with pretty decent ratings, but I suspect that the lack of playing time likely influenced his decision to retire. Had he kept playing, though, he probably would have seen another decline and possibly a significant one as he reached 40 or a bit beyond.

In another game, I had a starter who was one of the top pitchers in MLB at the age of 37, but he suddenly collapsed when the game moved to the next season. He wasn't even good enough to pitch in the majors anymore, so I sent him to the minors for one year and then released him.

Just as in real life, some players defy age. Most do not. Many will go through a slow and gradual decline, and some will suddenly collapse. That's how the development engine works, especially as players get older.

I will have to give this a try at some point.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I have good news for you. This was changed in OOTP years ago, and the development engine takes over for players whose stats run out in the database, even if development is disabled.

So OFF doesn't mean OFF.

Real Stats aren't real.

Real Splits don't look real to me although I haven't done a serious analysis yet.

Why are things mislabeled?

[Brad K]

George Korinc and Carlos Bernier in This Thread. I think Bernier might have done better if I had historical minors enabled. He was very good in AAA. Clearly a guy who was good enough for MLB except for playing in a era where the color line was broken only for star players.

[Charlie Hough]

I'm running a test with Koufax right now, and he has continued to defy age in OOTP. I started a game in 1966, and his ratings remained the same for the first three seasons. But then his stuff, movement and control all increased slightly going into 1970, when he was 34. So, the development engine caused him to improve a bit in his mid-30s, which further insulated him against future decline. After a couple of seasons at that level, one of his ratings dropped back to where it was, but his stuff and control remained at the same increased level. He continued to be one of the most dominant pitchers in the game for years, beyond the age of 40.

Mickey Mantle, who retired in 1968 IRL, had a much longer career in OOTP, but his ratings definitely moved and then declined. His power dropped in 1969 but then recovered years later, when he was past 45 years old. But then it dropped again, and so did his contact, and he retired in 1977.

Roger Maris, who retired in 1968 IRL, immediately lost some contact and eye rating for 1969, then lost some power, then regained some power for three seasons, and then retired at the age of 39.

Harvey Kuenn, who also retired in 1966 IRL, played for a few more years in this test game, but then his power dropped a bit, and suddenly he retired. His other ratings look like they were the same, but he definitely had a drop in power.

Joe Nuxhall, who retired IRL in 1966, saw his stuff improve a bit, but then it came back down, and he retired at age 43 after the 1970 season, with ratings about the same as he had in 1966.

Minnie Rojas, who retired in 1968 IRL but had minors stats for 1969, gained a bit of movement in that last recalc, but he lost it again for 1970 and retired after that season.

Vern Law, who retired in 1967 in IRL, has been up and down in ratings since then, and amazingly he is pitching at age 48, but his performance is really poor. The scouting updates don't tell me if his pitches changed, but all of them are below-average, so that's probably why his stats have fallen off.

Looking at bunch of other retired players, many had their ratings remain stable, at least according to basic scouting reports, and quite a few retired after anywhere from one to several more seasons than they played in real life.

From this test, it's pretty clear that development is working for players who don't have real-life stats, but it's not working anywhere near as significantly as it does in a game with development turned on. It certainly hasn't weakened Koufax, but his ratings definitely did change a couple of times. They just haven't ended up worse than they were at his starting point.

So, I would say that this aspect of OOTP needs improvement. This is only one test sim, but the level of decline is nothing like I would expect in a regular development game, and while I could adjust the aging factors to try to expedite the process or make it more dramatic, it would be better if it worked properly by default. I wonder if the development team decided to make the development effects less significant for these historical games with recalc on but development generally disabled.

UPDATE: Sandy Koufax is definitely a problem. After he went through that period of minor changes during the 1971 to 1976 range, where a couple of his core ratings either improved or declined back to what they were, his ratings have not changed in seven years since then, and he's still one of the best pitchers in baseball at the age of nearly 48, in 1983. I have a suspicion that this may be due to the fact that Sandy retired at a time when both his current and potential ratings were at at extremely high level, and this is throwing off the development engine. Whatever is happening, it is clearly causing him not to decline the way other players would, and I think OOTP keeps having Koufax play and not retire because his ratings are so high. Many other players with much more modest ratings are retiring, even if they haven't declined much or at all.

[Brad K]

Good ratings after RL retirement needs to be compensated for by other players being taken out of the game early with career ending injuries.

[Brad K]

Except when historical transactions and lineups are used, the talent in a league varies from historical. With benefit of ratings for a season in advance of performance, GMs may choose to start players who were on the bench, bench players who were starters, or demote, trade, or release regulars who they know had terrible seasons.

But, apparently early on in OOTP history, customers wanted overall league stats to be close to what they were historically. Thus we have the league modifiers process which tests the league in advance and hammers to output to be the closest match to historical possible regardless of the talent in the league. Customers who expect the same output with different input are wrong. OOTP needs to tell them this.

However I have the suspicion that with everything set to historical the rating process alone will not result in league stats that match historical. If so this means the modifiers routine is there to adjust for an ineffective rating system.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

UPDATE: Sandy Koufax is definitely a problem. After he went through that period of minor changes during the 1971 to 1976 range, where a couple of his core ratings either improved or declined back to what they were, his ratings have not changed in seven years since then, and he's still one of the best pitchers in baseball at the age of nearly 48, in 1983. I have a suspicion that this may be due to the fact that Sandy retired at a time when both his current and potential ratings were at at extremely high level, and this is throwing off the development engine. Whatever is happening, it is clearly causing him not to decline the way other players would, and I think OOTP keeps having Koufax play and not retire because his ratings are so high. Many other players with much more modest ratings are retiring, even if they haven't declined much or at all.

Well then recalc only doesn't work. Explains the default to recalc with dev. There should be a note to enable retire according to history if dev is disabled.

Here's Koufax in my 1951 - 2008 game on OOTP 21 with recalc and dev. I didn't have save scouting enabled. In my current save he was effective through 1973.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Well then recalc only doesn't work.

It does work in general, but it doesn't work the way development is supposed to work, especially with a case like Koufax. I wonder if the post-recalc development solution was implemented in a limited way for historical recalc leagues, where it does not work the same way that it does in non-recalc leagues. Clearly that is what is happening.

But I have no idea why OOTP Developments would do that, unless it was afraid that some users would get upset if stars such as Koufax suddenly declined too much. But what I saw in my test with him is absurd. It would seem to me that coding it to apply in this more limited way would be harder than coding it to work exactly the way it already does in non-historicals, but applicable only to players whose real life stats ran out in the database.

The one thing this has done for me is to reinforce my permanent conversion from recalc leagues to development-only. I used to be a recalc-only player for nearly 20 years, but once I started playing with historical minors and started using development, I started enjoying the game more than ever. I can't go back to recalc now, especially if this is how the development engine going to handle certain players when there are no more stats to recalc.

As it is, there are so many instances of real-life historical stats that were skewed by usage decisions, freak injuries, drugs, military service, roster changes, transactions, and countless other factors. Imposing those sudden and drastic changes on the human GM and manager doesn't appeal to me now, especially when those conditions aren't necessarily in my game. I would rather let the development engine give players a chance to develop and improve or decline more on their own and relative to what's actually happening in my game. I suppose that recalc still makes sense if you want to play strict historical replays, but it's not for me anymore.

[thehef]

FWIW, here's my idea as to how it should work...

Originally Posted by thehef

For a player who has no stats for a season (so we would assume this is a missed season or a post-real-life-retirement season), regardless of any other settings the gamer has chosen, OOTP would apply some combination of:

a) three- or five-year recalc, chosen randomly on a per-player basis by OOTP
b) player development, including aging speed and talent change randomness; all chosen randomly on a per-player basis by OOTP

By using RAH & MAH, the gamer shouldn't really know what to expect. In the Koufax example, we would assume that since he retired at age 30, if he continues to play in OOTP, he would be a top-level pitcher for at least a few more years before falling off somewhat. But there'd be no guarantee. The way I'd envision it, if you ran 10 sims with Sandy remaining active, in maybe six of those he'd remain a top flight pitcher for several years before falling off a bit and/or retiring. In 2 of those he might decline rapidly and either retire after a couple more seasons, or barely hang on. In another he might convert to a releiver. And in another he might pitch effectively into his early 40's... Something like that... But with someone like Carl Yastrzemski - who IRL retired at age 43 after several solid but unspectacular seasons - in OOTP he might play another year or two, but would probably decline due to his age; although there'd certainly be a chance - if slight - that he'd have another all-star year in him.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by thehef

FWIW, here's my idea as to how it should work...

What you described is pretty much what you get if you use a combo of recalc and development. See Brads screenshot of his Koufax. I've been using the combo of recalc and development in my random debut league for years and it works like a charm. When playing a random debut league you have all the modern day players, you end up with guys in all stages of their careers. For example, if you get Juan Soto, he will only have 5 years worth of recalc stats available. That's where having development on comes in handy. Using the combo, you will see guys go in all directions once their real life playing time comes to an end. Injuries play a big part too. If a guy starts getting hurt more often or with a significant injury they may decline faster. Retire according to history is not an option in random debut leagues, so using the combo of recalc and development is pretty much a must.

My biggest wish for recalc is probably impossible, but I can dream. I would love it if the game could come up with some method to deal with missed season/injury shortened seasons that would work separate from the make bad settings, so guys like Ted Williams , Bob Feller, Joe D etc. don't get destroyed by the war years. Guys like Chris Carpenter don't go from a Cy Young level pitcher to a bottom of the bullpen crapfest simply due to a real life injury. Maybe some way of averaging their entire career before and after the missed season to give the player appropriate ratings until recalc can kick back in without the deadly effects of the adjust/make bad settings.. This could also work for a guy like Mark Fydrych, because his overall career stats would average to show he never really recovered from his injury. I know 5 year recalc with the right adjust/make bad settings can do a lot to save the war year guys and guys like Carpenter, but I'm not a big fan of 5 year recalc. I think it softens the ups and downs of being a major league baseball player way too much.

Of course, what I just described would have to be an option. Folks wanting to use OOTP for replays, would want no part of something that is pretty much a full blown whatif.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

It does work in general, but it doesn't work the way development is supposed to work,

I suppose working wrong is working in general if you consider having an effect of some sort that wouldn't otherwise exist to be working. I consider working wrong to be not working.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I suppose working wrong is working in general if you consider having an effect of some sort that wouldn't otherwise exist to be working.

That's exactly how the developers would view it. If it's working the way they coded it, then it's working. But obviously I think we all disagree with the way it has been coded. Or maybe it's not so much a matter of how it was coded but how it's conflicting with other code or data that OOTP uses.

Maybe they're trying to turn things over to development, but certain historical players have calculated potentials or some other hidden aspects of their data that are getting in the way. Or maybe there is something about the creation or advancement of historical players with recalc that is conflicting with development. Or maybe they tuned it so that development's aging factors are less significant in this context, and they didn't do enough testing to see the extremes that this can produce. Whatever is happening, it's not what everyone wants to see, so I'll look for any bug report threads on this, or I'll open one.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Brad

I suppose working wrong is working in general if you consider having an effect of some sort that wouldn't otherwise exist to be working.

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

That's exactly how the developers would view it. If it's working the way they coded it, then it's working.

If they view it that way they could never have produced the OOTP that we have. Working wrong isn't working.

Play with recalc and dev both on. That's the answer. Whatever you thought you convinced them to do isn't what they did.