Statcast Integration in OOTP

[Bagpipes5]

Let's talk analytics. We all know OOTP is top-notch when it comes to simulating baseball, but here's the pitch: Why are is it lagging behind in the Statcast game?

Sure, adding BABIP in OOTP 24 was a nice touch, but in a world where teams are crunching Statcast numbers like never before, shouldn't OOTP be on the same page?

Statcast isn't just a fancy term; it's the real deal. Exit velocities, launch angles, sprint speeds - these metrics are the bread and butter of modern baseball analysis.

Why hasn't Statcast been brought into the OOTP universe yet? Imagine the depth, the realism, the strategic possibilities it could add to our gameplay. It's time for OOTP to show it's not just keeping up; it's ahead of the curve.

What are your thoughts? How would Statcast integration change the way we play OOTP?

[RonCo]

I do a bunch of Statcast-like things with a script that scans game logs. It's quite fun, but has the downside of showing places the game's results engine sometimes struggles to match modern expectation.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

Statcast isn't just a fancy term; it's the real deal. Exit velocities, launch angles, sprint speeds - these metrics are the bread and butter of modern baseball analysis.

Why hasn't Statcast been brought into the OOTP universe yet?

Easy answer. OOTP doesn't do physics.

[JRRose]

I totally agree. I'd love to see stats like xwOBA and pitch movement as well, in order to help inform me on player acquisitions.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I do a bunch of Statcast-like things with a script that scans game logs. It's quite fun, but has the downside of showing places the game's results engine sometimes struggles to match modern expectation.

That's really awesome! What are you doing to get results?

Originally Posted by Brad K

Easy answer. OOTP doesn't do physics.

While true the framework is there. Pitcher from 60'6" throws ball 95mph and it goes 410 feet kind of thing. If that could be built upon it would be nice to bring the game up with the times.

Originally Posted by JRRose

I totally agree. I'd love to see stats like xwOBA and pitch movement as well, in order to help inform me on player acquisitions.

Same. It would be awesome to see who is fastest to 1B, who hits the hardest and furthest ball all year, and spin rate stats. It would add unbelievable immersion to a season.
Having a BNN Statcast page like the real life one would really be something.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

While true the framework is there. Pitcher from 60'6" throws ball 95mph and it goes 410 feet kind of thing. If that could be built upon it would be nice to bring the game up with the times.

95 mph and 410 feet are made up numbers.

If you think they aren't made up add 100 feet to the fence distances and see what happens.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by Brad K

95 mph and 410 feet are made up numbers.

If you think they aren't made up add 100 feet to the fence distances and see what happens.

Oh really! Wow. Well it would still be nice to see modern analytics involved with the game somehow. It would make the game way more exciting, especially while managing games.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

Oh really! Wow. Well it would still be nice to see modern analytics involved with the game somehow. It would make the game way more exciting, especially while managing games.

The game is boosting MILB stats based on potential, I don't think it's anywhere near ready for physics or analytics

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

The game is boosting MILB stats based on potential, I don't think it's anywhere near ready for physics or analytics

Your point about OOTP's emphasis on boosting MILB stats based on potential is well taken. The introduction of BABIP in OOTP 24 was a significant move towards embracing advanced analytics, shedding light on batting performance in a more nuanced way.

It's interesting how the game seems to have ventured into analytics with BABIP and then shifted focus towards catchy features like the Development Lab and the Scouting Combine. While these additions enhance the gameplay experience and player progression, there's a sense that the leap to incorporate more in-depth metrics like Statcast data might have been momentarily sidestepped.

The prospect of integrating Statcast into OOTP holds immense potential for enriching player evaluation and strategic decision-making, aligning the game more closely with the cutting-edge analytics used in modern baseball.

Considering the game's current trajectory, how do you envision a balance between advanced analytics like Statcast and engaging features such as the Development Lab and Scouting Combine within OOTP's framework?

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

Your point about OOTP's emphasis on boosting MILB stats based on potential is well taken. The introduction of BABIP in OOTP 24 was a significant move towards embracing advanced analytics, shedding light on batting performance in a more nuanced way.

It's interesting how the game seems to have ventured into analytics with BABIP and then shifted focus towards catchy features like the Development Lab and the Scouting Combine. While these additions enhance the gameplay experience and player progression, there's a sense that the leap to incorporate more in-depth metrics like Statcast data might have been momentarily sidestepped.

The prospect of integrating Statcast into OOTP holds immense potential for enriching player evaluation and strategic decision-making, aligning the game more closely with the cutting-edge analytics used in modern baseball.

Considering the game's current trajectory, how do you envision a balance between advanced analytics like Statcast and engaging features such as the Development Lab and Scouting Combine within OOTP's framework?

FYI, BABIP wasn't introduced in 24, it was always baked into the contact rating. All that happened was the rating was made visible in the player's profile

[matskralc!]

As Brad K points out, OOTP is not a physics simulation. OOTP generates a play result and then backfills the details with stuff that mostly makes sense.

In other words, OOTP doesn't decide that Aaron Judge hits a home run because of his launch angle and exit velocity. OOTP decides that Aaron Judge had an X launch angle at Y exit velocity because he hit a home run.

Launch angle, exit velocity, ball distance, etc, are purely cosmetic. Like Brad K suggests, push all of your fences out to 900 feet. You will get the same amount of home runs you were already getting, they'll just all be 900+ feet.

Incorporating things like spin rate in a deterministic, rather than cosmetic, way would require a complete and total re-write from the ground up of the game's core engine, and that's not very likely to happen.

[Bobfather]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

Your point about OOTP's emphasis on boosting MILB stats based on potential is well taken. The introduction of BABIP in OOTP 24 was a significant move towards embracing advanced analytics, shedding light on batting performance in a more nuanced way.

It's interesting how the game seems to have ventured into analytics with BABIP and then shifted focus towards catchy features like the Development Lab and the Scouting Combine. While these additions enhance the gameplay experience and player progression, there's a sense that the leap to incorporate more in-depth metrics like Statcast data might have been momentarily sidestepped.

The prospect of integrating Statcast into OOTP holds immense potential for enriching player evaluation and strategic decision-making, aligning the game more closely with the cutting-edge analytics used in modern baseball.

Considering the game's current trajectory, how do you envision a balance between advanced analytics like Statcast and engaging features such as the Development Lab and Scouting Combine within OOTP's framework?

I am open to adding anything to the game. I don't complain about features I don't care about. My question is, are you ready for all the criticism the feature will receive before everyone thinks it's good enough? Look at the scouting lab. Like I said, go ahead and add it. But I know I have seen way too many posts regarding the scouting combine, which makes me want to stay away from these forums.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

FYI, BABIP wasn't introduced in 24, it was always baked into the contact rating. All that happened was the rating was made visible in the player's profile

Your observation regarding the subtle incorporation of BABIP within OOTP, albeit hidden within the game's mechanics, does indeed hint at an underlying analytical framework operating within the game. It's fascinating how these statistical elements contribute to the overall realism and depth of the gameplay experience.

The fact that BABIP plays a role, even if not explicitly showcased, underscores the attention to detail and the sophisticated simulation engine that drives OOTP. This highlights the game's commitment to realism and authenticity, incorporating advanced metrics to enhance player evaluation and strategic decision-making.

Considering this aspect, it raises the question of how other advanced analytics, like Statcast metrics, could further elevate the strategic depth and realism of gameplay within OOTP. Exploring the integration of such detailed analytics could potentially open up new avenues for player evaluation and team management strategies.

How do you think the inclusion of more explicit analytics like Statcast could enhance the overall gameplay experience in OOTP, building upon the foundation laid by elements such as hidden BABIP calculations?

Looking forward to your insights on the matter!

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by matskralc!

As Brad K points out, OOTP is not a physics simulation. OOTP generates a play result and then backfills the details with stuff that mostly makes sense.

In other words, OOTP doesn't decide that Aaron Judge hits a home run because of his launch angle and exit velocity. OOTP decides that Aaron Judge had an X launch angle at Y exit velocity because he hit a home run.

Launch angle, exit velocity, ball distance, etc, are purely cosmetic. Like Brad K suggests, push all of your fences out to 900 feet. You will get the same amount of home runs you were already getting, they'll just all be 900+ feet.

Incorporating things like spin rate in a deterministic, rather than cosmetic, way would require a complete and total re-write from the ground up of the game's core engine, and that's not very likely to happen.

Your insights into OOTP's simulation mechanics are spot on. It's clear that to sustain another 25-year run, the game must adapt to incorporate advanced metrics like spin rate. Evolution is key to staying relevant in the ever-changing world of baseball analytics.

So we agree that the simulation engine needs an update to reflect these advancements and maintain fan interest. How do you see these changes shaping the future of OOTP?

Looking forward to your take on this pivotal evolution!

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

Your observation regarding the subtle incorporation of BABIP within OOTP, albeit hidden within the game's mechanics, does indeed hint at an underlying analytical framework operating within the game. It's fascinating how these statistical elements contribute to the overall realism and depth of the gameplay experience.

The fact that BABIP plays a role, even if not explicitly showcased, underscores the attention to detail and the sophisticated simulation engine that drives OOTP. This highlights the game's commitment to realism and authenticity, incorporating advanced metrics to enhance player evaluation and strategic decision-making.

Considering this aspect, it raises the question of how other advanced analytics, like Statcast metrics, could further elevate the strategic depth and realism of gameplay within OOTP. Exploring the integration of such detailed analytics could potentially open up new avenues for player evaluation and team management strategies.

How do you think the inclusion of more explicit analytics like Statcast could enhance the overall gameplay experience in OOTP, building upon the foundation laid by elements such as hidden BABIP calculations?

Looking forward to your insights on the matter!

I think we’ve already established that statscast outputs can’t function meaningfully in OOTP unless something fundamental changes in how the engine handles inputs.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I think we’ve already established that statscast outputs can’t function meaningfully in OOTP unless something fundamental changes in how the engine handles inputs.

Your point about the challenges of integrating Statcast outputs into OOTP due to fundamental limitations in the engine's input handling is well noted. It seems clear that significant changes would be necessary to make such detailed metrics function meaningfully within the game.

Given these constraints, how do you think OOTP could potentially address or work around these limitations to enhance the gameplay experience without compromising its core mechanics?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this intriguing aspect of game development!

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally Posted by matskralc!

Incorporating things like spin rate in a deterministic, rather than cosmetic, way would require a complete and total re-write from the ground up of the game's core engine, and that's not very likely to happen.

Yeah, I think this is right. Markus did this once, when he switched to a DIPS-based model for pitching and outcomes. It was initially a hell of a setback because it took time to get it right, and I am sure it was a huge undertaking.

I'd love to play the game that eventually resulted from a physics-based sim engine, but it would take a very long time to get right, would take years to create and would be light-years ahead of anything else out there. (For me, OOTP is the second-best sim of its kind, with Football Manager being first, and neither of them is even close to being at this level.)

That said, I hope some young Markus is out there working on it, because it would amazing to get to play it during my lifetime.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

Your point about the challenges of integrating Statcast outputs into OOTP due to fundamental limitations in the engine's input handling is well noted. It seems clear that significant changes would be necessary to make such detailed metrics function meaningfully within the game.

Given these constraints, how do you think OOTP could potentially address or work around these limitations to enhance the gameplay experience without compromising its core mechanics?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this intriguing aspect of game development!

I feel like I’m talking to a chatbot at this point.

There is no workaround. Statcast is physics. OOTP is not. Unless the sim engine becomes physics based, you’re never going to get meaningful Statcast metrics.

[matskralc!]

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

Yeah, I think this is right. Markus did this once, when he switched to a DIPS-based model for pitching and outcomes. It was initially a hell of a setback because it took time to get it right, and I am sure it was a huge undertaking.

I'd love to play the game that eventually resulted from a physics-based sim engine, but it would take a very long time to get right, would take years to create and would be light-years ahead of anything else out there. (For me, OOTP is the second-best sim of its kind, with Football Manager being first, and neither of them is even close to being at this level.)

That said, I hope some young Markus is out there working on it, because it would amazing to get to play it during my lifetime.

I think what makes it even less likely is that it is completely useless for a historical league. We have no idea what Babe Ruth's average exit velocity was or what Walter Johnson's max spin rate was. We would have to infer all of this from their stat lines, and that's not going to be reliable or satisfying for anybody. This process barely works for something as relatively rudimentary as defensive range as applied to play-based outcomes, and it's literally taken two decades to get to where it is now.

So, you need to use and maintain two separate engines: the play-by-play based engine that we're already using gets used for historical import games, and the new whiz-bang StatCast-driven engine gets used for modern day and fictional games. Or...we just drop historical play entirely.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally Posted by matskralc!

I think what makes it even less likely is that it is completely useless for a historical league. We have no idea what Babe Ruth's average exit velocity was or what Walter Johnson's max spin rate was. We would have to infer all of this from their stat lines, and that's not going to be reliable or satisfying for anybody. This process barely works for something as relatively rudimentary as defensive range as applied to play-based outcomes, and it's literally taken two decades to get to where it is now.

So, you need to use and maintain two separate engines: the play-by-play based engine that we're already using gets used for historical import games, and the new whiz-bang StatCast-driven engine gets used for modern day and fictional games. Or...we just drop historical play entirely.

Yeah, good point. I'd still like to play that physics-based game someday though. Also, I think you can still make it work similarly even with an outcome-based engine, right? Like, you send a guy to work on his launch angle or spin rate or whatever, and he comes back with that outcome having improved. It's not perfect but it's a way to make it feel more like a modern analytics-based approach.