College Players Don't Develop

[zalexander]

Hey y'all,

I like what the dev team is trying to do with development but obviously its still clunky and buggy.

Something I've noticed in my league is that all the top players were drafted out of high school.. not a single one came from college or judo despite 60% of the draft-classes being generated from there.

This wasn't a problem in previous versions but my hunch is that players coming out of college have their initial ratings too low and not enough time to develop correctly.. like the Paul Skenes of the world couldn't exist in my universe.

[DrSatan]

You're not the first person to notice this. I used to edit the current ratings on a bunch of college age guys, but its time consuming, so I just draft HS players.

[DetroitStyle]

I agree it's off as well. But it's difficult to determine if it's because of a broken mechanic or just random luck.

I think the progression/development speed is too slow while the aging target is also too low. So by the time a college player finally starts developing, they immediately hit their regression target.

Here's a 1st round pick of mine. Age 22 at draft. Hit his potential target by age 25. That seems reasonable?

[DetroitStyle]

Here's another 1st round pick.

Drafted at age 22 and is still not at full potential by age 25. This player in particular seems slow. If the scouting is right about the ratings, should they progress to 55/60 or higher within 3 years? I can't say and it's hard to because maybe there's other factors contributing to the slow progression.

[NoOne]

hs players have a higher potential, for good reason. also less likely to reach their stated potential (if accurate, also greater inaccuracy at younger ages, lol)

hs aged prospects are higher risk, higher reward.

if there is any sort of correlation i'd wager money that players that enter draft at younger ages tend to be greater portion of future elite players in real life too. while scouting is less accurate, they are also predicted to be elite for fairly good reasons. the elite ones are often coaxed away from college. Only recently have college prospects been 'good' prospects. that's new in last 20-30 years, really.

college kids have fewer years to develop once in your system. that too has an effect. they do come more developed, at least near top of draft board, so it should even out to some extent. i'm still pretty certain teh college kids more often fully develop compared to a 18-19 year old draftee or IAFA kid.

Development is often a race of potentials falling (ignoring inaccuracy-caused contexts) and increasing current ratings. Potential goes down more than up for the highly rated prospects... if they aren't showing signs of life eventually that potential takes a pratfall at some point as they age.

focusing on one player won't tell you anything. this should happen. numerous players shoudl fail to develop,,, more fail than succeed even when you take into account scouting inaccuracy that overrates a ton of players at young ages (as it should).

The aging curve has been analyzed it's its as normal as you'd expect.

lots of moving parts... if you fiddled with any settings, review their impact. often times oddities are cuased by minor tweaks we make.. and it sometimes takes several sim years to see the effects.

[zalexander]

I'm 40 years into the sim, college players never.. and I mean never hit remotely near their potential, they become average players at best.

Did not have this issue at all in OOTP 25

[Curve Ball Dave]

I just played my sixth season. The Top Players report has a slew of young guys who were drafted out of college mixed in with the veterans.

As I wrote in another thread, the change with 26 is guys don't need Superman ratings and develop to their fullest potential to be All Star level players anymore.

[ChrisG]

I would say that I think college players' current ratings tend to be too low.

IRL most early-round college guys are making their pro debuts in at least low-A. Those who do well in the minors and don't have injury hiccups typically debut within a year or two in their age 22 or 23 seasons (feel like for catchers it's 23 or 24).

The AI usually has them debuting at AZ/FL level, which means anyone else's college players literally will have a wasted half-year of development while they wait to start in AZ/FL the following year.

Basically a realistic development setting would have successfully-developing high schoolers on track to debut in their 21 or 22 seasons, with a guy every couple of years ready at 20 and the rare guy ready at 19 (think Trout, the Uptons, Harper) and successfully-developing college players on track for 22 or 23 with the occasional guy who's ready to debut in his draft year.

To be clear, "ready to debut" does not = reaching potential. Just developed enough to be in the bigs.

[Trot Nixon's Waifu]

I really do hope they look into this. I've run a number of tests and have found that by 2045, college players make up only ~15% of MLB players who were taken via the draft, and an even smaller percent of the total players when incorporating international players. This in spite of the fact that, at present, 58% of players in contemporary MLB have played in college for at least some time.

I don't need this exact ratio to persist, but it really seems like the main reason that college players don't pan out is because they do not start with high enough ratings given how the development engine currently works. This is most obvious in how most AI teams send their college players to rookie leagues rather than A ball after the draft, or in how the majority of college players seem to repeat A and A+ in two separate seasons.

I'm completely fine with changes in the league over time, this one feels like a failure of game mechanics rather than a natural development of the league.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Trot Nixon's Waifu

I really do hope they look into this. I've run a number of tests and have found that by 2045, college players make up only ~15% of MLB players who were taken via the draft, and an even smaller percent of the total players when incorporating international players. This in spite of the fact that, at present, 58% of players in contemporary MLB have played in college for at least some time.

I don't need this exact ratio to persist, but it really seems like the main reason that college players don't pan out is because they do not start with high enough ratings given how the development engine currently works. This is most obvious in how most AI teams send their college players to rookie leagues rather than A ball after the draft, or in how the majority of college players seem to repeat A and A+ in two separate seasons.

I'm completely fine with changes in the league over time, this one feels like a failure of game mechanics rather than a natural development of the league.

This is not really a ratings thing as far as I can see, as I've seen college guys get sent to rookie ball even with 40 current overall ratings in testing. Something seems a bit off with the AI placements for sure though, not sure what is causing that.

We're looking over some development related tweaks for the next patch anyway, will look into this as well.

[oldfatbaldguy]

Originally Posted by DetroitStyle

Here's a 1st round pick of mine. Age 22 at draft. Hit his potential target by age 25. That seems reasonable?

I'm guessing "Big Fudge" didn't stay 6-1, 195, and maybe that was part of his problem. Mmmm, brownies.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

This is not really a ratings thing as far as I can see, as I've seen college guys get sent to rookie ball even with 40 current overall ratings in testing. Something seems a bit off with the AI placements for sure though, not sure what is causing that.

We're looking over some development related tweaks for the next patch anyway, will look into this as well.

It's a combination of things, including ratings, that by now are pretty well established (at least in my mind), and this goes back to why you can't solve the player development path problem the way you guys tried to.

The problems/discussion:

1) The player ratings development/aging curve looks good in general for players who are in an MLB organization. Matt also said at one point that there is enough variance too.

2) Player ratings are a step too low come draft time. This applies to both college players and high schoolers. Not sure if they are created too low, if they fail to develop at a good rate before they get to an MLB org, or both (I would say probably both).

3) Because the AI signs way too many old players, a lot of the "prospects" don't get a normal path to the majors (they start too low and are forced to repeat low levels), and the ones without very high potential don't even get enough playing time.

4) Points 2 and 3 would hurt college players more than high schoolers.

5) The ad-hoc solution of having potential influence results helps only a subset of players, those with very high potential, and it could also contribute to the gap between high schoolers and college guys.

What needs to improve

1) Players should enter the league with slightly better ratings.

2) The ratings of players who don't play enough need to decay, especially once they get to age 25-26.

We can quibble on how aggressively, what the playing time threshold should be, etc., but players who root in free agency or barely get a handful of at bats should not hold on to their ratings for years like they do. Some rare players can pull a DeGrom, but the majority don't.

The above would help the AI stop hoarding older players who block the path of the younger guys. Currently, the AI will hold on to a 35 OVR player forever, blocking the path of a 22-23 year old with a 30 OVR unless he has very high potential.

3) The AI still needs to stop prioritizing ability over potential when it picks players for the minor leagues. Not just lineups, but in general.

4) The AI needs to stop signing players for the minors.

The AI should try to sign players only if there are openings.

In real baseball, teams are not constantly signing and releasing minor league players. They sign free agents for the minors when they have open roster spots due to injuries, and release players when the draft approaches. Even undrafted players tend to sign right around the draft, and you don't see many of those signings afterwards.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

It's a combination of things, including ratings, that by now are pretty well established (at least in my mind), and this goes back to why you can't solve the player development path problem the way you guys tried to.

What needs to improve

1) Players should enter the league with slightly better ratings.

2) The ratings of players who don't play enough need to decay, especially once they get to age 25-26.

We can quibble on how aggressively, what the playing time threshold should be, etc., but players who root in free agency or barely get a handful of at bats should not hold on to their ratings for years like they do. Some rare players can pull a DeGrom, but the majority don't.

The above would help the AI stop hoarding older players who block the path of the younger guys. Currently, the AI will hold on to a 35 OVR player forever, blocking the path of a 22-23 year old with a 30 OVR unless he has very high potential.

3) The AI still needs to stop prioritizing ability over potential when it picks players for the minor leagues. Not just lineups, but in general.

4) The AI needs to stop signing players for the minors.

The AI should try to sign players only if there are openings.

In real baseball, teams are not constantly signing and releasing minor league players. They sign free agents for the minors when they have open roster spots due to injuries, and release players when the draft approaches. Even undrafted players tend to sign right around the draft, and you don't see many of those signings afterwards.

Fantastic post

1. Agree wholeheartedly. However, if I were king for a day, I would have a set of slider settings that influences the current ability a created amateurs. This would allow you to better tailor draft classes for different eras. The current era, players enter the draft much more polished than in other eras. This slider setting would allow users to tune it to whatever feels most realistic to them.

2. Could not agree more. I know that we should consider that FA's could be playing in leagues not represented in the game, but overall, there is not enough regression for the types of players you mentioned.

3. The AI should disregard current ability completely

4. I'm not completely on board here, because you're advocating for the AI to arbitrarily stop trying to improve their organization. IRL, you don’t see that level of minor league turnover because teams rarely release players of real value, so there just isn’t much talent sitting in free agency. In OOTP, though, there are often legitimate upgrades sitting in the free agent pool, and the AI isn’t wrong to act on that.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Fantastic post

1. Agree wholeheartedly. However, if I were king for a day, I would have a set of slider settings that influences the current ability a created amateurs. This would allow you to better tailor draft classes for different eras. The current era, players enter the draft much more polished than in other eras. This slider setting would allow users to tune it to whatever feels most realistic to them.

The slider idea is perfect. I feel like college players should largely be like 30/35 standard with a few (mainly pitchers) at 40 (which would put them at what, AA ready out the gate?)

[mrpoopistan]

Might it not be simpler to add settings so we can adjust for college player development?


I've been throwing the kitchen sink at this problem this weekend just simming tons of years with different settings. Even adding developmental leagues and goosing the development levels significantly doesn't quite get the best college players to where they should be by age 22.


The biggest problem I see is there's no way to compensate for the amount of time that HS and DSL players get to cook in the development system vs what college players get. That's especially true when using the built-in draft system rather than putting in a feeder league.


The younger players get an untoward advantage because there's no severability for different types of development. All that time spent watching pitchers throw balls rather than strikes in the DSL adds up.


It might also be worth thinking about treating different levels as having different development values. Because that time in rookie ball is really overweighted in the current version of the game. Maybe A ball and AA deserve a little more development value just to give development enough of a curve.


Somewhere, a curve needs to bend more toward college players. Right now it just doesn't. HS and DSL guys get the points because time in the system is worth more.

[Hrycaj]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Fantastic post

1. Agree wholeheartedly. However, if I were king for a day, I would have a set of slider settings that influences the current ability a created amateurs. This would allow you to better tailor draft classes for different eras. The current era, players enter the draft much more polished than in other eras. This slider setting would allow users to tune it to whatever feels most realistic to them.

2. Could not agree more. I know that we should consider that FA's could be playing in leagues not represented in the game, but overall, there is not enough regression for the types of players you mentioned.

3. The AI should disregard current ability completely

4. I'm not completely on board here, because you're advocating for the AI to arbitrarily stop trying to improve their organization. IRL, you don’t see that level of minor league turnover because teams rarely release players of real value, so there just isn’t much talent sitting in free agency. In OOTP, though, there are often legitimate upgrades sitting in the free agent pool, and the AI isn’t wrong to act on that.

As to your point on #4 it is well taken. I feel that after a certain amount of time the league has too many players in free agency. Would it help the ai make better decisions if all players that do not get signed in a 12 month period get retired? I understand there are these awesome stories in RL of guys going back to independent ball or over seas to play and then make a comeback. If you have those leagues in your universe and guys are doing that great. However, if you don't these basically useless players are clogging up your FA pool.

[Pdubya64]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

As to your point on #4 it is well taken. I feel that after a certain amount of time the league has too many players in free agency. Would it help the ai make better decisions if all players that do not get signed in a 12 month period get retired? I understand there are these awesome stories in RL of guys going back to independent ball or over seas to play and then make a comeback. If you have those leagues in your universe and guys are doing that great. However, if you don't these basically useless players are clogging up your FA pool.

Is there a way to check actual free agent numbers vs. OOTP?
I always thought the number of players under 30 hanging around was a bit much, but that's just anecdotal, so who knows?

[thenewchuckd]

The main issue that I see, in this version in particular, is that guys basically do not develop unless they are playing.

Undrafted and go to college? Not going to improve much. At least not nearly as much as if they played in the minors.

Similar situation - guys coming out of the international field. If you can get them onto a roster ASAP, their current rating in my experience will be better than if you left them on your international roster.

(of course, I always try to have winning teams, so that helps morale)

(it also seems that no matter how a player can perform, that promoting him to A level before 20 years old is detrimental to his development. This is just anecdotal, but I've had enough flame outs that I leave anyone 19 or under in rookie ball)

Finally, has anyone figured out what the "developmental relationship" does? I assume it must be better for a guy's development to have good developmental relationships, but this one was just added without any explanation. Gotta love those mysteries!

[mrpoopistan]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

The main issue that I see, in this version in particular, is that guys basically do not develop unless they are playing.

This is the main problem, but a lot of it boils down to the fact that Rookie Ball managers in OOTP don't even come close to using their guys like actual R-Ball managers do. In the DSL, 4 IPs is practically a complete game for one guy. Also, the R-Ball teams don't rotate their position players as frequently as real teams do at that level.


I suspect a lot of this would go away if the Rookie Ball teams behaved like actual Rookie Ball teams. For example, letting an 18 y.o. pitch a complete game would be a firing offense even if the kid was cookin with a perfect game. Yet, the managers do it in OOTP.


Just having managers manage the kids like long-term assets would make a big difference because the players would get less time to develop.

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by mrpoopistan

Just having managers manage the kids like long-term assets would make a big difference because the players would get less time to develop.

I don't think pushing rookie development to be slower is the solution here. In fact, another main issue is that guys get stuck at rookie ball for so long. This seems to be because players 19 and under develop so much slower than those 20+ (you also see this in the dev. lab).

IRL, you do not see an 18 year get drafted and spend 3 seasons at rookie ball.

But then guys break in at A ball and speed their way up to AAA.

So actually, many issues:

-Players 18-20 are developing too slowly
-If there is an age cap that hurts U20 development outside of rookie ball, this needs to be removed. This cap should be purely performance based.
-Undrafted and international complex players need to develop faster
-Development for U20s shouldn't completely be based on games played/innings pitched/whatever. There needs to be a sense that these young guys should be playing less games but still developing at a regular pace (and I agree, please stop letting my young players pitch 150 pitches to get a no-hitter)
-In fact, a young guy playing a massive amount should probably get a ratings hit instead of development
-College players should probably be created with slightly higher ratings