Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Discuss the Brewster Baseball Association here!
User avatar
JimBob2232
BBA GM
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by JimBob2232 » Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:52 pm

Wow. I had no idea how much an impact team chemistry had until recently.

My team has been garbage the last couple months. I just checked the chemistry and i had 15 complaints, and 2 disruptive players. Cut Gilberto Cruz (https://statspl.us/brewster/reports/new ... 43611.html) (one of them - which was easy to do given his 6.94 ERA) and magically my chemistry got back to "normal"

Interested to see how much of a difference this makes on the field.

User avatar
Jwalk100
GB: FL Pacific Division Director
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 1818 times
Been thanked: 771 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Jwalk100 » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:04 pm

I try to keep away from players like Cruz. The right leadership to keep those types in line is a pain in the ass to balance. I feel that the game places too much into the personality traits. A little is good but in my opinion it goes a bit overboard.
Image
ImageImageImageImageImage

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Ted » Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:24 pm

Don't get me started ....
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
CTBrewCrew
GB: FL Heartland Division Director
Posts: 5111
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2019 11:20 am
Location: Milford, CT
Has thanked: 923 times
Been thanked: 1317 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by CTBrewCrew » Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:39 pm

Ted wrote:
Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:24 pm
Don't get me started ....

https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/52f445a9-96bd ... Fahzw.copy
Image

User avatar
shoeless.db
BBA GM
Posts: 2317
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 10:25 pm
Has thanked: 1823 times
Been thanked: 1090 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by shoeless.db » Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:58 pm

I have a quarter for the person that gets Ted started.
Sacramento Mad Popes (unretired)
-- Vic Caleca Team News Award Winner 2052
-- BBA Champion 2053
-- Pacific Champs 2040, 2042, 2043, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2051, 2053, 2054
Life is a bit more beautiful when time is measured by the half inning rather than the half hour.

User avatar
HoosierVic
Ex-GM
Posts: 3106
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 472 times
Been thanked: 1020 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by HoosierVic » Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:00 pm

For a buck, I’ll tell Ted it’s my favorite part of the simulation ...

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Ted » Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:01 pm

Image
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
CTBrewCrew
GB: FL Heartland Division Director
Posts: 5111
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2019 11:20 am
Location: Milford, CT
Has thanked: 923 times
Been thanked: 1317 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by CTBrewCrew » Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:06 pm

TED....TED....TED....!!!
Image

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by RonCo » Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:10 pm

Yeah, I suggest one doesn't overthink certain things.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

HerbD
Ex-GM
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 411 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by HerbD » Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:18 am

I always thought that winning was what really drove the team chemistry more than anything
Montreal Blazers(BBA) 2044~2047(353-295, .545 W%)
2045 Wildcard(lost in one round)
2046 Atlantic Champs(lost in one round)

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Ted » Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:11 am

HerbD wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:18 am
I always thought that winning was what really drove the team chemistry more than anything
I think you're dead on here. And that's the way it is in real life, too. That's my problem with the whole OOTP model. It doesn't need to exist at all. No one has ever shown any cause-effect relationship of chemistry or personality types in real life. Players that were cancers on one team go on to be leaders on others. The only thing that has ever been demonstrated in real life is that winning teams have good clubhouses and losing teams have bad ones. And that when teams are losing the "bad apples" act out more (or reporters tell more stories about their bad behavior because it comes to light when the team is losing but is overlooked when the team is winning). The stuff in OOTP is entirely unnecessary and by virtue of the fact that there is nothing from real life to model it after, is entirely made up.

OOTP does get the winning and losing driving chemistry part mostly right, but there do seem to be players that exist that just torpedo team chemistry. Also, there seems to be a negative feedback loop that can get pretty ugly. For experimentation purposes, I've swapped out half a minor league team that was losing and is "feuding" with overage AAA/AAAA type vets with good leadership and not only have I been unable to improve team chemistry by doing so, but the vets all underperform and the team doesn't win. This could be small sample size and maybe I was just unlucky, but the entire model is just annoying to me, given that I know that any effect it has, even if marginal, is just made up nonsense.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by RonCo » Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:18 am

Ted wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:11 am
No one has ever shown any cause-effect relationship of chemistry or personality types in real life.
This is not really true. Team dynamics have been studied intensely in many industries. Team chemistry and social interactions can make a clearly measurable impact on actual performance.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

HerbD
Ex-GM
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 411 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by HerbD » Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:31 am

Ted wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:11 am
HerbD wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:18 am
I always thought that winning was what really drove the team chemistry more than anything
I think you're dead on here. And that's the way it is in real life, too. That's my problem with the whole OOTP model. It doesn't need to exist at all. No one has ever shown any cause-effect relationship of chemistry or personality types in real life. Players that were cancers on one team go on to be leaders on others. The only thing that has ever been demonstrated in real life is that winning teams have good clubhouses and losing teams have bad ones. And that when teams are losing the "bad apples" act out more (or reporters tell more stories about their bad behavior because it comes to light when the team is losing but is overlooked when the team is winning). The stuff in OOTP is entirely unnecessary and by virtue of the fact that there is nothing from real life to model it after, is entirely made up.

OOTP does get the winning and losing driving chemistry part mostly right, but there do seem to be players that exist that just torpedo team chemistry. Also, there seems to be a negative feedback loop that can get pretty ugly. For experimentation purposes, I've swapped out half a minor league team that was losing and is "feuding" with overage AAA/AAAA type vets with good leadership and not only have I been unable to improve team chemistry by doing so, but the vets all underperform and the team doesn't win. This could be small sample size and maybe I was just unlucky, but the entire model is just annoying to me, given that I know that any effect it has, even if marginal, is just made up nonsense.
Winning cures all
Montreal Blazers(BBA) 2044~2047(353-295, .545 W%)
2045 Wildcard(lost in one round)
2046 Atlantic Champs(lost in one round)

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Ted » Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:08 am

RonCo wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:18 am
Ted wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:11 am
No one has ever shown any cause-effect relationship of chemistry or personality types in real life.
This is not really true. Team dynamics have been studied intensely in many industries. Team chemistry and social interactions can make a clearly measurable impact on actual performance.
Okay, it's never been demonstrated in baseball, then. Comparing corporate team dynamics to baseball is a stretch. First, baseball is barely a team sport. It is a series of one on one matchups, and what your teammate does barely influences your performance, from a pure player interaction standpoint.

Second, there is simply example after example of guys getting labelled one way and later having that disputed or being seen in a different light. OOTP's labelling scheme is just plain fictional. Look at Dick Allen. Tons of literature stating he was a jerk. Tons of teammates saying he was a great teammate. Others said he wasn't. None of his teams won much. But then again, most of them weren't very good. If Dick Allen comes up with say the Dodgers and has a long career there, and the win a bunch, I bet he's a hall of famer and remembered completely differently. The narratives about him are entirely of circumstance. This seems to almost always be the case.

Take another example, Pete Rose. A true shithead. His teams won like crazy and he was lauded as a tremendous worker and teammate. Until they had problems during his managerial career, and he got caught. Pete Rose was always an asshole. But he was worth it and the team was good, he wasn't a problem. He was a leader even. He didn't change. His impact on the people around him didn't change. The environment did.

A more recent example? Take Dexter Fowler. Great clubhouse guy with the Cubs. Everyone loves him. Comes to the Cardinals, hyped as a great clubhouse guy. Team plays like shit. Fowler is picked out as one of the "problems."

Take Greinke. He could be called a "prankster" or some sort of "oddity" label. We all know that about Greinke. He's "outspoken". Tell me what affect that has had on his team?

Jim Edmonds was a "bad clubhouse guy who didn't try and didn't play through injury" with the losing Angels. He went to the Cards, won a ton, and was a leader and mentor. A guy who hustled and knew a lot about baseball and was always "thinking the game and picking up stuff of pitchers during his teammates at bats". Later he got caught texting a dick pic to a mistress while in the delivery room with his wife or some awful shit like that. So did Jim Edmonds change a bunch of times? Of course not. The perception of him was changed to match the narrative of what his teams were doing.

Baseball is littered with "good guys" on bad teams. Did those "good guys" prevent those clubhouses from being lackluster to bad? No. No one likes losing.

OOTP's labels do not reflect reality.

The ONLY thing that's been demonstrated in actual baseball (and most other sports) is that winning teams have good clubhouses and losing teams have bad ones.

This matches up with what most of us have observed in real life when playing sports. When winning, we can put up with the person we don't get along with on our team. When losing, it's unbearable at times. The person didn't change. The environment did.

I don't know what OOTP's model does. It could theoretically model what I described, but it seems to have too many labels/descriptors for such a simple paradigm, so it's probably got some fictional model that has some minute effect on things that doesn't matter much. But it shouldn't be there at all.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Ted » Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:28 am

This is the same as any job I've ever had. When things are going well, everyone gets along. When they aren't, people start to have conflict. The only difference is that no job environment tolerates people who aren't pulling their own weight (i.e. slackers). Those people don't exist in sport. Lazy people don't get to be pro athletes. Corporate team models likely don't apply to sports well simply because of the selection bias that allows one to become a pro athlete. These guys are already all the same. Driven, hard working, type A, perfectionists. They've all spent decades in team environments learning how to co-exist with others like themselves.

I mean, the very idea that a 18 year old kid who is going to go in the first round of the draft has poor work ethic is complete nonsense. That's not even possible. Lazy kids don't get picked in rd 1. They probably don't get picked in rd 20. I could see the hypothetical genetic god who if he just worked harder could be better, but that's like maybe 1-2 % of players, tops. Professional athletes are more or less all the same personality type with rare exceptions. They've been groomed throughout their impressionable childhoods to be that way, and most of the ones that don't fit in, don't make it. It's an ultra competitive, be like everyone else, environment. Kids that don't fit in don't continue to strive to get better. They go play video games or look at pretty girls or boys or do drugs or whatever the cool kids do now.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Ted » Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:48 am

Well, now I'm on fire. Thanks guys.

OOTP has internal ratings for "handle success" and "Handle failure". Are you shitting me? Repeat after me: NO ONE LIKES LOSING. Or playing poorly. Or whatever. That's just us regular folks. Now think of the kid you knew from high school who played college ball, or maybe a few of us know a kid who became a pro athlete. Remember how those guys were with losing? Or how they were when they couldn't get a part of their game just right? You know, the distaste for failure that drove them to spend hours perfecting their craft when everyone else was fucking around being a kid?

Oh, and handle success? You me winning all the time, like almost every kid that is a prospect does for years because they are so good or are in super programs? When they don't stop working on their game because they already have an inner drive so strong that they became one of the top .001 percent of humans at something in the first place?

This shit is just dumb. Lazy people who can't handle success or failure don't become pro athletes. They just don't. Not anymore. Probably not for a long time. What we see, is how they externalize the conflict they have when they struggle. One guy becomes more curt with teammates. Another quietly goes and works on his swing. Another parties. Those different actions tell us nothing about how well the player handles it. But they ABSOLUTELY can handle it, or they wouldn't be where they are. In our need to make our gods like us, we apply narratives to their behavior that fit stories we want to tell. That's why the narratives always get contradicted later. Because they just aren't true. The players themselves know that when their teammates has been scuffling and he's a bit a fuck right now, that's it's all that guy dealing with failure. They let it go, because they know about the struggle. They've been there. Pro athletes represent a very specific slice of the human psyche. They just aren't like most people.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by RonCo » Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:03 am

The issue you’re dealing with is that the model of human interaction is complex, and that culture in one place is different than culture in another place. It is not a stretch to equate the impact of culture on teams in one place with those in another place. Many corporate teams roles are quite discrete—meaning they don’t rely upon one another too much—yet still there are impacts of a caustic culture on individual performance.

The dynamic you describe in which a player moves from place to place and has different experiences, reputations, and performances is normal—but does not mean that personality and impact on performance does not exist. It just means there’s something mercurial in its nature. A good leader in the right role, for example, can make a difference.

But yes, when the ship is going down, it takes a remarkable leader to keep the gang together.

Put the same guy in one culture and he’s a leader, put him in another culture and he is a lightning rod. I agree that OOTP could do a better job of modelling the complex soup of a team culture. Right now it’s almost certainly too polar. That said, Calos Camacho was on the Nine and didn’t wreck our culture (chemistry) because we had a strong set of players around him, and we were winning. He went other places and caused havoc. Without knowing those team’s cultures, that sounds reasonable. So kudos to OOTP in that limited framework.

I’ll also note that OOTP players can very well change their personality traits over their years. Is that done correctly? No idea.

I’m fine if you want to say the OOTP model is too coarse, or too predictable, or needs work. That goes without saying. I’m fine if you say OOTP players are not deep enough or don’t behave properly. The resolution of the OOTP personality model is clearly too coarse, but you’ll always be able to say that because human beings are too complex to really model “correctly.”

If you use that as your framework, we should also throw out ballpark effects. Ballpark effects are clearly wrong. There is no study that has ever determined these factors to work this way.

Similarly, the development curves for players should be turned off completely. I mean, who really knows how a guy’s power moves? All the studies we’ve ever seen are destroyed by survivor bias and selection bias at a minimum. I’ve studies the development curves for essentially all my OOTP life and the only thing I can say with certainty is that they are wrong.

Defense, too. The algorithms are just wrong.

Manager decisions in game? I don’t understand exactly what they do, and they are way, way too coarse. Coach’s impact? Who knows, right? And by impact, I’m not even talking about conveying knowledge, I’m talking about their influence in the clubhouse. I mean, did Dusty Baker make a real difference for vets?

The questions at root are (1) is the model workable, (2) does it have a reasonable impact, and (3) is it more fun to have it on.

We could, for example, declare all park factors must be 1.000, and get rid of the problems they bring about. That would suck for me.

We could turn off personalities. This isn’t a hill I’d die on, but for me they add value. If we turn off personalities, I admit I’ll feel we’re losing something that deepens the Brewster world.

The question inherent in #2 up there (do personalities have a reasonable impact), is one of judgement rather than empirical study. For us, anyway. It is very, very hard to study team chemistry in real life—which is what I think you’re trying to say when you say no one has found X. My read on the situation is that OOTP’s model, whatever it actually is, weighs personality-related performance impact as a very tiny impact most of the time—though there seems some expectation that once a team starts to lose a lot, those bad apples can cause deeper performance hits. I don’t know that’s true, though. It could just be that the team isn’t very good.

In other words, there’s reasonable reason to think that the on-field impact of personalities is effectively zero, and that personalities have greater impact on whether a guy will sign with or stay with a team. To me, that makes total sense. Is the algorithm “right?” I have no idea. But it adds a layer of fun to it for me. I like them, so they improve my life. You are fine to find it not so fun. [grin]

But I admit that when I hear someone say that dynamics I’ve spent decades of my life actively studying, understanding, and using is not “true” or “proven,” … well, it makes me wonder what planet I’m living on. Then again, I suppose most of our modern social problems are based on how we as individuals assess “truth.” This is just a tiny one. [again, grin]
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
Dington
GB: Recruiting & Development Director
Posts: 4816
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:06 am
Has thanked: 2074 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Dington » Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:05 am

What does @HerbD win for getting @Ted going?
Image
Nashville Bluebirds GM
HOW I BUILD A WINNING TEAM <---Click
Kuwait City GM 2042-43
2043 UMEBA United Cup Champion*

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Ted » Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:07 am

I have a very mediocre level of athletic talent, so I don't have the experience there, but I can tell you about one place of "elite-ness" that I'm drawing these parallels from.

I went to med school. I had a class of about 200. They told us the first day that it would get weird, because while we had all been the smartest ones among our peers before, most of us no longer would be. Some of us had "failed" at school before. Some hadn't. Obviously, none of us had failed much because we got into med school. The dumbest person med school is probably among the smartest 10% of humans. There's your elite genetic skill. The worst student in med school is among the top 5% of students. You don't get in if you ever had any real stretch of poor performance. There's your elite work ethic.

Every single one of us had success and failure in med school. We all handled it. 3 people didn't graduate. One got married and decided she didn't care enough. Another developed a drug problem. Only one academically couldn't hack it. Out of 200. Out of those that graduated, over 95% finish residency, working 80-100 hours a week as new doctors, literally being useless at our jobs and humiliated every day at the beginning, and then when we succeed, overworked because we were cheap labor. Why is the success rate so high? Because of the selection process that got us there and the grooming we received during the process. And we are a weird ass group of people. Doctors are weird humans. We aren't wired like everyone else for the things that matter for being doctors. And I can walk into any room full of doctors and fit in (something I can hardly do with any other group of people), because the process that got us there made us all the same in the ways that matter for working together. Not only that, but if you did a social experiment and put 100 doctors in a room, didn't tell any of them that they were with other doctors, and we were only allowed to talk about tomatoes, we'd all figure out we were doctors in about 10-15 minutes.

Pro athletes are the same, but even more exclusive. They got to where they are because of who they are and how they were raised. They aren't like you and me.

So when we try to label them with this silly personality type BS and say that they can handle success and handle failure and have poor work ethic or can't handle controversy or are "outspoken" or "disruptive", it's total bullshit. None of those people that are actually problems that way get there. There is the rare exception, but this shit just doesn't matter for the overwhelming majority of any group that has such a strict selection and development process.
Last edited by Ted on Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Team Chemistry - BIG impact

Post by Ted » Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:08 am

RonCo wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:03 am
The issue you’re dealing with is that the model of human interaction is complex, and that culture in one place is different than culture in another place. It is not a stretch to equate the impact of culture on teams in one place with those in another place. Many corporate teams roles are quite discrete—meaning they don’t rely upon one another too much—yet still there are impacts of a caustic culture on individual performance.

The dynamic you describe in which a player moves from place to place and has different experiences, reputations, and performances is normal—but does not mean that personality and impact on performance does not exist. It just means there’s something mercurial in its nature. A good leader in the right role, for example, can make a difference.

But yes, when the ship is going down, it takes a remarkable leader to keep the gang together.

Put the same guy in one culture and he’s a leader, put him in another culture and he is a lightning rod. I agree that OOTP could do a better job of modelling the complex soup of a team culture. Right now it’s almost certainly too polar. That said, Calos Camacho was on the Nine and didn’t wreck our culture (chemistry) because we had a strong set of players around him, and we were winning. He went other places and caused havoc. Without knowing those team’s cultures, that sounds reasonable. So kudos to OOTP in that limited framework.

I’ll also note that OOTP players can very well change their personality traits over their years. Is that done correctly? No idea.

I’m fine if you want to say the OOTP model is too coarse, or too predictable, or needs work. That goes without saying. I’m fine if you say OOTP players are not deep enough or don’t behave properly. The resolution of the OOTP personality model is clearly too coarse, but you’ll always be able to say that because human beings are too complex to really model “correctly.”

If you use that as your framework, we should also throw out ballpark effects. Ballpark effects are clearly wrong. There is no study that has ever determined these factors to work this way.

Similarly, the development curves for players should be turned off completely. I mean, who really knows how a guy’s power moves? All the studies we’ve ever seen are destroyed by survivor bias and selection bias at a minimum. I’ve studies the development curves for essentially all my OOTP life and the only thing I can say with certainty is that they are wrong.

Defense, too. The algorithms are just wrong.

Manager decisions in game? I don’t understand exactly what they do, and they are way, way too coarse. Coach’s impact? Who knows, right? And by impact, I’m not even talking about conveying knowledge, I’m talking about their influence in the clubhouse. I mean, did Dusty Baker make a real difference for vets?

The questions at root are (1) is the model workable, (2) does it have a reasonable impact, and (3) is it more fun to have it on.

We could, for example, declare all park factors must be 1.000, and get rid of the problems they bring about. That would suck for me.

We could turn off personalities. This isn’t a hill I’d die on, but for me they add value. If we turn off personalities, I admit I’ll feel we’re losing something that deepens the Brewster world.

The question inherent in #2 up there (do personalities have a reasonable impact), is one of judgement rather than empirical study. For us, anyway. It is very, very hard to study team chemistry in real life—which is what I think you’re trying to say when you say no one has found X. My read on the situation is that OOTP’s model, whatever it actually is, weighs personality-related performance impact as a very tiny impact most of the time—though there seems some expectation that once a team starts to lose a lot, those bad apples can cause deeper performance hits. I don’t know that’s true, though. It could just be that the team isn’t very good.

In other words, there’s reasonable reason to think that the on-field impact of personalities is effectively zero, and that personalities have greater impact on whether a guy will sign with or stay with a team. To me, that makes total sense. Is the algorithm “right?” I have no idea. But it adds a layer of fun to it for me. I like them, so they improve my life. You are fine to find it not so fun. [grin]

But I admit that when I hear someone say that dynamics I’ve spent decades of my life actively studying, understanding, and using is not “true” or “proven,” … well, it makes me wonder what planet I’m living on. Then again, I suppose most of our modern social problems are based on how we as individuals assess “truth.” This is just a tiny one. [again, grin]
Ron, the problem is that OOTP is treating these guys like regular humans with a regular work environment interaction. Not just OOTP, but sports journalists as well. See my other post.

Also, your points about ballpark factors and dev curves is both hyperbole and not a valid comparison. In both of those cases, there is measurable data they are attempting to approximate with a model. Is OOTP perfect? No, but it makes sense to try.

In the case of chemistry and personality ratings, they have no data to model that exists in baseball. None. They are just making shit up, and doing it in a way that is childishly simple and doesn't really apply to the types of personalities that become pro athletes.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “League Chatter”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests