Player development?

tigey75 · 03-05-2010, 03:41 PM

I'm sure this has been beaten dead, but I am still trying to get my head around it.

What exactly controls player development? If I have a guy playing rookie ball that my scouts label as five-star potential. What can make him get worse? If I promoted him too soon, didn't give him enough playing time? etc...

I've had players ratings just go in the tank from one year to the next and I'm wondering if I did something wrong or is it all random? Thanks for any help....

damientheomen3 · 03-05-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigey75

I'm sure this has been beaten dead, but I am still trying to get my head around it.

What exactly controls player development? If I have a guy playing rookie ball that my scouts label as five-star potential. What can make him get worse? If I promoted him too soon, didn't give him enough playing time? etc...

I've had players ratings just go in the tank from one year to the next and I'm wondering if I did something wrong or is it all random? Thanks for any help....

Judging from what you said, I'm going to assume that you use scouting. If so, then it's more your scout changing his idea on the player, rather than the player takinhg a development hit.

tigey75 · 03-05-2010, 04:36 PM

So do the ratings only change based on the scout's opinions or can the ratings actually change?

ptwarr18 · 03-05-2010, 04:46 PM

They can actually change. If you have scouting turned off, you see those changes immediately.

damientheomen3 · 03-05-2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptwarr18

They can actually change. If you have scouting turned off, you see those changes immediately.

yes, and they're *mostly* nowhere near as drastic

DanDiaz · 03-07-2010, 08:31 AM

If you look at them in editor, a lot of 4 and five star prospects are actulay scrubs, and after a few years your scout realizes that.

I have seen a lot of people say their stud prospect tanked one year to the next, this is rare. What actually happened was that your scout thought the scrub was a stud, and then realized he was a scrub.

My draft has a ton of 4-5 star prospects, but in actually there are maybe 5-12 true 5 star hitters, 3-8 relivers, and 0-2 starters. The rest are secretly scrubs.

TNCubsFan · 03-07-2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanDiaz

If you look at them in editor, a lot of 4 and five star prospects are actulay scrubs, and after a few years your scout realizes that.

I have seen a lot of people say their stud prospect tanked one year to the next, this is rare. What actually happened was that your scout thought the scrub was a stud, and then realized he was a scrub.

My draft has a ton of 4-5 star prospects, but in actually there are maybe 5-12 true 5 star hitters, 3-8 relivers, and 0-2 starters. The rest are secretly scrubs.

Which is alot like real life. Look at the #1's from 10 years ago and see how many had a 5+ year major league career as starters. Then look at how many are 5 tool studs as we seem to be defining it here.

s0ni42 · 03-10-2010, 11:37 AM

i got frustrated with this happening as well when i first started playing. I like to use the scouting however b/c it adds a little variety to player value. I have been tweaking with my "talent randomness" and currently have it at 75. I think it balances out the disadvantage of using scouting. Less 5-stars turn into scrubs, however if does still occur, just happens over a longer period of time versus a week.

Biggio509 · 03-18-2010, 01:49 AM

There are some other factors here not mentioned. If you play with coaching on then your coaches have an influence on development. Crappy coaches mean player may not develop as fast. I am not 100% sure how much this affects things. In the universes with crappy coaches I usually had a so so scout. So it is hard to tell if the scout was wrong or the player wasn't reaching potential due to bad coaches.

There are two other factors in scouts that I think are huge. How much your scouting budget is and how often you change your scout. When you get a decent scout make sure you hold on to him until he retires. The game does use time scouted as a basis for how close to true ratings you are. So if you switch scouts I think the time clock resets because the new scout sees the guy for the first time.

The scouting budget I think is crucial. I think most of the beginning of the year drop offs, where players crash are due to underfunded scouting. When you don't spend much or just the league average on scouting then you don't really get updates on how the scout's perception is changing. It seems it is more likely to get a once a year update if you go with default percentages and average budgets. Hence players particularly in rookie and short A go from 20 out of 80 to suddenly 20 out of 20. Spending more on scouting seems to get more updates and you see the potential drop more evenly.

I think percentages are also more important. If you go with default then you spend a high amount on major league scouting. I tend to cut back on this. In the majors how the guy is actually performing is much more important to me than a scout's idea of potential and ratings. So I scale that back to about 20 percent and raise minor league and foreign scouting percentages. That way scouts spend more time evaluating minor leagues than major leagues whom the stats should be doing the evaluation for.

I think the later depends on your play style. If you want to be the Yankees, have a huge budget and trade prospects for vets and invest heavily in free agents since you have the cash, maybe scouting the majors is better. If you want to be the Marlins, rely on farm system and trade good guys who are about to cost too much for prospects, you have to put more emphasis on scouting minors. I am not sure if maybe even scaling back on scouting amatuers isn't a bad idea. Like in real life picks are a crap shoot. Sometimes that first round pick is someone like Lance Berkman. Sometimes it is Chris Burke. With both your scouts are likely to say he is great.

I don't think the game really crashes players around the first of the year. I think what happens is if you spend less your scouts depend more on OSA or update with OSA scouting. So it looks like a guy just crashes because your budget only allows scouting once or twice a year. Less money would mean more time to scout everyone. If you spend on scouting and have at least a decent scout, in my current game he has green numbers, you get a more steady flow of scouting reports and the ratings tend to update more quickly. Also note when I lowered my scouting one year to cover a deficit so I would have some free agent money I noticed my prospects seemed to have crashed. When I raised it back the next year, some prospects had better scout ratings. Time works both ways I have seem a few prospects actually increase their perceived potential. It doesn't happen as much as they lose it but it has happened.

In the end it is about play style. If you want to go the extreme of the Yankees who cares. You are just going to trade these guys for someone with a proven track record. It only matters how the AI evaluates them. If you want to go with a Marlins strategy it could be important. A more middle of the road strategy probably still needs about twice the league average spent on scouting and you may need to cut back on major scouting or something else to get a good steady view of minor leaguers.

Also don't forget about coaches. They can affect if your prospects actually develop.

knockahoma · 03-19-2010, 07:22 AM

I play the old 2 league, 16 teams format in God mode.

After a couple of seasons, I turned on scouting and coaching. No financials. Any heads-ups on this? I'm in off-season and handle all transactions for all teams.

I go through each team to determine their needs for the next season. Since adding scouting, I implement the ACT AS: feature, rather than just looking at stuff thru the commissioner's eyes. Will the ACT AS feature cause me to see the players thru the eyes of that team's scout?

Biggio509 · 03-19-2010, 06:05 PM

The best advice I can give you is stats are more telling than scouting reports. The issue with scouts for me is mostly a draft issue. Do you really have a system loaded with catching prospects or a system with a bunch of future scrubs at C? With the draft and sometimes promotion decisions scouting is where you will have you biggest issue. You might not promote a seemingly future star because your scouts think a future star is at the next level. So he won't get playing time. It might turn out that the guy at the next level is a career minor leaguer and you held up a real star or the other way around.

You might find scouting a little frustrating with player development expectations but honestly scouting for me just makes me rely on stats a lot more. I promote guys because they have the right stats to show they are above the current level not because my scout says he has X current contact and I think they should have X contact for the next level. If you already use stats heavily then it should really make little difference. If you rely on ratings then you might not want to play with scouts on. Sometimes you have to realize you are guessing especially if you play with high injuries. You have to look at scout's opinion of stats especially early in the season if someone is injured. This makes the decisions a little harder.

03-05-2010, 03:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
tigey75 Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 308 Thanks: 66 Thanked 73x in 34 posts	Player development? I'm sure this has been beaten dead, but I am still trying to get my head around it. What exactly controls player development? If I have a guy playing rookie ball that my scouts label as five-star potential. What can make him get worse? If I promoted him too soon, didn't give him enough playing time? etc... I've had players ratings just go in the tank from one year to the next and I'm wondering if I did something wrong or is it all random? Thanks for any help....

03-05-2010, 04:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
ptwarr18 Major Leagues Join Date: May 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 300 Thanks: 12 Thanked 6x in 6 posts	They can actually change. If you have scouting turned off, you see those changes immediately. __________________ Bobby Tokorozawa Arsenal GM in WBH

03-07-2010, 08:31 AM	#6 (permalink)
DanDiaz Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 147 Thanks: 8 Thanked 24x in 14 posts	Remember a lot of 'hot' prospects actually stink If you look at them in editor, a lot of 4 and five star prospects are actulay scrubs, and after a few years your scout realizes that. I have seen a lot of people say their stud prospect tanked one year to the next, this is rare. What actually happened was that your scout thought the scrub was a stud, and then realized he was a scrub. My draft has a ton of 4-5 star prospects, but in actually there are maybe 5-12 true 5 star hitters, 3-8 relivers, and 0-2 starters. The rest are secretly scrubs.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-05-2010, 04:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
tigey75 Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 308 Thanks: 66 Thanked 73x in 34 posts	So do the ratings only change based on the scout's opinions or can the ratings actually change?

03-10-2010, 11:37 AM	#8 (permalink)
s0ni42 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Alabama Posts: 110 Thanks: 13 Thanked 12x in 11 posts	i got frustrated with this happening as well when i first started playing. I like to use the scouting however b/c it adds a little variety to player value. I have been tweaking with my "talent randomness" and currently have it at 75. I think it balances out the disadvantage of using scouting. Less 5-stars turn into scrubs, however if does still occur, just happens over a longer period of time versus a week.

03-18-2010, 01:49 AM	#9 (permalink)
Biggio509 All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,482 Thanks: 32 Thanked 449x in 264 posts	There are some other factors here not mentioned. If you play with coaching on then your coaches have an influence on development. Crappy coaches mean player may not develop as fast. I am not 100% sure how much this affects things. In the universes with crappy coaches I usually had a so so scout. So it is hard to tell if the scout was wrong or the player wasn't reaching potential due to bad coaches. There are two other factors in scouts that I think are huge. How much your scouting budget is and how often you change your scout. When you get a decent scout make sure you hold on to him until he retires. The game does use time scouted as a basis for how close to true ratings you are. So if you switch scouts I think the time clock resets because the new scout sees the guy for the first time. The scouting budget I think is crucial. I think most of the beginning of the year drop offs, where players crash are due to underfunded scouting. When you don't spend much or just the league average on scouting then you don't really get updates on how the scout's perception is changing. It seems it is more likely to get a once a year update if you go with default percentages and average budgets. Hence players particularly in rookie and short A go from 20 out of 80 to suddenly 20 out of 20. Spending more on scouting seems to get more updates and you see the potential drop more evenly. I think percentages are also more important. If you go with default then you spend a high amount on major league scouting. I tend to cut back on this. In the majors how the guy is actually performing is much more important to me than a scout's idea of potential and ratings. So I scale that back to about 20 percent and raise minor league and foreign scouting percentages. That way scouts spend more time evaluating minor leagues than major leagues whom the stats should be doing the evaluation for. I think the later depends on your play style. If you want to be the Yankees, have a huge budget and trade prospects for vets and invest heavily in free agents since you have the cash, maybe scouting the majors is better. If you want to be the Marlins, rely on farm system and trade good guys who are about to cost too much for prospects, you have to put more emphasis on scouting minors. I am not sure if maybe even scaling back on scouting amatuers isn't a bad idea. Like in real life picks are a crap shoot. Sometimes that first round pick is someone like Lance Berkman. Sometimes it is Chris Burke. With both your scouts are likely to say he is great. I don't think the game really crashes players around the first of the year. I think what happens is if you spend less your scouts depend more on OSA or update with OSA scouting. So it looks like a guy just crashes because your budget only allows scouting once or twice a year. Less money would mean more time to scout everyone. If you spend on scouting and have at least a decent scout, in my current game he has green numbers, you get a more steady flow of scouting reports and the ratings tend to update more quickly. Also note when I lowered my scouting one year to cover a deficit so I would have some free agent money I noticed my prospects seemed to have crashed. When I raised it back the next year, some prospects had better scout ratings. Time works both ways I have seem a few prospects actually increase their perceived potential. It doesn't happen as much as they lose it but it has happened. In the end it is about play style. If you want to go the extreme of the Yankees who cares. You are just going to trade these guys for someone with a proven track record. It only matters how the AI evaluates them. If you want to go with a Marlins strategy it could be important. A more middle of the road strategy probably still needs about twice the league average spent on scouting and you may need to cut back on major scouting or something else to get a good steady view of minor leaguers. Also don't forget about coaches. They can affect if your prospects actually develop.

03-19-2010, 07:22 AM	#10 (permalink)
knockahoma All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 792 Thanks: 14 Thanked 77x in 31 posts	I play the old 2 league, 16 teams format in God mode. After a couple of seasons, I turned on scouting and coaching. No financials. Any heads-ups on this? I'm in off-season and handle all transactions for all teams. I go through each team to determine their needs for the next season. Since adding scouting, I implement the ACT AS: feature, rather than just looking at stuff thru the commissioner's eyes. Will the ACT AS feature cause me to see the players thru the eyes of that team's scout?

03-19-2010, 06:05 PM	#11 (permalink)
Biggio509 All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,482 Thanks: 32 Thanked 449x in 264 posts	The best advice I can give you is stats are more telling than scouting reports. The issue with scouts for me is mostly a draft issue. Do you really have a system loaded with catching prospects or a system with a bunch of future scrubs at C? With the draft and sometimes promotion decisions scouting is where you will have you biggest issue. You might not promote a seemingly future star because your scouts think a future star is at the next level. So he won't get playing time. It might turn out that the guy at the next level is a career minor leaguer and you held up a real star or the other way around. You might find scouting a little frustrating with player development expectations but honestly scouting for me just makes me rely on stats a lot more. I promote guys because they have the right stats to show they are above the current level not because my scout says he has X current contact and I think they should have X contact for the next level. If you already use stats heavily then it should really make little difference. If you rely on ratings then you might not want to play with scouts on. Sometimes you have to realize you are guessing especially if you play with high injuries. You have to look at scout's opinion of stats especially early in the season if someone is injured. This makes the decisions a little harder.