Fictional Leagues

[toadfreak7]

A couple of things I've noticed about starting fictional leagues:

1. Positions: Often a player is created with above 90 rating at 1B, 2B and SS and he's listed as a 1B who's 5'10", 175 lbs. First, that's a small 1B. Second, not many 1B can also play 2B and SS. I think there needs to be some tightening up of player creation. OFers are more likely to have some proficiency at 1B. So are catchers. Utility IFers often are more proficient at 2B, 3B and SS, but not as much at 1B. The problem this causes is that it's much easier to improve your team because there's so many players that can play all 4 infield positions, so it's too easy to plug that gap. To put it another way, in real baseball, there's usually 2 or 3 star players at 2B that are free agents for a particular offseason, but in the game since so many infielders play many positions, you can choose from 10 or more star players to play 2B, because the star FAs at 3B also play 2B. And the same for SS.

2. Prospects: It's too easy to build your team for the future because when you start a fictional league your team has (and every other team has) very little 3- 4- or 5-star prospects. But there's a ton in the FA pool. So I'm free to sign all these 5-star prospects to minor league contracts to start off my franchise. Then, when I look at the BA System Rankings, I'm first obviously because I have the top 15 prospects.

[Charley575]

In response to 1. Eh, I know what you mean, because the game does create a lot of IF that play all four positions, which is different from the real world, but this really doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the game.

In response to 2. Start with a draft. Problem solved.

One thing I would like to see is a better SPREAD of talent at league creation. It seems to me that there are about 20 major league caliber guys on each 25 man roster, almost NO real AAA quality players, maybe a handful, another slightly larger handful of AA players, and then about a hundred A level or worse players.

[Tycobbler]

Originally Posted by toadfreak7

A couple of things I've noticed about starting fictional leagues:

2. Prospects: It's too easy to build your team for the future because when you start a fictional league your team has (and every other team has) very little 3- 4- or 5-star prospects. But there's a ton in the FA pool. So I'm free to sign all these 5-star prospects to minor league contracts to start off my franchise. Then, when I look at the BA System Rankings, I'm first obviously because I have the top 15 prospects.

Don't speak to soon my friend. Prospects don't pan always pan out like they used to. There's a method to the madness now, meaning several factors are involved in top prospects even turning out to be middle of the road players. I'd suggest after a good 5-10 year sim posting back with how shocked you just might be to find how easy it isn't to find the actual top prospects. I won't give it away just yet. Please let me know how many titles you win, and how many of those 4-5 star spects actually achieve those supposed talents.

Good luck buddy !

[Syd Thrift]

5'10" is shortish for a 1Bman but I'm not completely at odds with a guy who plays all the positions in the IF and is rated highest at first. Of course he's rated higher there; if he can play shortstop without murdering his team, he's probably super-rangy for a 1Bman.

Another thing to watch out for is that the overall ratings, especially when it comes to fielding, are just a guideline. If an infielder is rated 70 (out of 80) in range but 30 in errors, it doesn't matter how well the AI says he is at third base - I would not put him there if I were you. Not unless you were a big fan of Butch Hobson, anyway.

As for your second point, I'll back up what Tycobbler said. Going after 4 and 5 star guys just for their star ratings is a really, really bad idea. For one thing, a large portion of those guys left over after the draft are MRs, which are pretty much a dime a dozen in this game. If you can get one of them over that 110 (out of 200) endurance hump so he can start, great. If he can't... well, there's a reason why he was overlooked. For another, it is a very common occurrence in the game for younger players to suffer potential hits as they grow into their early 20s. Personally, I think this is very realistic, although there are those who believe otherwise. In any case, this is not 6.5, where you can expect 90% of your 5-star prospects to turn into 5-star players.

Good luck with your dynasty. Remember, the bottom line are the wins and losses your major league club accrues, not the number of great players you think you might have.

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

5'10" is shortish for a 1Bman but I'm not completely at odds with a guy who plays all the positions in the IF and is rated highest at first. Of course he's rated higher there; if he can play shortstop without murdering his team, he's probably super-rangy for a 1Bman.

Yes, because of the way that OOTP calculates the positional ratings, any halfway decent 2B/3B/SS could be an excellent first-baseman, and any decent SS can be a very good 2B/3B. (Converting between 2B and 3B is more dicey because the former requires strong skills in Turn DP, while the latter is more based on Infield Arm.)

Anyway, that's just how the base skills work and is unavoidable, but if I'm parsing the original message correctly, the problem (if it is one) is that too many players also have a lot of positional experience at all four positions (that's what drives the positional ratings, after all, because it's a straight multiplier). I dunno...toadfreak, are those guys you're seeing mostly veterans, or are there younger players created like that, too?

Keep in mind that a decent 1B rating is much easier to achieve than the other three, so even a utility infielder who only plays first base rarely would likely get a decent rating there in OOTP before too long, if he's skilled enough to hold down the other three positions.

[injury log]

-re fielding, I could see a role here for the biometric data. Good 1Bs are normally tall and lefthanded; good shortstops are rarely stocky types. If this were combined somehow with the current formulation, that could make things more realistic.

-re prospects on league creation, I agree with toadfreak that there are too many 4/5-star prospects in the FA pool when you create a new league. It seems unrealistic to me that there should be many 16-22 year old FAs at all. I try to imagine where all these FA kids came from; the international signing period should be over by Jan 1, and non-drafted college FAs should never have great potential. That said, as Tycobbler points out, most of those prospects don't pan out. It may be my imagination, but the BA top prospect lists seem especially volatile in the first few months after league creation. If I sign a 5-star 20 year old CF, he might be the no. 17 prospect in the game at first, and then off the list three months later. Still, signing 30 of these guys (easy, because they request minor league contracts) effectively guarantees you'll have a couple of cheap stars four years down the line. Equally problematic are the salary demands of ML-ready free agents in the opening free agent pool; while they may request realistic salaries, they can usually be signed for much less, often a quarter of their request.

Syd- toadfreak was describing the FA pool immediately after starting a new league, and not after an amateur draft, where of course, you're right, you'll find a lot of MR prospects who won't pan out. While Charley's solution- to start with an inaugural draft- will certainly solve the problem, I'd want the game to present a realistic FA situation even if I don't begin with a draft.

[toadfreak7]

Actually, all of the prospects I've signed have been mostly position players. I stick them in AAA or AA and they're ready to contribute in a year or two. So then I trade away my high-contract guys getting even better prospects and I've still got a playoff team. Winning the World Series is tough since I'm 1 out of 40 teams, but I'm a guaranteed 90 game winner every year.

The problem too is that signing all those prospects gives me bait at the trading deadline too. If I've got 2 or 3 4- or 5- star CFers, then that's great trade value.

[ctorg]

It seems to me that most IFs with decent range could become excellent 1Bs given proper training and experience. They are just more valuable elsewhere, so that's where they play.

I do think that the game doesn't generate enough OFs who can play 1B.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by ctorg

It seems to me that most IFs with decent range could become excellent 1Bs given proper training and experience. They are just more valuable elsewhere, so that's where they play.

I do think that the game doesn't generate enough OFs who can play 1B.

What he said. Omar Vizquel and Brian Roberts and Jose Reyes would probably have made/would make spectacular first basemen, with range that made Keith Hernandez look like Cecil Fielder. They'd more than make up for their height with their range. But then Cecil Fielder would have no place to play and your team would hit 27 homers all year.