Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePretender
I usually spend half the average amount for player dev, while others spend 3 times the max amount. My farm system is usually in the top tier despite not having a losing season in 20+ years (and few if any top 20 overall draft picks), I rarely have prospects bust, and I don't see weaker IFA rates in terms of quality compared to other people. I strongly disagree with your point on spending money in player development, as I find it's a huge money sink with no actual evidence of working.
I also disagree with your 4 blue chip SS strategy. If you have 4 blue chip SS, that means you can shift them to 2B/SS. So you don't need to do 3-1 type deals. Also instead of trading for prospects, you should aim for young major leaguers, which reduces the risk on your part (ie less likely to bust since they're already MLB ready).
Otherwise solid advice, but I always recommend against using the player development budget. In multiple leagues I've just never seen any evidence to justify using it.
|
I'll admit -
You might be right on player development sans some of the exploits (relative to no penalty for bloated rosters - so long as you make sure you don't have prospects not playing, etc).
I have no special insights, extended numbers or tests - just a guess... and I imagine Markus won't share the insights (nor would I want him to - it's more fun to guess, experiment, and theorize).
However, my
guess/theory is that like most things in sabermetrics - everything regresses to the mean. I think bumping the player dev budget to the max basically moves an org-wide modifier mean up a notch of two. Random variance and the other factors cause players to fall short, hit the mark, or beat it - but especially if you're going "bloat" (my total player count is probably near double AI teams), you end up with a lot more moderately useful players.
I have found - via my OCD-level use of shortlists - that it means I end up with draft classes that continually set records for MLB service time.
I.e., , ordinarily - a team is lucky if a draft class yields half a dozen guys that ultimately taste the big leagues. I find that nearly half my draft classes end up playing in the majors (whether with me or someone else) - which ultimately means more trade chits.
Obviously, you'd rather have nab...say... that one guy who posts 50 career WAR and a whole lot of nothing elsewhere than 10 guys who tally 5.
But - in the OOTP context? I think the result is I can pretty much autopilot spare OFs, utility guys, relievers, back halves of my rotation. This is in addition to having the chits to trade for whatever blue chippers I want.
That said, I'm obviously advantaged by managing a team with a big market. The choices would (all) get harder with a smaller market team.