yep

Interesting, I'm not sure why it wouldn't show up. Could be a scouting thing perhaps? If you check in the editor maybe you'll see some experience in the position?

That tip was for the development lab, not training sliders

Yes it is. Players will regress at a skill if they are not training it

Started up a save and checked out a player dev page, the default allocations were different than when I clicked the "Let AI Manage" button on the same page. Are the default settings typically different from when you let the AI manage the dev and if so, if one is optimized via the AI evaluation, what is the default setting using as its rationale?

Just trying to see if I can be lazy and not visit every page to have the AI optimize it (in their view) for me.

Ty.

One player finished and I have an open spot. I want t try to add a pitcher but the only options for pitchers are improve defense at pitcher and bunting drills. Is there a reason for this?

Most likely there is not enough time in the offseason for them to complete the pitching drills. Those you pretty much have to start right when the offseason begins

I am wondering if you can set it up this way:
Playing as GM only, controlling rosters definitely for Minors, possibly for Majors (depending on Head Coach).

Can I set the default as Will said so that the AI will do development for Minors only, but then I can still pick and choose my top prospects to "hand tailor" and check the box so that the AI can't change my selections on that particular player(s)?

Seems to me that would be the best of both worlds; I am spared the tedium of the majority of my Minor League system players, but I can control the ones who really matter in my mind.
Thanks for the explanation guys!

I have only simmed 2 seasons, one a fantasy draft where I mostly had young vets / prospects, the 2nd where I used the Phillies default roster. I am specifically only interested in this new feature, primarily the focus part of it in season.

In both cases I used a min/max approach to the development focus. So for a hitter I would zero out baserunning and defense for example but max out power and babip. I would do something like this with every player on the mlb roster. A bar was either at zero or 100, if points were left over one of the bars was at 50.

In both seasons, it was more likely that I would see an INCREASE in categories I had zeroed out. In categories I maxed out typically there was no change or a DECREASE.

I am not ready to say there is a huge problem, we are only talking about 2 seasons I have simmed and I assume this is the first thing someone in the beta would do. From a developer standpoint, what would the intent be if someone used this strategy?

One thing I don’t love is that for pitchers there are more points available if the pitcher has more pitches in their repertoire. I assume this is because the system is set up so that every bar can be at 50%, but if the bar distribution makes a difference this gives an advantage to the user who wants to max out the non-pitch categories. Available points being allocated based on potential & work ethic ratings seems like an alternative that might make sense? Having 6 pitches giving you the equivalent of a 2 full bar advantage over a player with 2 pitches just seems a strange mechanic to me. Assuming there is an actual advantage to be had of course, my quick experiments indicate the bars may be cosmetic fluff.

Thoughts?

Thanks for doing this, very interesting. I'm curious what testing was done by the devs and what results they had?

One thing I forgot to mention in my novel above - I also maxed out my development budget to 40,500,000. I assume that is supposed to help with the in season development along with the bars.

You can do this. On the individual players Development page there is a check box to "Prevent AI from Adjusting Focus..."

So you can assign the minor league development focus to the AI but customize it for select players and check that box.

I think the results you're seeing are likely because of a small sample size introducing randomness from standard player development and and short test length of only 2 seasons. The development focus is on top of the normal development, and I can say for certain based on the way it's coded, that putting more into something will lead to better development, and taking away will lead to worse.

It is a good point about the number of pitches increasing the amount of points they have to distribute, but generally pitchers that have so many pitches are not as great in other areas. Also as an example, if a guy has 3 pitches then sure he'll have more points than a guy with only 2, but if you take away from his third pitch he's going to end up a lot worse than he currently is. So while he has more points, they aren't really "free" to take because they are so valuable. Granted this could lead to strategies where you can make great relievers out of 3 pitch starters by moving the points out of the third pitch, but I'd argue that this is realistic and happens in real life all the time.

Awesome, thanks byzeil! That makes my day.

Vital info on this Dev Lab. THANKS

It's huge and adds a lot of "fiddling" around after Rule 5 decisions until spring training. In the past it was only going after some FAs, but now you got something valuable to do as a GM.

:thumbup1:

Thanks for the response. I started another fresh fantasy draft yesterday morning and have simmed through the first season (my young stars are in the WS of course because the AI is not good at drafting but that is a whole other topic).

I am going to keep this one going for a couple of seasons and I will follow up. After the drafts I went through all my mlb roster and 25ish minor leaguers that I think could make the team soon and manipulated their focus bars using the min/max approach. Then I did the same during the season with every international discovery and my entire draft class. I am still seeing the same outcomes. At this point offensively (at least in year one) I would never put a single point in defense or base running and probably stamina for pitchers.

I am using the Phillies coaching staff - at the MLB level the bench coach is outstanding at catching defense and infield. My coach ratings on base running and OF defense are average. Staff cohesion is content, my bench coach and 3B coach both struggle with 3 staff members. Pitching coach is Finesse focused, Hitting Coach is Power. Player relationships for all coaches are listed as average. Team cohesion/chemistry at the MLB level is a full bar Ecstatic. I have 40.5m invested in development budget, 27m invested in scouting at 25/25/25/25.

I will not list everyone, but a couple here:

Corbin Carroll: max BABIP, max avoid Ks, max Eye, half bar Power. No decreases this year. Speed +5c, Power +10c, Gap +5c/+5p, Defense +10c, Contact +10c, Eye +10c.

Nolan Schanuel: same bars as Carroll. Speed -5c, Eye -5c/-5p. Power +5c, Contact +10c/went down then back up in potential. Those were the only changes, his overall rating has gone from 3.0 to 5.0 (as 1B).

Pete Crow-Armstrong: same as other two except half bar in Gap instead of Power. Contact -5c/-5p, Gap -5p, Eye -5p, Defense down then back up for net no change. Potential overall rating has dropped to 4.5.

Owen Cassie: max BABIP, Power, Eye, half bar Gap. No decreases. Eye +5c/+5p, Speed +5c.

Tink Hence: Max Fastball, Slider, Curveball, half bar Changeup. No decreases. Stamina +5c, movement +5c, Control +5c, Stuff +5c. Overall has improved from 1.5 to 2.5.

Christopher Sanchez: Max Slider, Changeup, Sinker stuff. Control potential went down then back up (no change). Stuff +5c/+5p

Jack Flaherty: max Control, Fastball, Slider, Curveball Stuff. Stamina -5c. Movement +5c/+5p.

Tanner Scott: max Fastball and Slider stuff, half bar movement. Control +5c/+5p, Stuff +5c/+5p

Tried to give a variety sample there, hopefully others find it interesting. I realize it is just a part of the equation and this is by no means definitive, but I have now found very similar results with 3 different rosters (same coaching staff).

If you check in this thread again, is there anything else from the developer standpoint that you see / would expect over time? Thanks!

Anyone can tell me how to actually put players in the lab? For the life of me I can't seem to get it to work. I drag players up to the top and nothing happens. Only the AI selection works, and they never pick what I would want to do.

Drag and drop to the left or hit the green arrow next to the player. That will open the options that are available to you in the lab. Once you select your training manual they will move to the area that says vacant.

Hope that was clear!

Can click the + button or drag and drop them to the left of the screen

I will say, I'd be shocked if you were able to see a trend manually like this. To get the appropriate data you'd need to set at least a couple hundred players to some extremes of the sliders and then sim for at least 5 years. Then, you would want to do that all over again but don't touch the sliders, and compare this control to the other data set. I just don't think that would be possible without the developer tools we have.

Its like switching from a mediocre coach to a good coach. I'd think that the effects wouldn't be noticeable either.

What I'd expect to see is that for a large sample size of players, if you max out a particular slider for everyone, over the course of several seasons the average rating of that slider would drift upwards.

I have noticed that sometimes when a player has a successful lab session (?) their stats don't always seem to flag up on scouting as increased. Im convinced they are increasing it just doesn't say in scouting. I think it's typically for stealing related developments. Has this been seen before. Pictures for ref


https://imgur.com/a/1rzoWaV