Quote:
Originally Posted by xnickx5757
What player evaluation settings are you guys rolling with this year?
The default of 65/20/10/5 seems a bit too weighted towards ratings, I'm thinking of switching to 40/30/20/10 or something else.
Anyone find a good balance yet?
|
Well, I'm totally different because I try to get evaluation on what I think they should be aligned with the stars and potential stars of a player.
I lean more toward 70, 28. 1, 1. I do this so the ai hopefully will pick better players to trade and trade for. So, far it is working like i want it to taking Joey Votto from a 4 star player down to a more accurate 3 star player. I prefer more valuation on the ratings and the current stats than I do on what a lucky player might have done last year or two years ago. Much like an Andrus; who's now showing spark vs his abilities two years ago.
I feel ALL the players have a built in RND variable that will have them change yearly from good to bad or bad to good. There's a few that maintain a constant average of good or bad but the ones with higher RATINGS tend to do better over the long run.
Something else you have to watch is the yearly development page. It shows you how well a player is doing every 3 months. I think it's important to use this in trades. Especially if you see LARGE drops in performance in a particular category. Now, if the AI uses this or not i don't know. it might be why I get so much better teams year after year in trades. If it's not using it then I think it should be part of the trading process for it to use it.
The development area is what makes getting good to excellent coaches more important. Those coaches drive the performance stats up. I emphasis rookie and AAA coaches more than the rest. Coming in and just before you get to the majors is more important to me for molding a good baseball player. Of course if you have the funds like a Yankee team or Boston or St. Louis pour more money into better coaches all the way up.