Getting players to potential

[littlechris1977]

What is the best way to get a 1 star with 5 star potential to reach his potential?

Is it better to leave in the minors for longer, or bring them up and put in low pressure situations?

I'd like to get some 1st rounders to promote within a year or two, not 6 or never.

[Bobfather]

This might sound counterintuitive, but once a player is in your organization, it doesn't matter where he was drafted. All prospects should be treated the same. Try calling them up when rosters expand. This way, you can get a look at them in the majors and it won't cost you a roster spot. My expanded roster is 10 teams. Make sure prospects are going to all the labs. Also, keep an eye on how they are being used. And lock them into a roll if need be. Most players end up being around league average.

[NoOne]

In regard to any player with potential to be a 2-3 WAR or better everyday player -- It's better to promote them when they can minimally compete at the next level. These propsects are short listed and get an individualized treatment.

Slow-rolling the rest is fine and beneficial. The "filler" talent supplies bench players and injury depth at cheapest cost possible. Whether they hit ML at 24 or 28 i don't give a rip.

development potential is better the higher you go. development is not based on results*. ML level is the best development potential.

* - falling on their face does seem to be a negative, but an ~80 ops+ is no big deal as long as ratings are continuously increasing.

They can be below average performance and develop quickly. Development is all you should care about in the minors relative to an individual player.

Also, realize that vast majority of 5-star 17-18 year olds aren't actually 5-star potential. A ton of inaccurate scouting and then a smaller portion that fail to develop. So it looks like failure to develop way more often than reality of the context unless you look under the hood with comissioner mode to verify which is which.

College kids are inaccurately scouted, too, but not as badly. It may take a year or 2+ to see potential correct itself for an 18 year old in your system and much less time to correct inaccuracy of college draftees.

Even so, i've seen a player get stuck in rookie ball for many years and still develop well (computer teams). What is possible and what you see isn't necessarily 'optimal,' though. I'd wager there's some good leeway in this regard to cover up less-than-ideal choices for computer controlled teams.

My goal is to develop as fast as possible so that they aren't too old when club control ends...extending ~30 year olds with long, expensive contracts is stupid. Those are the ones i know i will trade before it comes to that. That impacts who i target for trades and drafts too.

That fast-paced strategy may not be best for development success, but sure seems to be a net-benefit in regard to contract situations down the road that it outweighs whatever minor effect it may have. Old, expensive, non-performing players are a significant problem to avoid.

I rarely have 'wasted' money in trash players. That means i consistenly field an 'extra' good player compared to typical roster management. Not wasting millions on bench players and injury depth is a huge benefit too.

'pressure situations' aren't in ootp and not related to development. again, results, even in real life, are not why someone gets better... an improvement in performance is the result of development / effort / practice. The improvemnt is not a cause, and that is reflected properly in how ootp works.

morale can be a concern due to bad performance, i'd wager, but again, small piece of total pie. I sandbag my minor league teams to ensure high performance.. those mediocre talents that 'can' play a role in the majors are a dime a dozen. Let them sit longer at each level and you consistently have winning teams and happy players.

Those are guys i let walk after 3 ML svc years anyway (saves millions of dollars to be spent elsewhere). A constant revolving door of bench players and AAAA-quality depth for injuries is easy to maintain. if they are a year or two older when they reach the majors it's a good thing because no 2nd contract is coming. No need to spend 2-5m or more on a bench player or injury depth in AAA. league minimum is enough and no difference in quality worth measuring.

Majors or AAA seasoning? I'd rather any well-rated prospect be a bench player in ML than sit in AAA. I won't let a high potential guy mostly developed ride the pine for more than one year... i will make sure they get a decent amount of playing time by the 2nd year in majors. I don't want them sitting at back of bench getting 50-100PA /year. whether it was coincidence or not, they seem to lose potential in that context.

In real life the top talents don't spend much time in AAA. MiL lifers and injury depth type talent fills AAA.

So, unless i see a major delay in getting them playing time in ML, i don't 'season' in AAA unless logistically necessary.

The mediocre talents sit in AAA until i let the previous bench players walk in FA. These guys i focus on versatility and defense, because that stuff is cheap and easy to find. If they lose a point or two of potential/current by doing so it's of no loss and irrelevant to ML team performance. obviouusly those that are used as injury replacements have that clock starting sooner. There's always more coming... spending a couple million on a vet for the bench occassionally isn't the end of the world but mostly avoidable.

[panda234]

Thanks for this.

[littlechris1977]

Originally Posted by NoOne

In regard to any player with potential to be a 2-3 WAR or better everyday player -- It's better to promote them when they can minimally compete at the next level. These propsects are short listed and get an individualized treatment.

Slow-rolling the rest is fine and beneficial. The "filler" talent supplies bench players and injury depth at cheapest cost possible. Whether they hit ML at 24 or 28 i don't give a rip.

development potential is better the higher you go. development is not based on results*. ML level is the best development potential.

* - falling on their face does seem to be a negative, but an ~80 ops+ is no big deal as long as ratings are continuously increasing.

They can be below average performance and develop quickly. Development is all you should care about in the minors relative to an individual player.

Also, realize that vast majority of 5-star 17-18 year olds aren't actually 5-star potential. A ton of inaccurate scouting and then a smaller portion that fail to develop. So it looks like failure to develop way more often than reality of the context unless you look under the hood with comissioner mode to verify which is which.

College kids are inaccurately scouted, too, but not as badly. It may take a year or 2+ to see potential correct itself for an 18 year old in your system and much less time to correct inaccuracy of college draftees.

Even so, i've seen a player get stuck in rookie ball for many years and still develop well (computer teams). What is possible and what you see isn't necessarily 'optimal,' though. I'd wager there's some good leeway in this regard to cover up less-than-ideal choices for computer controlled teams.

My goal is to develop as fast as possible so that they aren't too old when club control ends...extending ~30 year olds with long, expensive contracts is stupid. Those are the ones i know i will trade before it comes to that. That impacts who i target for trades and drafts too.

That fast-paced strategy may not be best for development success, but sure seems to be a net-benefit in regard to contract situations down the road that it outweighs whatever minor effect it may have. Old, expensive, non-performing players are a significant problem to avoid.

I rarely have 'wasted' money in trash players. That means i consistenly field an 'extra' good player compared to typical roster management. Not wasting millions on bench players and injury depth is a huge benefit too.

'pressure situations' aren't in ootp and not related to development. again, results, even in real life, are not why someone gets better... an improvement in performance is the result of development / effort / practice. The improvemnt is not a cause, and that is reflected properly in how ootp works.

morale can be a concern due to bad performance, i'd wager, but again, small piece of total pie. I sandbag my minor league teams to ensure high performance.. those mediocre talents that 'can' play a role in the majors are a dime a dozen. Let them sit longer at each level and you consistently have winning teams and happy players.

Those are guys i let walk after 3 ML svc years anyway (saves millions of dollars to be spent elsewhere). A constant revolving door of bench players and AAAA-quality depth for injuries is easy to maintain. if they are a year or two older when they reach the majors it's a good thing because no 2nd contract is coming. No need to spend 2-5m or more on a bench player or injury depth in AAA. league minimum is enough and no difference in quality worth measuring.

Majors or AAA seasoning? I'd rather any well-rated prospect be a bench player in ML than sit in AAA. I won't let a high potential guy mostly developed ride the pine for more than one year... i will make sure they get a decent amount of playing time by the 2nd year in majors. I don't want them sitting at back of bench getting 50-100PA /year. whether it was coincidence or not, they seem to lose potential in that context.

In real life the top talents don't spend much time in AAA. MiL lifers and injury depth type talent fills AAA.

So, unless i see a major delay in getting them playing time in ML, i don't 'season' in AAA unless logistically necessary.

The mediocre talents sit in AAA until i let the previous bench players walk in FA. These guys i focus on versatility and defense, because that stuff is cheap and easy to find. If they lose a point or two of potential/current by doing so it's of no loss and irrelevant to ML team performance. obviouusly those that are used as injury replacements have that clock starting sooner. There's always more coming... spending a couple million on a vet for the bench occassionally isn't the end of the world but mostly avoidable.

I play OOTP 24, does this still apply there?

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by littlechris1977

I play OOTP 24, does this still apply there?

lol i haven't even played 26 yet.

only incremental changes occur and usually not the foundation of the game.

i'd wager it is all the same in this case. The causality modeled definitely hasn't changed. Results are not a cause.. they are an effect.

above all focus on ratings development... mediocre results are of no concern.

In RL, doing well in the minors is not that strong of a correlation to doing well in ML, so it is still realistic.

The benefits of slow-rolling the ''filler' quality players is a small thing, but can add up. Morale, coach developement etc... dominos it influences along the way. Fiscal responsibility is a super power.

[littlechris1977]

So it looks like failure to develop way more often than reality of the context unless you look under the hood with comissioner mode to verify which is which.

What would I look for in Commish mode?

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by littlechris1977

So it looks like failure to develop way more often than reality of the context unless you look under the hood with comissioner mode to verify which is which.

What would I look for in Commish mode?

No, they had no talent to start is more often the case - if looking at original ratings from draft. Within 1-2 years in your minor league system most players will be scouted more accurately. Younger players take longer than college kids to accurately scout.

compared to reality, i'm sure ootp has something similar... even on a top-five pick you only have a 50/50 chance of them being decent enough to start everyday... not even talking about an all star.

if you want to see hwat i mean, turn comissioner mode on... pull up the draft pool and sort by potential. Then open player editor and start scrolling down looking at their potential ratings and how often they are not matching up with the draft scouting. Even with a maxed out prospect scouting budget, it won't be accurate, and it should not be. Scouts are more often wrong than right in real life.

you'll see raw numbers 0-600 or 500 or whatever it is now. so you will have to do some math in your head to convert to your selected visible ratings scale, but if just looking at the phenomenom i speak of, simply glancing through the first 10 or so players will provide plenty of examples that don't need any math to see the inaccuracy.

don't feel bad if half your first round draft picks don't develop... that's normal.

it won't work all the time, but the moment you think you've got a dud with dropping potential, immediately try to trade that prospect. the ones with reater interest still see that player as high rated... sell high before his value tanks.

don't be too cheap with MiL scouting. It doesn't have to be sky-high, but try to outspend the AI in conjunction with a high-end scout will allow you to get some value back more often. you'll see the adjusted ratings sooner which gives a window to sell high. shop and compare what is offered.. .the teams offering higher rated players clearly value that prospect more. those are the ones you look into and try to find something useful in return.