when the franchise stalls in the milb

[HonusWagner]

My future SP ace Lefty Grove is into his 3rd full season from the draft, but is going backwards. His allstar control potential is not only not developing but got rated from 2 to 1 this year. So far this year he is getting hammered in starts and nothing else is developing. Have been careful to put him on the untouchable list or my assistant GM might cut him, or trade him away.

But the question is - is he going to develop? This is a historical scenario.
All player development settings are default and TCR is 75. So he is going to develop, right? Or is it possible to screw it up? I was managing strategy the first 2 seasons and tended to get him starting games but not keeping him in past 100 pitches. This season my milb manager is handling strategy and is has Grove going deeper into starts. Can player strategy effect historical player development?

[LansdowneSt]

His first dominant season in the MLB was in 1926. As the recalc starts to incorporate that and subsequent years into his skill calculation, he'll start to get better. You didn't say what the recalc settings were but for career play, it's generally three years as the default, I believe. Be patient.

If you turned off all recalc and it's just the development engine driving things, the game knows nothing except what he was at import.

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

His first dominant season in the MLB was in 1926. As the recalc starts to incorporate that and subsequent years into his skill calculation, he'll start to get better. You didn't say what the recalc settings were but for career play, it's generally three years as the default, I believe. Be patient.

If you turned off all recalc and it's just the development engine driving things, the game knows nothing except what he was at import.

Thanks, but then that suggests that milb player strategies etc are pointless for advancing or impeding development? For example, were I to bring Grove up to the major league and have him sit all season he would still develop. Likewise, whereas sitting a fielder all season would typically stunt his skills development, in historical mode it all follows the historical script. If so then historical minor leagues are pointless for development. Which would make sense. Not whining, just clarifying.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

Thanks, but then that suggests that milb player strategies etc are pointless for advancing or impeding development? For example, were I to bring Grove up to the major league and have him sit all season he would still develop. Likewise, whereas sitting a fielder all season would typically stunt his skills development, in historical mode it all follows the historical script. If so then historical minor leagues are pointless for development. Which would make sense. Not whining, just clarifying.

They are pointless if you are not using the ootp development engine. Are you?

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

They are pointless if you are not using the ootp development engine. Are you?

Thanks.

[LansdowneSt]

The impact of that kind of stuff would just be within the year. The recalc happens as you move into the offseason, so once a year.

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

They are pointless if you are not using the ootp development engine. Are you?

Player development is a go. Unchecked. My understanding is player development is turned off for historical replays as this requires the players to play according to their historical record (what lansdowne said above (which is wrong)). But with player development enabled historical players will follow ratings and requirement strategy inputs. No?

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

The impact of that kind of stuff would just be within the year. The recalc happens as you move into the offseason, so once a year.

If you recalc and have development on, it is during the year only.

Obviously if development is off, it is off.

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

The impact of that kind of stuff would just be within the year. The recalc happens as you move into the offseason, so once a year.

What you mean is the player strategy settings etc would apply within the season they are applied. However, when recalc kicks in (in my game three-year recalc) it aligns player development with historical record. In other words, player development is secondary to recalc. And historical minor leagues are for show.

[LansdowneSt]

Yes. But for show is harsh. For example, in a historical game w recalc and development on, I had an MLB starter go down and was looking for a minor leaguer to come up. Just got the player development email and the number 3 starter in AAA got a nice in-year bump in development/ratings. That bump was real. But come the offseason recalc, all that during the year development will wash away as he resets to recalc.

[HonusWagner]

This is good to know.

[Pelican]

Yeah that is why I don’t think it makes sense to play with development and recalc both operating. To me, it’s one or the other. Since I have zero interest in simply replaying seasons with the same rosters and lineups and transactions, I have little interest in players developing or not according to actual numbers. To me the joy is in taking a given sim as it existed, and then rolling the dice, so to speak. So I always turn off recalc, make sure development is toggled on, and increase TCR as much as I dare. Makes the game more challenging, when Lefty Grove might not improve, and Righty Smith might.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Yeah that is why I don’t think it makes sense to play with development and recalc both operating. To me, it’s one or the other. Since I have zero interest in simply replaying seasons with the same rosters and lineups and transactions, I have little interest in players developing or not according to actual numbers. To me the joy is in taking a given sim as it existed, and then rolling the dice, so to speak. So I always turn off recalc, make sure development is toggled on, and increase TCR as much as I dare. Makes the game more challenging, when Lefty Grove might not improve, and Righty Smith might.

I like all three options.

Recalc only with retire according to history is a great way to keep things extremely close to history

Recacl with deveopment on is great way to have players stay somewhat close to real life, but at the same time add a huge dose of whatif to the mix. I can have Koufax pitch into the 1970's, development on, will help to assure he doesn't simply repeat his final incredible season over and over again. I've had Britt Burns win 300 games in a random debut and I've had him retire at 32 in another.

Recalc off, 100 percent development is a blast because it's a mystery as to what will happen. This way can be a blast because you don't have to worry about the adjust make bad settings. No worries about guys like Joe D and Ted Williams during the war years.

Cool thing is, I have these three methods available to keep the game fresh. This game add fictional and the MLB quicksstart to the mix and this game is basically 5 games for the price of 1. How many other games offer that?

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Yeah that is why I don’t think it makes sense to play with development and recalc both operating. To me, it’s one or the other. Since I have zero interest in simply replaying seasons with the same rosters and lineups and transactions, I have little interest in players developing or not according to actual numbers. To me the joy is in taking a given sim as it existed, and then rolling the dice, so to speak. So I always turn off recalc, make sure development is toggled on, and increase TCR as much as I dare. Makes the game more challenging, when Lefty Grove might not improve, and Righty Smith might.

I get it. But then historical starts becoming fictional. There may be a balance. So for me, those variables enter the game via • non-historical rosters • non-historical player-park matchups • short duration injuries • and I guess to some degree player strategies. This is why I set player development to 75 so to mitigate potential morphing. So I still expect Grove to be the Lefty Grove of history. But he has potential performance modifiers in his home park(s), his defense/BP-support, occasional day-to-day injuries etc. As it is, am pondering reinstating having players retire according to historical record, as non-historical retirements increases number of MILBs who have exaggerated careers and impacts on league outcomes (though as you point out that can also be more interesting than distracting).

I prefer this approach because the variables are introduced via game play rather than imposed through a setting. So if Grove displays some significant variance in a season from his historical performance for the same year I can point to actual season things like bad luck with injuries, or traded to a slugger's park etc. I play historical rather than fictional because I like to recognize the players. Rolling the dice and risking having a Ruth or Cobb become victims of the algorithm would be more of a distraction for me.

(of course, I am making the classic assumption that the game operates how I think it does or should. It could be that the game factors out potentially mitigating results such as those I mentioned to maintain integrity of historical performances and player development algorithm settings. I don't think it does, but it might to at least some degree).