Sea of red minus signs

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by Qeltar

Thanks so much for the helpful replies. Really appreciate them.


I think the crux of the problem is that I get too attached to players I draft and trade for, and when they don't pan out it's like my kid brought home a D from school or something. I also am afraid to trade away anyone decent because of the very issue being discussed here, not knowing which will be the hidden gem. I already gave away a top 10 prospect last year.

.

I well understand this concern. In my current fictional game I traded away a good middle infielder prospect who both my scout and the OSA are still pretty high on (doesn't look like a superstar, but possibly an above average major leaguer)- a guy who if he hits well enough at the big league level could win some gold gloves at second base. But I am pretty well covered at that position and sometimes you just have to trade from strength. No scratch that. You pretty much always have to trade from strength. What I got in return was a starting pitching prospect with 6 pitches- a few of them with the potential to be out pitches and most of them with the potential to be above average. He's 6'3", 230 lbs and throws 95-97 mph. And yet, he's also fragile. My head scout, who has a good reputation, vacillates between thinking he has a real chance to be a solid #2 guy in a rotation to thinking he might be an okay mid-rotation guy. So far his injuries have been minor and didn't involve his arm. Still, I think there is a very good chance the guy I traded away will have a longer and more successful career in the league. And yet I don't regret the trade at all. Under the circumstances I believe it was worth the risk. And it's early days. I might be end up being pleasantly surprised and the guy I got could end up being one of the better pitchers in the league.
It is exactly this kind of mystery that makes this game both maddeningly frustrating and obsessively rewarding, I think.

[Qeltar]

All good stuff, thanks.

I think I'm doing the right things, I just have to be more patient.

And Orcin was right that doing the Marlins as my very first project in this game was probably unwise.

I do feel I am improving the team pretty nicely. I have a few regulars now who are pretty good (though a couple are underperforming). My comment about my AAA and AA team records is just saying that there's a lot of talent on the way up. (Last year, they were wastelands.)

It's just that having a lot of "goodish" guys doesn't help much when there are only a few roster slots. Reminds me of Fred Brooks's quip that 9 women can't make a baby in a month.

For example, right now I have a very good 1B, and an almost-very-good 1B in AAA that I got in a steal of a trade from a team that didn't appreciate what he could do. I DO appreciate it, but I don't have anywhere for him to do it right now. (I would if I were in the AL...)

Eventually I will have to trade one of these guys, but the AAA guy has no trade value and I am not ready to trade the MLB guy who is my biggest power hitter. So.. gotta wait.

As for TCR, I've considered turning it down but I think it's better I just "learn to deal."

BirdWatcher, I have definitely taken gambles like that before. I also have my "pet projects" most of which don't work out. Like a power reliever with enough stamina I converted to a starter. His potentials are 80/50/40. I honestly have no idea if this will even work, but I'm giving him a season in AA to figure it out.

Conversely, I've had to give up a couple of my starters with high stuff and below-average movement and control. Just tired of "walk, home run" over and over. One guy gave up 6 home runs in his first 4 starts (and that's only around 22 innings). So I yanked him. As an RP his stuff went up to 75 and so far he's been reasonably effective. He's not happy, but too bad.

This was all newbie stuff on my part. I thought stuff was the most important and am rapidly learning that this is not the case.

I am now tinkering with a somewhat novel pitching staff that is designed intentionally around starters that go only to the middle innings and are backed up by a posse of hard-throwing, high-stamina RPs. Largely out of necessity, partially out of curiosity.

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by Qeltar

All good stuff, thanks.

I think I'm doing the right things, I just have to be more patient.

BirdWatcher, I have definitely taken gambles like that before. I also have my "pet projects" most of which don't work out. Like a power reliever with enough stamina I converted to a starter. His potentials are 80/50/40. I honestly have no idea if this will even work, but I'm giving him a season in AA to figure it out.

Conversely, I've had to give up a couple of my starters with high stuff and below-average movement and control. Just tired of "walk, home run" over and over. One guy gave up 6 home runs in his first 4 starts (and that's only around 22 innings). So I yanked him. As an RP his stuff went up to 75 and so far he's been reasonably effective. He's not happy, but too bad.

This was all newbie stuff on my part. I thought stuff was the most important and am rapidly learning that this is not the case.

I am now tinkering with a somewhat novel pitching staff that is designed intentionally around starters that go only to the middle innings and are backed up by a posse of hard-throwing, high-stamina RPs. Largely out of necessity, partially out of curiosity.

My grandmother used to like to say to me (something like), "patience is a virtue, cultivate it if you can, seldom found in woman, never found in man."

As for pet projects and becoming attached to your players (sometimes to the point of making unwise decisions), I'm all for that! My sense is that many OOTP gamers (or certainly the ones who post here) are highly analytical, extremely rational types. Which makes sense for this hobby. And I'm sure that the people who have the greatest success in the game are those who can remain dispassionate and play the percentages. I'm not that kind of person. Professionally a social worker and with tastes/interests/personality type that leans heavily towards the Arts/Humanities side of life, I have more fun with the game when I don't take a purely analytical/strategic view. I try to make mostly rational decisions about my team, but with a healthy dose of heart and intuition thrown in as well. And that's what works for me.

Regarding your pitching plan: it sounds very similar to something I recall the Rockies employing several years ago (mostly out of necessity.) I don't think it worked out very well for them, but that doesn't mean your results won't be better. The biggest thing is, it sounds like a fun experiment to play with the game. And that's the sort of thing I wholeheartedly endorse.

[Qeltar]

You and I sound a lot alike. Though I'm in the tech field I tend to bounce between left brain and right brain. I'm very analytical in some respects, emotional in others. (As if this thread hadn't made that sufficiently obvious...)

The plan is paying dividends already due to OOTP's fatigue model and the tendency of AI managers to use pitchers too often for too short stints, wearing them out. (I call this "Dave Roberts bullpen syndrome" -- hated how he managed his bullpen in the WS last year.)

Ironically, the first place this is coming in handy is against the Dodgers. Four game series. First game goes 15 innings. Second game goes 10. By this point both bullpens are not in great shape, but theirs is MUCH worse. And the game three starter was Stripling, who only has 35 stamina. (It's worth noting that in this universe Kershaw left, but the Dodgers still have a lot of talent.)

Anyway, once Stripling was done they had maybe 2 arms left. I still had several guys who could pitch. I actually expanded the rosters in this game to 27 and forced the AI to carry at least 8 relievers (on recommendation from someone here) because my first year I was winning games I felt I should have lost simply due to AI bullpens being worn out. The Dodgers have 9, but the extra inning games took their toll and they couldn't keep up.

I currently have 10 relievers. Overkill, but until I get a stable rotation, it's keeping me alive, and I don't have enough useful utility players for a meaningful bench anyway so 4 guys is enough there. Of those 10 relievers, 3 have 60 or 65 stamina. They are enormously useful for letting me pull my marginal starters before they get deep enough into a game to get hammered. My hook is fair, but merciless.

Even my closer has 45 stamina. I actually wanted to convert him to a starter but he only has two pitches.

Two of those long guys were starters I got last year, and at the time I was thrilled to have gotten them because even as borderline starters they replaced guys who had no business being in MLB at all. But both have been brutal so far this year. I know about sample size, but I can't keep trotting out a guy who gives up 5 or 6 runs a start.

Weirdly, I have a guy who based on his ratings should be ineffective, and yet was my best starter last year. He was signed as a free agent after an outright release by the Dodgers, so you can see what the AI thinks of him. Despite 60/35/55 stats he gave me 160+ IP of 3.88 ERA ball, which is not bad. I planned to drop him this year when his stats eroded to 55/30/55, but he keeps pitching well, so he's back in the rotation (now back to 55/35/55). I guess some guys just overperform.

Meanwhile, those two starters I pulled... both are unhappy, but both are pitching like new men.

Their combined stats as starters: 40 1/3 IP, 49 H, 18 BB, 29 K, 7.58 ERA, 1.66 WHIP

As relievers so far: 9 2/3 IP, 5 H, 3 BB, 16 K, 2.79 ERA, 0.83 WHIP

It's early, but I like what I see. And if it turns out this is just natural variation, I can always put them back in the rotation if someone else loses it I guess.

EDIT: Of course right after I post that, one of these clowns gives up two more homers IN ONE INNING! I swear, I'm just going to outright release this idiot. GRRRR. The starter also gave up 2 HR. It's nuts.

EDIT2: The next game, my team does nothing against a pitcher with 45 stuff (every time I put in a guy like that he gets destroyed). Tie game and my guys go meekly in the bottom of the 9th, my setup guy walks two guys, then the "closer" walks in the winning run and my useless offense does nothing against a mediocre middle reliever in the bottom of the 10th. I think I need to put this game away before I break something... no wonder real life managers have gray hair...

[Qeltar]

God I hate walks. So. Damned. Much.

In addition to the above nonsense with my allegedly best RPs, my "ace" lost his last start after walk, walk, home run. This guy has 70 control! What the heck did I get you for if you can't throw strikes?!

This is supposed to be fun, right? Just checking.

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by Qeltar

You and I sound a lot alike. Though I'm in the tech field I tend to bounce between left brain and right brain. I'm very analytical in some respects, emotional in others. (As if this thread hadn't made that sufficiently obvious...)



Weirdly, I have a guy who based on his ratings should be ineffective, and yet was my best starter last year. He was signed as a free agent after an outright release by the Dodgers, so you can see what the AI thinks of him. Despite 60/35/55 stats he gave me 160+ IP of 3.88 ERA ball, which is not bad. I planned to drop him this year when his stats eroded to 55/30/55, but he keeps pitching well, so he's back in the rotation (now back to 55/35/55). I guess some guys just overperform.



EDIT: Of course right after I post that, one of these clowns gives up two more homers IN ONE INNING! I swear, I'm just going to outright release this idiot. GRRRR. The starter also gave up 2 HR. It's nuts.

EDIT2: The next game, my team does nothing against a pitcher with 45 stuff (every time I put in a guy like that he gets destroyed). Tie game and my guys go meekly in the bottom of the 9th, my setup guy walks two guys, then the "closer" walks in the winning run and my useless offense does nothing against a mediocre middle reliever in the bottom of the 10th. I think I need to put this game away before I break something... no wonder real life managers have gray hair...

I have had some of these pleasant surprises, especially from pitchers. In my historical Rockies game I had a few very fine seasons from Mike Sirotka, much better than his ratings or his real-life stats would have indicated. And then he had at least a few more good years after he left my team. And right now, on my fictional team, one of my young starters with mediocre ratings who is expected to be an emergency/spot starter at best consistently pitched well in the first season (just finished) when he was healthy. (He was, admittedly, often injured.) These guys often become my favorite players.

As for multiple HR's allowed in an inning (and especially back-to-back jacks), I have often wondered, based upon what I have observed, whether it is built into the game at all that a less experienced pitcher, no matter their ratings and potential, is more likely to give up consecutive HR's or multiple HR's in a short span of time than a more experienced starter. I'm going to guess that this is a case of confirmation bias on my part as many of our learned friends here would likely point out. But it does sometimes feel that way to me.

And yes, it drives me crazy too when my team gets completely dominated by a pitcher who, by ratings and current stats, is clearly bad. Of course, I have to remind myself of all of the gems I have seen thrown in my life by guys who had otherwise unremarkable, or remarkably bad, careers. Still, makes you want to tear your hair out. Wait, I'm bald already. Okay, makes me want to pull my beard out. Believe me, there are times when I have to wonder if this game is good for my blood pressure and sanity. But on the whole, I do love it.

[Qeltar]

The guy with 45 stuff I mentioned above was Mike Soroka. LOL. Not the same guy, just almost identical name.

But yeah, baseball is like that, on any given day the just-promoted scrub can beat Kershaw.

Doesn't make it any more fun to watch, though. I think it's that feeling of powerlessness that gets to you.

[marc5477]

Development is probably less important than actual results. For the minors, it makes sense that most players will see their ratings decrease especially since the game started inflating potential around 2017. Most players dont make it. If tons improve you would end up with a MLB team every few years from prospects alone. In the real world, team generate about 1 or 2 average players per year. They get a star maybe every 5 years and super stars are basically 1 in 10 years or so per team.

If you are generating the right amount of decent players, then the development results are ok. I think increasing the dev budget will probably get you more good players but more is not a huge leap. If you average 3 average players per season then you are already ahead of the curve.