What development settings to use?

[Paul Reuschel's Mustache]

I'm planning to start a new long-term save, beginning on 2025 opening day as the Manager and GM of the Cubs.

But I have no idea about the development settings.

I'd like to have a good mix of player ages across MLB, something like:

5% age 19-22
20% age 23-25
35% age 26-29
25% age 30-33
10% age 34-36
5% age 37+

My preference would be for Development Target Age = Younger and Aging Target Age = Older. But will that dilute the overall ratings over time?

The same with the individual aging and development speeds. If I speed up development while slowing down aging for batters and pitchers, will that dilute the overall ratings over time? I can imagine there would be too many 3.5 to 5 star players at some point.

But I'm not sure. What settings are you using? And what have the results been?

[Rain King]

I would recommend running a test 30ish years into the future on defaults and adjusting based on those results.

Yes, I would expect the combined options of "Development Target Age = Younger and Aging Target Age = Older" to potentially have some unexpected consequences.

[DrSatan]

I'm currently using:

Batter/Pitcher Aging speed .880
Batter Dev speed 1.100
Pitcher Dev Speed 1.300
Dev Age Default
Aging tgt Age Much older
TCR 100
Player Dev Focus Disabled (cuz the AI is dumb AF)
Dev Lab size/Difficulty - 10/Less Difficult

I'm in 2035 of an MLB save using 100% scout accuracy. I just looked for players age 30+ with an overall 50+ rating and this is what I have.

Pitchers
Age 35-42 - 1 SP, 0 RP
Age 30-34 - 7SP, 9 RP (7 of these are age 30, 5 of the 7 are SP

Batters
35-38 - 5
30-34 - 44 (17 are 30)

This isn't great for batters and terrible for pitchers, and I'm seeing this across multiple saves. I don't ever sign any players past arbitration because its not worth it. The vast majority of players crap out before age 30, so no point signing anyone to massive 8 year contracts. If anyone has a suggestion I'd love to hear it. I've tried TCR down to 50 and it doesn't make much difference.

I just looked at 2 test leagues that have about 100 seasons each with default dev settings except aging target age much older, and both leagues have a way better age/overall rating distribution, so I have no idea. Maybe leagues sort themselves out after 30 or 80 years. No idea.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

This isn't great for batters and terrible for pitchers, and I'm seeing this across multiple saves. I don't ever sign any players past arbitration because its not worth it. The vast majority of players crap out before age 30, so no point signing anyone to massive 8 year contracts. If anyone has a suggestion I'd love to hear it. I've tried TCR down to 50 and it doesn't make much difference.

I just looked at 2 test leagues that have about 100 seasons each with default dev settings except aging target age much older, and both leagues have a way better age/overall rating distribution, so I have no idea. Maybe leagues sort themselves out after 30 or 80 years. No idea.

So are you of the opinion that aging and development is just not working well at this point in V26?

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

I'm currently using:

Batter/Pitcher Aging speed .880
Batter Dev speed 1.100
Pitcher Dev Speed 1.300
Dev Age Default
Aging tgt Age Much older
TCR 100
Player Dev Focus Disabled (cuz the AI is dumb AF)
Dev Lab size/Difficulty - 10/Less Difficult

I'm in 2035 of an MLB save using 100% scout accuracy. I just looked for players age 30+ with an overall 50+ rating and this is what I have.

Pitchers
Age 35-42 - 1 SP, 0 RP
Age 30-34 - 7SP, 9 RP (7 of these are age 30, 5 of the 7 are SP

Batters
35-38 - 5
30-34 - 44 (17 are 30)

This isn't great for batters and terrible for pitchers, and I'm seeing this across multiple saves. I don't ever sign any players past arbitration because its not worth it. The vast majority of players crap out before age 30, so no point signing anyone to massive 8 year contracts. If anyone has a suggestion I'd love to hear it. I've tried TCR down to 50 and it doesn't make much difference.

I just looked at 2 test leagues that have about 100 seasons each with default dev settings except aging target age much older, and both leagues have a way better age/overall rating distribution, so I have no idea. Maybe leagues sort themselves out after 30 or 80 years. No idea.

Did you try raising the TCR? As far as I understand it outside of the Development lab, TCR is the only way players can gain potential.
So while a high TCR can decimate players, it can also turn them into superstars.

Also overall ratings even with 100% scout accuracy doesn't tell the full story for players, specially with pitchers where two can be rated the same overall but have a +2 WAR projection difference between them.

How have the league results changed? If all the pitchers have turned to crap, has offence exploded? Have your Auto-cal modifers gone insane to keep up with it?
Otherwise if you're just basing the issue off lower displayed ratings then it's not really an issue, you just like inflated ratings.

[Francoeurstein]

Originally Posted by rwd59

So are you of the opinion that aging and development is just not working well at this point in V26?

This is exactly what the problem is. It used to be perfectly fine 2 versions ago, but it’s been tweaked to absurdity.

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by rwd59

So are you of the opinion that aging and development is just not working well at this point in V26?

Regarding development, it's not working well from what I'm seeing. Especially for pitchers. It's not a increase/decrease in potential thats the problem. It's players never getting close to their potential, but the potential staying about the same or even increasing. If a player is a bust, the normal observation is their potential also tanks. With this issue, its almost like development gets frozen for several players.

Regarding age distribution, it's more noticeable in the real MLB leagues because the current roster significantly under rates players, especially pitchers. Stats are still fine "out of the box" because if the ratings are low across the board, then your league totals still look right. The problem is after about 10 years of draft classes with "normal" ratings, all those 2025 players are garbage and drowned out by the under 30's. If you sim ahead 20-30 more seasons it evens out, so you'll have better age distribution. This is an issue with the real MLB roster set every season and I usually have to spend a few hours pumping ratings for MLB players and prospects and saving that as a template. This year however, its egregious.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

Regarding development, it's not working well from what I'm seeing. Especially for pitchers. It's not a increase/decrease in potential thats the problem. It's players never getting close to their potential, but the potential staying about the same or even increasing. If a player is a bust, the normal observation is their potential also tanks. With this issue, its almost like development gets frozen for several players.

Regarding age distribution, it's more noticeable in the real MLB leagues because the current roster significantly under rates players, especially pitchers. Stats are still fine "out of the box" because if the ratings are low across the board, then your league totals still look right. The problem is after about 10 years of draft classes with "normal" ratings, all those 2025 players are garbage and drowned out by the under 30's. If you sim ahead 20-30 more seasons it evens out, so you'll have better age distribution. This is an issue with the real MLB roster set every season and I usually have to spend a few hours pumping ratings for MLB players and prospects and saving that as a template. This year however, its egregious.

I agree 1000%. Unfortunately it seems Matt does not agree based on his post in the new patch thread today.

[Rain King]

The Potential ratings are over-cooked. There are too many players that start with elite potentials. The consequence of that is that development has to be designed in a way that many players do not reach that potential.

Would you prefer there to be much fewer prospects that start out with good potential? I definitely would, but the Devs have tried that a few times and the complaints were much bigger in those instances than they are now. People do not seem to think it is fun to have their 3rd round picks projected to be unlikely to make it even if that is reality.

Stuff is a consequence of modern baseball. When everyone has great stuff, nobody's stuff stands out enough to get relatively elite ratings...particularly starting pitchers when they are also compared relatively against the ratings of relief pitchers also.

Here is the Top K/9 vs. the Average K/9 for Qualified Starting Pitchers going back in 10-year intervals from 2024.

2024: 11.4 : 8.6 (1.33)
2014: 10.8: 7.7 (1.40)
2004: 11.0: 6.6 (1.67)
1994: 10.7: 6.2 (1.73)
1984: 11.4: 5.4 (2.11)

The average K rate has been coming up without the top level K rates changing much. So, when they tightened the "Current Rating" 20-80 scale to be more realistic this version the result is it "looks" like Stuff ratings aren't very good when it is really just that slightly above average is currently really good.

I do think they could make some tweaks to how the game handles the 20-80 scale for starting pitchers' Stuff ratings, but nothing is inherently broken. It is just a perception problem.

[Francoeurstein]

Originally Posted by rwd59

I agree 1000%. Unfortunately it seems Matt does not agree based on his post in the new patch thread today.

If the developers don’t see it as an issue, then nothing will be fixed. Absolutely maddening. I feel like I’m being gaslit every time someone responds to my complaint with “well players don’t always reach their potential in real life”. Of course they don’t, everyone knows this! Myself and many others have very specific complaints about certain aspects of development and they get hand-waved away by “well it happens IRL!!”. These specific complaints we have did not exist several versions ago when development was phenomenal. The quality of this game is trending down hard with a big fat red arrow.

[MisterTidster]

I made it to 2050. Thinking about doing some tweaks. Will probably increase the age that veterans start to decline, since the only reason to sign a veteran once arbitration is up seems to be to maintain fan interest. Will probably reduce the top end potential of a draft class and tune down development speed to make it more difficult to develop prospects to make those long term veteran contracts more enticing.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The Potential ratings are over-cooked. There are too many players that start with elite potentials.

That is nothing new, it's been that way for years, But the way they develop this year is definitely different. Their have been lots of pitchers with very high potential, but I have never seen them keep those high potentials (some even higher than in the beginning) up to ages 29-31without hardly improving their actual ratings at all. We are talking about some players who have been in the minors 10+ years. No way they should still have such high potentials at that point.

[Rain King]

Potentials display until the day the player turns 30 and at that point they display equal to the Current ratings. It has been that way for quite a few versions.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Potentials display until the day the player turns 30 and at that point they display equal to the Current ratings. It has been that way for quite a few versions.

Not true because I have seen quite a few with those high potentials at 30 and a handful at 31.

Edit: Ok I will back off and defer to you about your statement above. I did a player search in my current game that is in 2050 now and found that it is as you say when they hit 30.
But explain to me the rationale of a 29 year old whose potential ratings are basically the same as they were when he was drafted at age 18 but his current ratings are still crap and he has never made it to the major leagues?

[Francoeurstein]

Originally Posted by Rain King

It has been that way for quite a few versions.

Actually no it hasn't, not to this extent. There's a massive difference in this years version.

[highandoutside]

Originally Posted by rwd59

Not true because I have seen quite a few with those high potentials at 30 and a handful at 31.

Edit: Ok I will back off and defer to you about your statement above. I did a player search in my current game that is in 2050 now and found that it is as you say when they hit 30.
But explain to me the rationale of a 29 year old whose potential ratings are basically the same as they were when he was drafted at age 18 but his current ratings are still crap and he has never made it to the major leagues?

Sounds like Gregory Polanco. I would argue that what you are describing is a fairly common MLB archetype. A guy who seems to have a high ceiling, but never quite gets there, yet is viewed a player with untapped potential most of his career

[Francoeurstein]

Originally Posted by highandoutside

Sounds like Gregory Polanco. I would argue that what you are describing is a fairly common MLB archetype. A guy who seems to have a high ceiling, but never quite gets there, yet is viewed a player with untapped potential most of his career

Not a good analogy at all. Polanco was really only a good hitter in his age 26 season. After that, he proceeded to put up atrocious numbers for 3 straight years. It was clear his ceiling was gone by his second straight awful Season, but according to you, he shouldve been a 45/80