Anyone done any testing on prospect development in v25.2.52?

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

This will be my last on this sim, which I let run to 2100 and will stop it there. Most people won’t get close to this distance - as others have said for the most part I think the distribution of players is pretty good once you get far enough, although I find the individual player growth/development rate annoyingly consistent/programmed. This was the first stop on this journey where the player distribution might also be a little off, especially in an expanded league (this was a new standard game sim there are 33% more teams now compared to 2024). Others will probably love that the game doesn’t see as many “elite” players.

80/80 - 10 players (9 in their 20s)
75 - 14 (9 in their 20s)
70 - 31 (18 in their 20s)
65 - 55
60 - 84

From a ratings standpoint, no one in the game is considered an 80 in Contact, Gap, Power. There are 2 80s in Eye, an 85 and an 80 in Avoid K.

For pitching there are no 80s in Stuff, Movement (one 70 is highest there), Control. There are a few 80+ rated pitches, mostly fastballs. One pitch is rated above 80, a 95 fastball on a 45/45 RP who hasn’t gotten out of AA entering his age 30 season. Editor rating on that pitch is 496. 99-101mph. Independent league signing 8 years ago. Traded once and released 3 times since. He honestly seems fine and has good results. I’d use him!

There is one IAFA player (55/55) with a 75 knuckleball who was promoted to MLB this past year after only 8 starts at AAA…at age 22. He was mostly a reliever in his rookie year.

Couple of observations / opinions:

1. I usually don’t leave automatic evolution on. There are now 40 teams in MLB (been expanding over time about 2-4 teams every 20 years. IMO the player development (number of good players) did not scale with the league size (which is why I usually don’t allow it).

2. Offensively almost every single season and career record still stands, with 3 exceptions: Career HR was surpassed in the 2085 season by a player who finished with 778 HR. Stop me if you’ve heard this before…he spent his age 17-20 seasons in the DSL. Age 21 at A ball, 20 games at A+. Age 22 starts with 21 games at AAA, then promoted to the show, hits 34 HR in 82 games. Hits 71 HR at age 23 (career high). Stays healthy enough to have a very consistently excellent/good 16 year run. Year 17 is below replacement level and he retires. Generated players also hold the 8-10 spots in the career list and are mixed in after that. They are mixed in for single season HR too.

3. The other “offensive” records that were broken were single season and career strikeouts. Others have mentioned this in other threads, but they always get obliterated. Reggie Jackson and Jim Thome are now 24 and 26 on the list and the record stands at 3494 (Guy somehow managed only 16.3 WAR over a 16 year career with 638 career HR, 9th all time - not in the HoF). Single season is now 315 and the entire list is generated players (261 is a 6 way tie for 95th most).

4. Pitching - the sim took over the games pitched in a season category. Sim also has the top games pitched career record but did not take it over. Winning percentage single season - Tanner Houck in 2029!

5. HRs allowed single season is now 65 set in 2097 (was still Blyleven at 50 until then) About half of the top 100 were in the sim. Sim has top 2 in career but similar spread to single season (about half).

6. Hits allowed/9 single season and career, k/9 single season and career, and opponents average career are all held by the same player who is in the game at the start as a minor leaguer (he is also 6th on the all time Ks list - a generated player whose graph I showed last time is 4th). I won’t spoil who that is for everyone. Top of the K/9 rate lists are dominated by the sim BUT mostly the early sim (through the 2030s) is where you find the big jumps in K rate.

Was recal done every year or was the lock league settings option selected?

Not sure the point of telling us the displayed ratings and not the real ones.
80/80 is only a cosmetic number. In one league that could be a 500 rating, in another 250.

As for the number of 80 overall, that means very little. You want more then don't have overall ratings for all players.
Scouting values also do not reflect WAR in any form.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Also need to turn relative ratings off if you don't want the distribution to seem the same

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

Was recal done every year or was the lock league settings option selected?

Not sure the point of telling us the displayed ratings and not the real ones.
80/80 is only a cosmetic number. In one league that could be a 500 rating, in another 250.

As for the number of 80 overall, that means very little. You want more then don't have overall ratings for all players.
Scouting values also do not reflect WAR in any form.

You probably haven’t read the whole thread, I’ll address a couple things.

This is a new standard game at completion. The default. I made no attempt to do anything but play the base game.

80 means nothing - I agree. With 100% scouting on it is just a crude rank/sorting of the players in the sim’s eyes. Earlier we were showing what round those level players came from in the draft. I just kept showing the distribution of how the engine sorts the players.

I only have one editor number in this post - what a 95 fastball was in 2100. I intentionally included that. If you would like to compare it to earlier in the game, I believe Hunter Greene has a 95 fastball (with a much higher editor value). Make your own judgements. I did note that there is a large jump at the beginning of the game in k/9 rate during the first generation that goes away as the sim progresses. Again, form your own judgement.

I don’t think I said scouting values correlate to WAR. In this entire thread. I don’t think I’ve said it in this post either.

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Also need to turn relative ratings off if you don't want the distribution to seem the same

There is no question that advanced users can manipulate the engine to get the outcomes they desire. On default I personally thought the distribution was good, just perhaps had fallen off at the last check in 2100 (which is further than most will ever go).

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by FantasyDrafter

You probably haven’t read the whole thread, I’ll address a couple things.

This is a new standard game at completion. The default. I made no attempt to do anything but play the base game.

80 means nothing - I agree. With 100% scouting on it is just a crude rank/sorting of the players in the sim’s eyes. Earlier we were showing what round those level players came from in the draft. I just kept showing the distribution of how the engine sorts the players.

I only have one editor number in this post - what a 95 fastball was in 2100. I intentionally included that. If you would like to compare it to earlier in the game, I believe Hunter Greene has a 95 fastball (with a much higher editor value). Make your own judgements. I did note that there is a large jump at the beginning of the game in k/9 rate during the first generation that goes away as the sim progresses. Again, form your own judgement.

I don’t think I said scouting values correlate to WAR. In this entire thread. I don’t think I’ve said it in this post either.

I read the whole thread, I was just taking exception to the included the records being broken as if that was meaningful. Without recal on league totals easily get out of wack. Not sure what point all the numbers were supposed to make, they just made me loose your whole thread

My understanding was the main complaint was players weren't developing and years down the road you were left with subpar talent. This was then confused with how ratings were calculated and how they are trying to be more realistic so ratings aren't as inflated, or at least don't appear as inflated. Underlying ratings would still be true as before.
My confusion stems from how everyone uses the 80 scale as absolute ratings to make arguments about things being broken when it's a cosmetic rating at best and proves nothing if there if more or less of a player at that rating.

I'm just trying to understand what the real issues are as I have a league that heavy dependent on the development engine so I want to make sure before I import it over that this is a real issue and not just issues with ratings not being as inflated as before so therefore everyone must suck

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

I read the whole thread, I was just taking exception to the included the records being broken as if that was meaningful. Without recal on league totals easily get out of wack. Not sure what point all the numbers were supposed to make, they just made me loose your whole thread

My understanding was the main complaint was players weren't developing and years down the road you were left with subpar talent. This was then confused with how ratings were calculated and how they are trying to be more realistic so ratings aren't as inflated, or at least don't appear as inflated. Underlying ratings would still be true as before.
My confusion stems from how everyone uses the 80 scale as absolute ratings to make arguments about things being broken when it's a cosmetic rating at best and proves nothing if there if more or less of a player at that rating.

I'm just trying to understand what the real issues are as I have a league that heavy dependent on the development engine so I want to make sure before I import it over that this is a real issue and not just issues with ratings not being as inflated as before so therefore everyone must suck

My personal opinion (if it hasn’t been clear) is that generated players do not develop from their first report date until around the time they turn 20. Then they start to progress. Because it is so slow and because the game launches with players who are higher rates than the game will generate, when you get 3-5 years into the game and are looking for replacements for the players you started with it seems barren (accentuated by the bad draft classes).

If you wait until 2040, players are toned down to a level they will generally stay at and because development is so exactly programmed (in my experience) to primarily occur between 20-23/24 you should have a very nice pipeline running. You may find an example in your sim of what I would characterize as a great player (based on in game performance) who does not fit this criteria, but typically development is nothing until 19/20, then in MLB at 22 in the AIs evaluation.

[FantasyDrafter]

Also, my point was almost no records were broken. Strikeouts by batters go crazy and K/9 is really inflated through the 2030s, but otherwise everything fits in very well with MLB history. I would assume most would like that, maybe I’m wrong.

[TheChief]

what happens if you crank up new generated incoming players and then severely lower development speed?

[FantasyDrafter]

Originally Posted by TheChief

what happens if you crank up new generated incoming players and then severely lower development speed?

Crank it up and let us know. Personally I don’t like to try and tune anything in when I expect the base game is going to change, but you would probably see patterns that are different.

It’s been very quiet since the last patch (and it’s been a while) so I’m expecting something relatively soon. At that point I’ll see what I might want to do to play this years version of the game.

[FantasyDrafter]

One other thing from a development/minors progression standpoint:

If you didn’t notice or I didn’t emphasize enough, the AI acts like AA does not exist with its players that it considers ready for MLB at 22/23yo. It is consistently the same pattern - rookie ball for 3-4 years, then A/A+ for 1 year, partial year AAA then in MLB, pitchers start in the pen.

I would never do this intuitively and it creates a logjam at the rookie levels. This is probably why the AI is cutting so many young players who are showing up on the Rule 5 drafts at 17-19yo (different thread). AA in the current game is where you stick 45 or lower rated career minor leaguers in the AIs opinion.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by turtle4499

While I agree with you, the game current has 40 as 300, 50 as 400, and 75 as 500. Or 35, 50, 90 on 1-100.

Which means, at least in terms of the absolute scale, that whatever the organizing principle of the rating system, it is NOT standard deviations. A standard deviation of a given statistic is a particular measurement of variation expressed in units of that statistic. There is no positive SD or negative SD: in other words, a 40 and a 60 rating in Contact should indicate batting averages around the mean batting average.

Now, it could still be the case that ratings are distributed so as to approximate standard deviation values in not the absolute scale but rather the league-relative scale. I havenÂ’t used my v25 yet, but experience with at least how the player editor operates in previous versions I would need to see this proven to be true before accepting it as such. The conversion from the absolute scale to the relative (again, at least so far as was expressed within the editor) was always (except for perhaps far outlier ratings) a uniform simple mechanical process:

1) Relative scale 2x granularity of absolute scale
2) Relative “average” (however defined) is 50 on relative scale
3) The original absolute 50 is still the point at where a scale shift of equal magnitude occurs on the relative scale for attributes where applicable.***

***This means that to assess the difference between two ratings for one of these attributes you need to know where the ABSOLUTE 50 is located on the RELATIVE scale. Depending on the league average, two given ratings in one of these attributes on one league’s relative scale can (in the editor, at least) indicate a performance gap up to twice as large as would the same two relative ratings in another league.

Really, it is time that OOTP incorporated an option some format of displaying the scout attributes grades as baseball statistics. Put basically, using the editor function (probably the league-relative one) on scouted ratings instead and displaying the translated statistics (perhaps splits, etc., as well) in front-facing UI screens and pop-ups. The tea-leaves reading to try to divine just what your scout is saying is not representative of how any competent organization (baseball or otherwise) communicates internally.

[greenOak]

I'm noticing the same things as FantasyDrafter with regards to prospect development. In my sim to 2124, here are careers of the top 20 generated batters in career WAR:

1. Mike Jarrow - High school infielder drafted 1-3 who played 2B for most of his career with some SS and 1B. 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at A/A+, 21yo season at AAA (57 games) and MLB (79 games).

2. Stephon Jowers - High school infielder drafted 1-2 who played SS before moving to 2B/3B. 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at A/A+, 21yo season at A+ (92 games), and MLB (49 games) with one AA game sprinkled in.

3. Ramiro Mayen - IAFA corner outfielder who signed for 5.7 million. 18yo season at rookie ball, 19yo season at R/A, 20yo season at R/A (with more time spent in rookie ball than his 19yo season), 21yo season at A/A+, 22yo season at AAA (11 games) and MLB (62 games).

4. Mike Cutlip - High school infielder drafted at 1-3 who played 3B before moving to 1B later in his career. 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at rookie ball, 21yo season at rookie ball, 22yo season at A, 23yo season at AAA (97 games) and MLB (45 games).

5. Juan Ontiveros - IAFA infielder signed for 5.7 million who played mostly 2B in the majors. 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at A/A+, 21yo season at AAA, 22yo season at AAA (16 games) and MLB (126 games).

6. Jorge Hueso - IAFA 1B signed for 5.23 million. 18yo season at rookie ball, 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at A, 21yo season at A+ (95 games) AAA (36 games), 22yo season in MLB.

7. Myeong-Wan Kim - IFA 2B who entered the league at 23 and never spent time in the minors.

8. Bob Bruss - HS catcher drafted at 1-5. 19yo season in rookie ball, 20yo season in rookie ball, 21yo season at R/A, 22yo season at A+, 23yo season in MLB.

9. Joel Clark - HS infielder drafted at 1-14 who played mostly 3B in the MLB. 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at rookie ball, 21yo season at rookie ball, 22yo season at A, 23yo season at A+ (115 games), and AAA (53 games), 24yo season in MLB.

10. Juan Irizarry - HS infielder drafted 1-29 who played mostly SS in the MLB. 18yo season at rookie ball, 19yo season at R/A+, 20yo season at R/A, 21yo season at A/A+/AA (only 5 games at AA), 23yo season at AAA (63 games) and MLB (88 games).

11. Chris Henderson - HS infielder drafted 1-18 who played mostly 2B in the MLB. 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at R/A, 21yo season at R/A/A+/AA (only 2 games at AA), 22yo season in MLB.

12. Zach Dominici - HS infielder drafted 1-5 who played mostly SS in the MLB. 18yo season at rookie ball, 19yo season at R/A, 20yo season at R/A+, 21yo season at A/MLB (only 5 games in MLB), 22yo season at AAA (116 games) and MLB (30 games).

13. Frank Orejel - IAFA infielder who signed for 5.7 million and played 3B/SS in the MLB. 18yo season at rookie ball, 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at A/A+, 21yo season at A+ (92 games), AAA (20 games), and MLB (17 games). 22yo season in MLB.

14. Kaleb Freshour - HS infielder drafted 1-5 who played mostly 2B in the MLB. 18yo season at rookie ball, 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at R/A, 21yo season at A+/AAA (30 games in AAA). 22yo season at AAA (9 games) and MLB (76 games).

15. Juan Contreras - IAFA scouting discovery CF. 17yo season in rookie ball, 18yo season at R/A+, 19yo season at R/A+, 20yo season at rookie ball, 21yo season at A/AAA (only 4 games at AAA), 22yo season at AAA (3 games), and MLB (112 games).

16. Alfredo Ramirez - IAFA infielder signed for 5.7 million who played mostly 2B in the MLB. 16yo season at rookie ball, 17yo season at rookie ball, 18yo season at rookie ball, 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at A, 21yo season at A+ (59 games) and AAA (50 games). 22yo season at AAA (60 games) and MLB (92 games).

17. David Lara - IAFA corner outfielder signed for 5.28 million. 18yo season at rookie ball, 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at rookie ball, 21yo season at R/A+, 22yo season at A/AAA/MLB (33 games at AAA, 13 games in MLB), 23yo season at A+/AAA/MLB (41 games at AAA, 40 games in MLB).

18. Steve Morris - College center fielder drafted 1-8. 21yo season at R/A, 22yo season at R/A/A+/AAA (1 game at AAA). 23yo season in MLB.

19. Alfredo De Los Santos - IAFA infielder signed for 5.7 million who played 2B before moving to 1B later in his career. 17yo season at rookie ball, 18yo season at rookie ball, 19yo season at rookie ball, 20yo season at R/A/A+, 21yo season at A+/AAA (33 games at AAA), 22yo season at AAA (2 games) and MLB (126 games).

20. Nate Winters - College infielder drafted 1-1 who played SS in the MLB. 22yo season at A, 23yo season at AAA (35 games) and MLB (73 games).

There are almost no AA games played by these 20 players, and in general the progression is 2-3 years in rookie ball, a year at A/A+, followed by a brief stint in AAA before breaking into the MLB.

[Francoeurstein]

There are almost no AA games played by these 20 players, and in general the progression is 2-3 years in rookie ball, a year at A/A+, followed by a brief stint in AAA before breaking into the MLB.[/QUOTE]

Not one player that wasn't a 1st rounder or big INT FA signing, either. That doesn't mirror real life at all.

Top 20 players IRL in WAR from 2019-2024:
1. Mookie Betts: 5th round
2. Aaron Judge: 1st round
3. Freddie Freeman: 2nd round
4. Juan Soto: signed for $1.5m
5. Trea Turner: 1st round
6. Jose Ramirez: signed for 50k
7. Francisco Lindor: 1st round
8. Marcus Semien: 6th round
9. Ronald Acuna Jr.: signed for 100k
10. Xander Bogaerts: signed for 410k
11. Mike Trout: 1st round
12. Alex Bregman: 1st round
13. Jose Altuve: signed for 15k
14. JT Realmuto: 3rd round
15. Nolan Arenado: 2nd round
16. Corey Seager: 1st round
17. Manny Machado: 1st round
18. Paul Goldschmidt: 8th round
19. Rafael Devers: signed for 1.5m
20. Matt Olson: 1st round

[Ratbelly]

Looks like they need to figure out how to program in some outliers and some variation in TCR.

[itsmb8]

There are almost no AA games played by these 20 players, and in general the progression is 2-3 years in rookie ball, a year at A/A+, followed by a brief stint in AAA before breaking into the MLB.

Not one player that wasn't a 1st rounder or big INT FA signing, either. That doesn't mirror real life at all.

Top 20 players IRL in WAR from 2019-2024:
1. Mookie Betts: 5th round
2. Aaron Judge: 1st round
3. Freddie Freeman: 2nd round
4. Juan Soto: signed for $1.5m
5. Trea Turner: 1st round
6. Jose Ramirez: signed for 50k
7. Francisco Lindor: 1st round
8. Marcus Semien: 6th round
9. Ronald Acuna Jr.: signed for 100k
10. Xander Bogaerts: signed for 410k
11. Mike Trout: 1st round
12. Alex Bregman: 1st round
13. Jose Altuve: signed for 15k
14. JT Realmuto: 3rd round
15. Nolan Arenado: 2nd round
16. Corey Seager: 1st round
17. Manny Machado: 1st round
18. Paul Goldschmidt: 8th round
19. Rafael Devers: signed for 1.5m
20. Matt Olson: 1st round

These tests are all with default settings. Turn up the TCR to 150+ and you will see random boom players

[Guthrien]

TCR will give you draft/growth variation? The developmental settings don't seem to do a thing this year. Regardless, this all worked last year, I assume they have the inside track in fixing it. Maybe it's related to the doubling up of attributes.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

TCR will give you draft/growth variation? The developmental settings don't seem to do a thing this year. Regardless, this all worked last year, I assume they have the inside track in fixing it. Maybe it's related to the doubling up of attributes.

It's all within the parameters of the players creation modifiers, but in my experience increasing the TCR makes that a player created with ratings of 20-80 is initially evaluated 25/25 and therefore picked in the draft in a very high round may during his career evolve to a higher potential, and as the TCR is higher this tends to happen more often.

In the same way it also happens that players evaluated 70/80 initially do not even pass A+ and end up being 20/20 players.

It also happens that established players can have a bump in their career (IRL Justin Turner for example) where the best part of his career has been after the age of 34, and as I mentioned before the opposite happens more often players with 7.0 WAR in one year, the following year they decline so much that they are impossible to keep on the roster for 2 more years.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

It's all within the parameters of the players creation modifiers, but in my experience increasing the TCR makes that a player created with ratings of 20-80 is initially evaluated 25/25 and therefore picked in the draft in a very high round may during his career evolve to a higher potential, and as the TCR is higher this tends to happen more often.

In the same way it also happens that players evaluated 70/80 initially do not even pass A+ and end up being 20/20 players.

It also happens that established players can have a bump in their career (IRL Justin Turner for example) where the best part of his career has been after the age of 34, and as I mentioned before the opposite happens more often players with 7.0 WAR in one year, the following year they decline so much that they are impossible to keep on the roster for 2 more years.

in summary a high TCR makes players and their ratings more unpredictable (I use TCR at 125) but reading this post in full, I think there are people who don't like that the ratings vary so much.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Daniel_09

in summary a high TCR makes players and their ratings more unpredictable (I use TCR at 125) but reading this post in full, I think there are people who don't like that the ratings vary so much.

Which is my thing... people complain about this, like, every single year but here's the deal: baseball prospects are just plain more wonky than football or basketball prospects. Lots and lots and lots of guys who are picked top 5 or top 10 turn into busts and lots and lots of guys who were drafted in the 63rd round turn into good players (or even in that particular guy's case a Hall of Famer). Scouting is far from an exact science, players look great in high school and college doing things that will catch up to them when they play professional players, and sometimes peoples' bodies simply do not grow the way they're expected to.

If you bump up TCR you'll get more variance, which is the point of TCR, and I like that that applies both to prospects and to vets (where it's completely possible for a guy to get a TCR or even an age related malus when they're like 32 and then get a separate TCR bump at 33 - this isn't common but when you see a guy go from a .260/30/90 to .200/10/60 and then back to what looks like .270/15/70, that can be what happened (or of course the guy just got HR lucky in year one and hit unluck in year two but, speaking of things that a lot of people don't want to admit...).

Also too if you want fewer busts, increase development speed / change the beginning of a player's prime years from 26 to something like 23 or 24. You'll then have too many quality players in the league and you'll be pushing vets out unless you mess with the other settings (personally I have development up to about 1.25 and aging down to around 0.8 but that's more because I don't like the way the game handles aging so much, and also I've found with a TCR set to 150 you still get a good amount of players just turning to crap all of the sudden).

There's a thing in here that I think Lukas has talked about where it's going to be really hard to make a development/aging system that works for 2024 but then also works for the 90s and early 2000s, when various older players might have been taking performance enhancing drugs to keep them around longer, or for that matter the 1930s, when there wasn't even a draft and players rarely if ever signed and played for a major league team directly out of college, having to rise through either a huge minor league system (Dodgers, Yankees, Cardinals) or prove themselves in one of a hundred different independent teams and leagues. The game tries to handle 2024. If you remember 45 year olds playing and you want more of that, dial aging down. It's your game.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Which is my thing... people complain about this, like, every single year but here's the deal: baseball prospects are just plain more wonky than football or basketball prospects. Lots and lots and lots of guys who are picked top 5 or top 10 turn into busts and lots and lots of guys who were drafted in the 63rd round turn into good players (or even in that particular guy's case a Hall of Famer). Scouting is far from an exact science, players look great in high school and college doing things that will catch up to them when they play professional players, and sometimes peoples' bodies simply do not grow the way they're expected to.

If you bump up TCR you'll get more variance, which is the point of TCR, and I like that that applies both to prospects and to vets (where it's completely possible for a guy to get a TCR or even an age related malus when they're like 32 and then get a separate TCR bump at 33 - this isn't common but when you see a guy go from a .260/30/90 to .200/10/60 and then back to what looks like .270/15/70, that can be what happened (or of course the guy just got HR lucky in year one and hit unluck in year two but, speaking of things that a lot of people don't want to admit...).

Also too if you want fewer busts, increase development speed / change the beginning of a player's prime years from 26 to something like 23 or 24. You'll then have too many quality players in the league and you'll be pushing vets out unless you mess with the other settings (personally I have development up to about 1.25 and aging down to around 0.8 but that's more because I don't like the way the game handles aging so much, and also I've found with a TCR set to 150 you still get a good amount of players just turning to crap all of the sudden).

There's a thing in here that I think Lukas has talked about where it's going to be really hard to make a development/aging system that works for 2024 but then also works for the 90s and early 2000s, when various older players might have been taking performance enhancing drugs to keep them around longer, or for that matter the 1930s, when there wasn't even a draft and players rarely if ever signed and played for a major league team directly out of college, having to rise through either a huge minor league system (Dodgers, Yankees, Cardinals) or prove themselves in one of a hundred different independent teams and leagues. The game tries to handle 2024. If you remember 45 year olds playing and you want more of that, dial aging down. It's your game.

This is correct, a first pick in the MLB, even if he has a high chance of reaching the MLB, still has to go through the minors and there so many things can happen such as poor performance, change of position or injuries, while the NFL or NBA players They are ready for the highest level (some more than others) just for example that more than 20 teams passed on Mike Trout in the draft is an example. As players with great careers in MLB are also from the 15th round or higher, also take into account that most drafts in history had more than 50 rounds.