Current vs Potential Ability
 

Which is more realistic for minor leagues?

I realize most will likely say potential, but I wonder.

I wonder not. Potential for low minors. Not wise for AAA. It's been better IMO.

Right...you can set it for each individual league correct? What do people do with say AA or A+?

Potential for all but AAA.

Edit; it stops the AI from playing no-hopers who might have elevated current ratings.

Edit 2; current ratings matter when you want an injury replacement in the majors.

I'd actually say current for all levels, but of course YMMV.

and the debate begins lol....I think there is a case to remade for both....I can certainly see current for AAA....but in reality, don't teams play the best players? If they have players who might be a little better but aren't going anywhere, don't they dump them? There might be a case to be made for potentials at the rookie and A- levels, while A, A+, AA & AAA would use the current scouted grades.

I guess this question is why I started the thread

One thing I am noticing....the AI rarely changes anything based on this setting.

One thing I could argue in favor of using current grades, would be that you are giving players' a chance to succeed in roles they can handle, as opposed to pushing them into ones they aren't ready for.

at the lowest levels all the players are pretty terrible so as long as the promotion/demotion decisions are appropriate for each level then he might as well be playing, especially if he's high potential. From what I've gathered results don't matter in the minors so who cares if the team sucks? Playing time is what leads to development so future major leaguers should always be playing as often as possible.

it's accurate to put it to potential because those are the players they are actually caring about - the ones with talent. the rest are told they are important, but really only there to develop those that will play in the MLB.

e.g. some 26-30 year-old career minor leaguer isn't going to take the starting spot of a less-developed, higher-ceiling younger player. (some exceptions but only when that older player is seen as having untapped potential... again it comes back to perceived potential in RL, too.). that 26-30 y.o. is signed to fill an open spot most times.

you can find various parrallels with RL that would suggest current ability is used or you can focus on the effect of the setting on the video game. imo, i want the talent to play and develop more than less-talented players. i think it's safe to say this is how it would work in real life too. for me it's not relevant though.

wins/losses and stats are secondary to development in the RL minors. e.g. you care less about matchups, you watch IP, etc etc... a RL team is never going to make a decisions based on who they think will win more minor league games... they look at it purely as to how to develop the best talent in the most efficient way. sitting behind an "old" player doesn't do that.

From what I can see, the best payers do in fact play, no matter which setting you use...to me, the difference is the AI uses ratings (current or potential) to determine where in the lineup a player may hit, or where in the rotation a pitcher is. So, for example, if you have a guy with a current 45 power grade, and a player with a 25 current power grade, but a 50 potential, both are in the lineup, but the player with the current 45 might hit in the number 4 slot....using potentials, the potential 50 might.

I think it's a little incorrect to think organizations don't care about winning at the minor league level. In fact, it is beneficial within OOTP for morale purposes. I am seeing better lineups/rotations with current. As I said, it's not a case of "the AI starting better current players over potential ones", but rather the place in the lineup or rotation. The best power hitter is hitting four or five, vs. the best potential power hitter which might be hitting 3 or five.

Another factor one should probably consider is the scout's tendency towards tools or ability; and whether or not the team's scout is actually what affects how this setting is applied (unknown). For a scout that favors ability, potential is just going to be an extrapolation of current ability with average development, while with a tools scout, potential could be way overblown on some guys and they could be playing over players that will end up being better when it's all said and done.

However, if it's only really the batting order or the pitching rotation that's affected by this setting, then it's basically not really an important decision either way.

The scouts don't determine who plays....the Managers do There are some instances where one player will start over another....but they are usually cases where you have two good players at the same position, and both are pretty decent in current and potential.

I certainly see the argument for potential, but I like to use current. Reason being, I promote mostly off of current. I want to know that my #1 SP is the most developed rather than the highest potential.

I am wondering if perhaps AAA & AA should be current with everything else potential?

Right, I get that. My question is where do the managers get each player's ratings from? They have weights on things like power and speed and what-not but where do they get the actual ratings values for each players attributes? The human gets their ratings from their scouts evaluation of the players ratings. Do the managers also? That seems likely to me. Otherwise the AI managers would be getting their ratings from either their own crappy scouting ratings or from the 'real' numbers. So I see the scouts evaluation of every player in my organization as "the organization's final opinion on the current ratings of this player". Then the AI managers are basing their decisions off of these numbers.

This is a rare event where reality doesn't jibe with what happens in OOTP, so I at least do what's best in the OOTP world.

My minor league teams win. No exceptions. Even if I have to put a couple of ringers on their rosters. Because...

• I don't just develop players in my minors. I develop staff. And from what I've seen at least, staff development seems entirely dependent on the win/loss record of the teams they're attached to.

• No-one learns anything when their team is 30-72 and morale is in the toilet.

Off topic, by 'ringers'... personally I like to take old, worn out players who I have a soft spot for and give them one last year, even in the sticks, where they go 23-4 and look like their peak again. I did that with one guy and he threw a perfect game in the deciding game of the championship series before retiring immediately afterwards.

Yeah, maybe 20 virtual spectators attended that game but I'll never forget it. :)

I use potential ability from SS-A down and current for A and up.

So I guess it's safe to say you're using current ratings?