Quote:
|
Originally Posted by endgame
Zeyes, the official response is "This only applies to the inaugural draft. The amateur draft is adjusted so that players take the right amount of time to develop..." (Markus)
|
Many thanks, Dark Horse & endgame.
I do still have one possible issue with this, though. From DH's quote of the testers' comments:
Quote:
|
Now if you create a separate/independent minor league. The new players are then created based on the level at which the minor league is set. And that affects mostly potentials which cap how good can theoretically get.
|
That's certainly true in the absolute sense - if the league is set to .500 equivalencies, top prospects will get potentials of ~10 instead of 20 (ratings scale of 1-20), and current ratings of e.g. 3 instead of 6, so [potential minus current] is much smaller for the low-equivalency league.
However (and I'm really entering purely anecdotal evidence territory here, unfortunately), even that didn't seem to have much of an effect on the development time. My indy-style test league that I mentioned earlier had equivalencies set around .700 or .750 (I don't remember exactly), and most of the top prospects still seemed to take at least 5 years before they became productive ML players.
Basically, I'm left to wonder: Do the equivalencies affect the absolute development rate? Hmm, that question sounds confusing even to me, so here's an example:
1.000 Equivalency league, a created prospect has current rating of 4, and a potential of 18, so he's got to "develop 14 points" worth until he's maxed out.
Now, the same "type" of player in a .500 league would start with a rating of 2, and a potential of 9, for a development differential of 7 points. Everything is scaled down by half, but the player would still rank the same, relatively to the rest of the league.
Now the question: If you take an average of all such players, would this player type reach his maximum ratings much faster in the .500 league (in half the time, or something close), or would it take the same amount of time in both setups?
Maybe I just got unlucky in my anecdotal case, but it certainly seemed like the latter to me. I hope I'm wrong.