Quote:
Originally Posted by Acuna Matata
Many thanks for all the ideas there.
At the core it does come back to the on field production but the idea of all but the most elite players having up and down years (severe in some cases) was something i thought must be a blip but no longer.
Really interested by the thoughts on when velocity and the like settles down.
Ive read previously on this forum about the crapshoot of very young players and it makes me think that investing in the international free agent draft for 16 year olds is pretty much a waste of time. More than happy to hear thoughts to the contrary though. Instead i feel ive got much better value from siging international free agents who have dropped into the standard free agent pool. The only drawback i would say is that picking up a handful of those each year leaves less room for the high performing minor leaguers developing through the system. Its a balancing act i guess which i hope iĀ’ll get to grips with.
At the minute ive clocked just over 200 hours on the game but still find im learning so much from other players and through practical trial and error as i go.
Once again many thanks for the contributions
|
if you have 5million to spare every year, you should spend it. otherwise, i could see some financial situations where i'd rather save that 5M than spend on an IAFA. but not many and only in a tiny market.
unspent money is useless. merits to using max cash on hand as a reserve for spikes in payroll (an 'oh s%#$!' fund? -- don't hold too much back), but for the most part you want to spend what you have.
developement doesn't require good performance, fwiw. i've seen a 'kid' go from rookie to MLB in little over a year and never hit well in the minor leagues... then go on to 10+ straight .300 BA seasons in MLB... it does correlate, though. medium to strong. since i draft at bottom of rounds, i typically spend more on MiL Scouting than amatuers. it really pays off for developing players at a faster rate with the improved accuracy on scouting reports.
ratings are lead indicators... results follow ratings, incontrevertibly. it is simply how the game works. results will help you learn which combination of ratings are best for various roles on an MLB team and relative to your settings (not overall or potential). it's simple, yet it isn't, and potentially different weights in every single league in a large variety of ways.
draft stuff
it's crapshoot due to 2 factors -- age and more time for TCR to occur = more risk. that amounts to more opportunities to not develop compared to a colelge kid.... what can outweigh that risk is a very high potential or 'if' their velo goes up they go from a good SP to a future HoF SP with 5 cy youngs -- assuming they do make it to the MLB with their ability intact.
as with anything else, there are good times to take a HS and good times to take a college kid. there are few rules without exception.
more players will not hinder 'better' prospects movement through system. on the contrary, too few is more likely to have this effect in comparison. promotions will be hindered by neccessity. the ones that are poorly scouted are always going to require more time to out. as long as they are accurately scouted and they have talent, they are likely to get playing time over others. (settings for MiL(s):use potential for depth chart choices.)
of course, if you have 2 guys at ~28/80 potential, the ai is going to split time between these two. in cases where it matters to you, you can force start.