OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

Timofmars · 09-30-2020, 05:10 AM

First, I don't agree with some of the assumptions you made.

I thought that players on the ML active roster develop the same regardless of playing time. At least the manual says they develop "normally" in the ML or reserve roster, but can develop slower in the minors if they get little playing time. Though I don't know if that means a minor league player can develop faster than a ML player if they were to play as much as possible, or if just a moderate amount of playing time in the minors is as good as a lot of playing time, etc.

I also don't believe there is any in-game mechanism regarding easing players into the rotation, so I don't make that a consideration.

With that said, I tend to try to delay using top prospects in the ML as long as possible while they are still developing, in order to get the maximum performance from them for minimal salary costs. Giving them a ML spot earlier in development means that they won't be as good for those early years, but then by the time arbitration comes, they are still asking for the full amount that reflects their current ability, regardless of whether the have recently reach that level of ability or have been there for 3 years. Though I will play a prospect in September if he's on the 40 man, to help his development after minor league games are finished.

And I especially delay adding a prospect to the 40 man unless I need to for rule 5 protection. So I wouldn't use #11 since he still has a ways to go to reach his potential. Also, his lower stamina maybe wouldn't allow him to eat up as many innings as your other choices.

#17 and #59 have lower potential, so are more replaceable. Or if you keep them long term, their eventual salary demands shouldn't be a big change in your budget. So I'd have no problem using them in the ML as needed. #59 may perform better than usual because of the platoon difference.

#56 appears to the best pitcher of the 3 older ones, but I think his extra skill is unimportant for a long reliever, as they will be more often used in blowouts when the outcome of the game is mostly already decided. If he is a 3/4 in the rotation, I would just put him there now.

If he is just used as long reliever, I'd go one of the other 2 instead. Maybe if your own of your starters gets injured, then bring him in to fill the spot.

09-30-2020, 05:10 AM	#2
Timofmars Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 251	First, I don't agree with some of the assumptions you made. I thought that players on the ML active roster develop the same regardless of playing time. At least the manual says they develop "normally" in the ML or reserve roster, but can develop slower in the minors if they get little playing time. Though I don't know if that means a minor league player can develop faster than a ML player if they were to play as much as possible, or if just a moderate amount of playing time in the minors is as good as a lot of playing time, etc. I also don't believe there is any in-game mechanism regarding easing players into the rotation, so I don't make that a consideration. With that said, I tend to try to delay using top prospects in the ML as long as possible while they are still developing, in order to get the maximum performance from them for minimal salary costs. Giving them a ML spot earlier in development means that they won't be as good for those early years, but then by the time arbitration comes, they are still asking for the full amount that reflects their current ability, regardless of whether the have recently reach that level of ability or have been there for 3 years. Though I will play a prospect in September if he's on the 40 man, to help his development after minor league games are finished. And I especially delay adding a prospect to the 40 man unless I need to for rule 5 protection. So I wouldn't use #11 since he still has a ways to go to reach his potential. Also, his lower stamina maybe wouldn't allow him to eat up as many innings as your other choices. #17 and #59 have lower potential, so are more replaceable. Or if you keep them long term, their eventual salary demands shouldn't be a big change in your budget. So I'd have no problem using them in the ML as needed. #59 may perform better than usual because of the platoon difference. #56 appears to the best pitcher of the 3 older ones, but I think his extra skill is unimportant for a long reliever, as they will be more often used in blowouts when the outcome of the game is mostly already decided. If he is a 3/4 in the rotation, I would just put him there now. If he is just used as long reliever, I'd go one of the other 2 instead. Maybe if your own of your starters gets injured, then bring him in to fill the spot.