[Trav876]

I've searched the forums but haven't been able to find a clear answer except someone saying that "ratings drive stats."


But my question is, if it's only based on ratings, then how much actual control does the manager/GM have over the development of players?



E.g. it wouldn't matter if you have a guy benched in the Rookie League, not getting AB's, when his ratings would dictate he should be in AAA. In real life this would be a screw up because his development would suffer.


If in the game, only "ratings" drive stats, then you could put him up into AAA he should all of a sudden do well.


Take the reverse example to better understand what I'm asking. Let's say a guy's ratings aren't great, and his potential is low. But you've put him in positions to succeed and his stats are good. Shouldn't his potential then improve because you've helped "make him a better" player?



In real life, if a prospect is a top prospect and they've invested lots into him (high draft, pick, maybe trades, etc.), they'll give him more AB's, more opportunities, etc. This then spurs his development.


In OOTP, does giving guys more AB's tend to help them improve? Obviously not always, because sometimes a guy isn't good enough. But sometimes I'll see a guy tearing it up in the minors, and his ratings & potential still suck. Kind of strange...you'd think potential should at least increase? At least temporarily until he starts sucking.


If not, it seems like this should be a feature if doable, to make it more realistic. Otherwise, it's simply only based on ratings and really doesn't matter what you do with your minor leaguers (you could leave them all in the rookie league on the bench, but so long as their ratings are MLB good, they'd come up to the MLB and do fine. There's less chance to ruin a guy and less chance to make a guy succeed, which is a huge part of real life development).