Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyNate
I actually had an AI team claim a player I wanted during this save in 26. I was glad to see that. I usually look for bullpen help on the waiter wire. I’ve just played through the offseason before the 2026 season and feel like I haven’t seen as much “good” talent on the waiver wire. Mostly 45 ovr. That’s pretty representative of real life, guys on the fringes. But I’m fine with there not being as much claiming as real life. (Though it seems like my players historically have been claimed more often than I’d think.) As long as I’m not seeing many 50+ ovr players.
I will say I did adjust “player evaluation” to include more statistics this year. So maybe that’s had a hand in limiting how many players are going to waivers. (Drove me nuts seeing a pitcher put on waivers when he has a 3.50 ERA. That wouldn’t happen irl.)
|
I think that is a good point on player evaluation being more stat heavy, and one I hadn't thought of. I use a stat heavy evaluation (25/25/25/25) and rarely see any players on the wire that I feel shouldn't be there. Maybe that is why? IDK.
To the point of the thread I've been happy with how the AI does or does not claim waiver players. When it does take a player I can normally see how it improves their team. The ones that don't get claimed? They are usually the "same" as the player the AI team already has or worse. At the end of the day a "forced" increase in AI claim frequency may be doing something just to do it. The AI shuffling players of like ability with no real improvement to the team.
To be sure I have no idea how OOTP claims compare to real life and have no data to say OOTP is within real life expectancy. I would guess OOTP does come in low, but is that a bad thing? Perhaps in real life teams are more likely
to speculate that "this guy could break this bad streak of bullpen play. We need to do something." Where computer AI sees two players that are virtually the same borderline player, ie no reason to make a change.
My 2 cents.