Developing a starter

zero2426 · 07-24-2013, 05:31 PM

I have a young starting pitching prospect, who is 22 and at the cusp of the Major League level. He's currently not good enough to crack my rotation but he's my sixth best reliever. What is better for his development, less major league relief innings or more AAA starts?

Boston15 · 07-25-2013, 02:39 AM

It all depends on where your team is in the season, whether its in contention or not, etc. If you have at least a decent chance at the playoffs it might be good to put him in relief for a few appearances since he's the 6th best reliever on your team. If you're out of the hunt I'd put him in the starting rotation to get a better idea if what he's got.

22 does seem like a fairly young age, though, personally I try to wait until pitching prospects hit 23 unless they're absolute can't miss material. At that age he could still develop in AAA.

dodger300 · 07-25-2013, 09:05 AM

Keep him in the minors. Personally if he hasn't pitched at least 150 innings of AA, I wouldn't even bring him up to AAA.

YanksFan · 07-25-2013, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodger300

Keep him in the minors. Personally if he hasn't pitched at least 150 innings of AA, I wouldn't even bring him up to AAA.

I often see statements like this on the forum and notice that this theory/handling of development is in direct contrast to what the A.I. does most of the time. Quite often i'll look through the minor league history of players on A.I. teams who make it to the big league level who are performing and have very good to excellent ratings. What i'm finding a lot of times is that their not spending a lot of time ( 150+ innings, 300+ at-bats) at one level whether their successful or not and still are developing properly and going on to have good careers. Makes me wonder what the A.I. knows/sees that i don't.

KurtBevacqua · 07-26-2013, 03:02 PM

To me at this point much depends on his attitude and expectations. If he has a normal to good attitude without big league expectations leave him on the farm. If his attitude is in decline or he expects to be in the majors, then call him up. I have seen guys getting shelled in AAA with a poor attitude come up to the big leagues and suddenly be unhittable because they are happy. Attitude and expectations can make a big difference.

Toado · 07-26-2013, 09:00 PM

So I was going to make a new thread but the question I was going to ask sort of relates to this topic... the great part about taking over the 51-111 Padres was I got to draft this guy with the first overall pick... I think his ceiling as a starting pitcher is better than his ceiling as a hitter, so my plan was to bring him up as a pitcher after one more season in the minors (my rotation is in great shape for the upcoming year)... but I noticed he could definitely be a starting outfielder (my lineup is weak). If he spent the year as an outfielder, am I correct in assuming he wouldn't continue to develop as a pitcher during that time?

beorn · 07-27-2013, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YanksFan

I often see statements like this on the forum and notice that this theory/handling of development is in direct contrast to what the A.I. does most of the time. Quite often i'll look through the minor league history of players on A.I. teams who make it to the big league level who are performing and have very good to excellent ratings. What i'm finding a lot of times is that their not spending a lot of time ( 150+ innings, 300+ at-bats) at one level whether their successful or not and still are developing properly and going on to have good careers. Makes me wonder what the A.I. knows/sees that i don't.

Got another thread going at the moment which touches on this same issue.

Don't be too sure that player development works the same for human teams as it does for AI teams.

My suggestion: Look at online leagues where all teams are human teams, and check out what works and what does not work out in terms of player promotion. I don't know that there are any quick or one size fits all answers, but if looking at player records and drawing assumptions, I would suggest examining teams run by humans.

Walsh06 · 07-27-2013, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beorn

Got another thread going at the moment which touches on this same issue.

Don't be too sure that player development works the same for human teams as it does for AI teams.

My suggestion: Look at online leagues where all teams are human teams, and check out what works and what does not work out in terms of player promotion. I don't know that there are any quick or one size fits all answers, but if looking at player records and drawing assumptions, I would suggest examining teams run by humans.

But a player is just a player to the system. Its not differentiating who owns what player. There are factors that affect player development but you owning the player hardly has an effect.

beorn · 07-27-2013, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walsh06

But a player is just a player to the system. Its not differentiating who owns what player. There are factors that affect player development but you owning the player hardly has an effect.

As a general principle of computer games, I would not make that assumption.

Here are the facts I am sure of:
1) AI teams scout differently than human teams do. The enormous set of numbers that exist for the human manager, marking players in all kinds of areas -- with accuracy based upon scout rating and scout funding -- does not exist for AI teams. So at least part of the conditions for AI teams differ from the conditions of human teams.

2) In the manual it says, "Players respond differently to challenges. Often, a player who is tearing up Double A hitting might not be developing very quickly, because he isn't being challenged. Similarly, putting an overmatched rookie into your major league starting lineup could actually hurt his development." However, AI teams make very little attempt to match prospects to the proper level of challenge -- placement seems based on a simple ranking within the system... Best minor league shortstop plays at AAA, regardless of how that matches that shortstop's needs...

This process makes sense, as does the AI scouting process, because OOTP players want the AI teams to do things quickly, so simming is not overly time consuming. But OOTP players also want the AI teams to provide reasonable competition, so it needs to not only work quickly, but work well.

So, if you accept that the AI is not matching players to their best level of challenge, but that player development is working well for the AI teams (I accept both of these statements), yet you assume the manual is not blowing hot air (I trust the manual), then the most reasonable conclusion is that player development is different for the human player than for the AI player. If I were coding the game, I'm pretty sure that's how I would do it.

Walsh06 · 07-27-2013, 02:12 PM

Nothing there really points to two different development systems. It means AI players manage players different then human (obviously cos they are AI) and..... thats pretty much it.

endgame · 07-27-2013, 02:53 PM

Too many variables at work, but FWIW I did request comment from Markus with regard to this process, just for clarification. Whether he chooses to chime in, well, who knows?

Obviously, the AI is primarily concerned with filling gaps in rosters, and usually with the best offensive capabilities available. You can measure that, whether you're watching it run your farm system or its own, by examining the sheer number of promotions and demotions from level to level, often within the same week/month period. So, I'd agree it doesn't cater to the notion of challenge, necessarily, and if it does take it into account, it's overshadowed by the need to fill roster positions.

That being said, the human player may have a 'potential' advantage, given the manual exposition of process, but being human means he also possess 'potential' for failure. All it takes is a manager to hurriedly sim through a few weeks or a couple of months with no individual attention to his farm system and he's effectively done worse or equal to the AI management of a system. OTOH, day by day, month by month evaluations, including the use of the lock feature or such, should enable him to bring to bear the most influential factors at his disposal toward a player's development. Oh, and that would include making sure best coaches are in use, other players with high leadership qualities are assisting the process or setting examples, and having some limited faith in the work ethic and intelligence of the player, which may set limits he can't control.

Also, the AI has a shortcoming- and it has been addressed minimally in the latest patch -when it comes to acquiring high-end prospects with potential and/or tools. It usually waits a day before assignments and evaluations instead of snatching a player up the moment he appears. The human can take advantage of that, with enough day to day scrutiny, and land that type of player under the right circumstances nearly every time. Same is true for coaches to a lesser degree. The AI won't create a vacancy and fire someone just because a better candidate comes along; we can and do, providing a resource the AI doesn't fully utilize, but the effect, it could be argued, may be minimal.

So, in the end, it's my belief- and that's all any of these viewpoints are -that the AI is probably working with the same code, with both it and the human suffering from a fair amount of potential shortcomings and a reasonable amount of luck and success at work in the process. Probably more later. Thanks for the discussion. It's interesting.

Markus Heinsohn · 07-29-2013, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walsh06

But a player is just a player to the system. Its not differentiating who owns what player.

Exactly. There is just one single code part that handles the player development, and it does not matter at all if the player is on a human team or a computer controlled one, of course

Cryomaniac · 07-29-2013, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toado

So I was going to make a new thread but the question I was going to ask sort of relates to this topic... the great part about taking over the 51-111 Padres was I got to draft this guy with the first overall pick... I think his ceiling as a starting pitcher is better than his ceiling as a hitter, so my plan was to bring him up as a pitcher after one more season in the minors (my rotation is in great shape for the upcoming year)... but I noticed he could definitely be a starting outfielder (my lineup is weak). If he spent the year as an outfielder, am I correct in assuming he wouldn't continue to develop as a pitcher during that time?

I would have him playing outfield, but use him in relief every now and then to make sure he gets some playing time as a pitcher.

Bluenoser · 07-29-2013, 08:59 AM

ToadO - you are correct. Players don't develop without playing time. So if you play him OF, he won't develop as a pitcher, and may even regress. Same thing the other way too.

My question to you is - you say your rotation is good and your hitting is weak. Why not develop him as a hitter? With that power potential and hitting being the weak area of my team, I'd consider it at least.

r0nster · 07-29-2013, 03:59 PM

I like changing players position during spring training that greatly helps alot.

Pdubya64 · 07-29-2013, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by endgame

Obviously, the AI is primarily concerned with filling gaps in rosters, and usually with the best offensive capabilities available. You can measure that, whether you're watching it run your farm system or its own, by examining the sheer number of promotions and demotions from level to level, often within the same week/month period. So, I'd agree it doesn't cater to the notion of challenge, necessarily, and if it does take it into account, it's overshadowed by the need to fill roster positions.

Just as related information for those interested, there have been considerable discussions on the board and some consensus that one way to "help" the AI teams to manage their rosters better is increasing the traditional MLB roster from 25 to 26 or 27. I haven't tried any higher than that as I don't want to go crazy with it.
It does seem to help with cutting down on the roster thrashing, at the expense of sticking to historical roster sizes.
Just my

07-24-2013, 05:31 PM	#1
zero2426 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 63	Developing a starter I have a young starting pitching prospect, who is 22 and at the cusp of the Major League level. He's currently not good enough to crack my rotation but he's my sixth best reliever. What is better for his development, less major league relief innings or more AAA starts?

07-25-2013, 02:39 AM	#2
Boston15 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 47	It all depends on where your team is in the season, whether its in contention or not, etc. If you have at least a decent chance at the playoffs it might be good to put him in relief for a few appearances since he's the 6th best reliever on your team. If you're out of the hunt I'd put him in the starting rotation to get a better idea if what he's got. 22 does seem like a fairly young age, though, personally I try to wait until pitching prospects hit 23 unless they're absolute can't miss material. At that age he could still develop in AAA. Last edited by Boston15; 07-25-2013 at 02:42 AM.

07-26-2013, 03:02 PM	#5
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	To me at this point much depends on his attitude and expectations. If he has a normal to good attitude without big league expectations leave him on the farm. If his attitude is in decline or he expects to be in the majors, then call him up. I have seen guys getting shelled in AAA with a poor attitude come up to the big leagues and suddenly be unhittable because they are happy. Attitude and expectations can make a big difference. __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

07-26-2013, 09:00 PM	#6
Toado Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 107	So I was going to make a new thread but the question I was going to ask sort of relates to this topic... the great part about taking over the 51-111 Padres was I got to draft this guy with the first overall pick... I think his ceiling as a starting pitcher is better than his ceiling as a hitter, so my plan was to bring him up as a pitcher after one more season in the minors (my rotation is in great shape for the upcoming year)... but I noticed he could definitely be a starting outfielder (my lineup is weak). If he spent the year as an outfielder, am I correct in assuming he wouldn't continue to develop as a pitcher during that time? Attached Images

07-27-2013, 02:12 PM	#10
Walsh06 All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 545	Nothing there really points to two different development systems. It means AI players manage players different then human (obviously cos they are AI) and..... thats pretty much it. __________________ The Numbers Game, Sports Blog

07-25-2013, 09:05 AM	#3
dodger300 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 268	Keep him in the minors. Personally if he hasn't pitched at least 150 innings of AA, I wouldn't even bring him up to AAA.

07-27-2013, 02:53 PM	#11
endgame Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 16,842	Too many variables at work, but FWIW I did request comment from Markus with regard to this process, just for clarification. Whether he chooses to chime in, well, who knows? Obviously, the AI is primarily concerned with filling gaps in rosters, and usually with the best offensive capabilities available. You can measure that, whether you're watching it run your farm system or its own, by examining the sheer number of promotions and demotions from level to level, often within the same week/month period. So, I'd agree it doesn't cater to the notion of challenge, necessarily, and if it does take it into account, it's overshadowed by the need to fill roster positions. That being said, the human player may have a 'potential' advantage, given the manual exposition of process, but being human means he also possess 'potential' for failure. All it takes is a manager to hurriedly sim through a few weeks or a couple of months with no individual attention to his farm system and he's effectively done worse or equal to the AI management of a system. OTOH, day by day, month by month evaluations, including the use of the lock feature or such, should enable him to bring to bear the most influential factors at his disposal toward a player's development. Oh, and that would include making sure best coaches are in use, other players with high leadership qualities are assisting the process or setting examples, and having some limited faith in the work ethic and intelligence of the player, which may set limits he can't control. Also, the AI has a shortcoming- and it has been addressed minimally in the latest patch -when it comes to acquiring high-end prospects with potential and/or tools. It usually waits a day before assignments and evaluations instead of snatching a player up the moment he appears. The human can take advantage of that, with enough day to day scrutiny, and land that type of player under the right circumstances nearly every time. Same is true for coaches to a lesser degree. The AI won't create a vacancy and fire someone just because a better candidate comes along; we can and do, providing a resource the AI doesn't fully utilize, but the effect, it could be argued, may be minimal. So, in the end, it's my belief- and that's all any of these viewpoints are -that the AI is probably working with the same code, with both it and the human suffering from a fair amount of potential shortcomings and a reasonable amount of luck and success at work in the process. Probably more later. Thanks for the discussion. It's interesting. __________________ "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________ Last edited by endgame; 07-27-2013 at 02:56 PM.

07-29-2013, 08:59 AM	#14
Bluenoser Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In The Moment Posts: 14,146	ToadO - you are correct. Players don't develop without playing time. So if you play him OF, he won't develop as a pitcher, and may even regress. Same thing the other way too. My question to you is - you say your rotation is good and your hitting is weak. Why not develop him as a hitter? With that power potential and hitting being the weak area of my team, I'd consider it at least.

07-29-2013, 03:59 PM	#15
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,047	I like changing players position during spring training that greatly helps alot.