Evaluating your new organization.... a discussion

[CH1MA3RA]

Was hoping to get a discussion going with the group....

When you start a new save, after you've adjusted your settings, what are some of the things you do to evaluate the talent in your organization?

Even though it can be time consuming I like to set all my Hitters as DH, then filter them by defense ratings to assign positions based on the criteria I set. Anyone else do anything similar?

[md40022]

Originally Posted by CH1MA3RA

Even though it can be time consuming I like to set all my Hitters as DH, then filter them by defense ratings to assign positions based on the criteria I set. Anyone else do anything similar?

Wow. How long does it take to get through this if I can ask?!

[WarningTrakPower]

First thing I like to do with a new sim is combo through the entire MiLB system. I start with the rookie teams to see who “should be” in A ball (or higher, but not likely). This includes reviewing stats from previous seasons and ratings relative to the level I would need to promote them to.
Then I move up to the next level and repeat. It is a time consuming process but it is quite immersive. I have found guys and been like “wow this guys ratings aren’t impressive but he has had success at every level” to which I will add them to my default shortlist to keep an eye on them.
After I have gone through and done all the promotions (rarely do I demote players unless default sim has them in AA when they should be in rookie ball) I may decide to purge some of the excess fridge prospects who have stalled out at a level to make room for younger players with more upside. This also allows me to release say my AA team doesn’t really have a good defender at SS say to which I can go to free agent pool (or trade).

I like to have my default shortlist with the prospects I want to monitor and I need to setup my bookmarks for screens I visit most frequently (waiver wire for example).

Once I have a good understanding of the whole system I can start to map out a path forward and start my sim. I like to sim at least 2 months before making any immediate trades (if possible).

[Cod]

For MLB saves, I start by immediately firing every coach in my entire system that has traits that do not align with my goals. From there I spend a lot of time filling the roles at each level with coaches that do align with my goals.

Next, I immediately create shortlists for things I care about (in no particular order):

• Pitching Prospects
• Position Prospects
• Extension Candidates
• Draft Picks
• FA Signings
• Watch List

I keep a list of my draft picks and FA signings for my own edification to understand how I'm doing from a drafting and signing standpoint. The draft list also gives me a rough idea of how my player development is working out.

Then I comb through all the players in my system, shortlisting any that meet the above categories, position/level locking players I want to control, writing down weak/strong spots, etc. There's a lot more to this, but I can't remember since I haven't started a new save in over a year, but this should give you an idea. I'm planning to start a new MLB save soon, so I'll try to track if I do anything different this go around.

I should add, I keep a spiral notebook for my saves that tend to fill up pretty quickly. Between OOTP and FM, I go through a lot of notebooks

[CH1MA3RA]

Originally Posted by md40022

Wow. How long does it take to get through this if I can ask?!

I've fine-tuned it down to only a couple hours of prep work when I start a new save. I no longer go player-by-player and go too in-depth as I used to. Instead I use a positional value tree and go C, SS, CF, 3B, RF, 2B, LF, 1B.

I look at all C and if they don't have a CAB of 55+ then I change them to DH (caveat is that I set pitch framing impact to 8-High in the newer versions). Once I have the C set, I filter the player list for IF ARM 60+. These are the players I look at for SS and 3B. If their IN RNG is 65+ then they are SS, if it's less than that then I set them as 3B since their arm plays on the left side. I use a things like 45 IF ERR and 45 IF RNG as the floor for acceptable ratings for the infield, if the position doesn't require higher. There's always fringe guys though, so I am more flexible with these floors the further into the eval I get.

If any of the non-SS from this group grade out good enough as CF then that supercedes being a 3B, based on that value tree. But once these are done I then do the same process for CF using OF RNG 65+ and OF ERR 55+. Any player without enough OF RNG that has a 60+ OF ARM gets set as RF.

Once C, SS, CF, 3B, RF are set I look at 55+ Turn DP and 55+ IF RNG to find 2B. Anyone left on the list that aren't set as any of the previous get set to DH.

When I look at LF and 1B I don't have many restrictions, except for Height on the 1B. I look for 6'0" or taller and ideally they throw L, but that part isn't as imperative for me. The players left in this part of the process tend to be pretty easy to eval since they likely have lower ratings for IF ERR/RNG, and OF ERR/RNG. Basically.... if they are passable at either 1B or LF, then I put them there. Anyone left over stays as DH.

Once the position eval is complete, then I start reviewing rosters and level assignments, starting at AAA to see if there is any fat that can be trimmed at the top to make room for younger players to move up the ladder.

One example when I ignore the position evals is for guys in Rk and DSL, if they are a natural SS but don't rate high enough for me....things like that. I'm more lenient at SS and CF at those levels but I stick to these position assignments as a hard and fast rule at A+ and above. The fringy guys that aren't a "true CF/true SS", etc will get multi position training starting in A+ and so on.

[md40022]

Originally Posted by CH1MA3RA

I've fine-tuned it down to only a couple hours of prep work when I start a new save. I no longer go player-by-player and go too in-depth as I used to. Instead I use a positional value tree and go C, SS, CF, 3B, RF, 2B, LF, 1B.

I look at all C and if they don't have a CAB of 55+ then I change them to DH (caveat is that I set pitch framing impact to 8-High in the newer versions). Once I have the C set, I filter the player list for IF ARM 60+. These are the players I look at for SS and 3B. If their IN RNG is 65+ then they are SS, if it's less than that then I set them as 3B since their arm plays on the left side. I use a things like 45 IF ERR and 45 IF RNG as the floor for acceptable ratings for the infield, if the position doesn't require higher. There's always fringe guys though, so I am more flexible with these floors the further into the eval I get.

If any of the non-SS from this group grade out good enough as CF then that supercedes being a 3B, based on that value tree. But once these are done I then do the same process for CF using OF RNG 65+ and OF ERR 55+. Any player without enough OF RNG that has a 60+ OF ARM gets set as RF.

Once C, SS, CF, 3B, RF are set I look at 55+ Turn DP and 55+ IF RNG to find 2B. Anyone left on the list that aren't set as any of the previous get set to DH.

When I look at LF and 1B I don't have many restrictions, except for Height on the 1B. I look for 6'0" or taller and ideally they throw L, but that part isn't as imperative for me. The players left in this part of the process tend to be pretty easy to eval since they likely have lower ratings for IF ERR/RNG, and OF ERR/RNG. Basically.... if they are passable at either 1B or LF, then I put them there. Anyone left over stays as DH.

Once the position eval is complete, then I start reviewing rosters and level assignments, starting at AAA to see if there is any fat that can be trimmed at the top to make room for younger players to move up the ladder.

One example when I ignore the position evals is for guys in Rk and DSL, if they are a natural SS but don't rate high enough for me....things like that. I'm more lenient at SS and CF at those levels but I stick to these position assignments as a hard and fast rule at A+ and above. The fringy guys that aren't a "true CF/true SS", etc will get multi position training starting in A+ and so on.

Extremely thorough. Credit to you.

I'm significantly simpler. I start off with cutting all the obvious dead wood (ex: 26 years old playing A ball with minimal potential = goodbye). Then I move to reshaping coaching staffs and adjusting budgets. I can appreciate your thoroughness though, that's really doing your homework.

[Guthrien]

I suppose I do a lot of the same as these varied answers. I'm going to evaluate every position (obviously) on the Active, and judge who needs replacement. Then I'm going to go through and evaluate all the minor league talent and try to see who might be able to be promoted now to help, if they exist, and make an estimation of how long other prospects might be from the Show. I need that to estimate depth. Then obviously I go through the whole personnel screen.

The decisions after that are going to be very budget dependent. Like many of you, I prefer to play small budget teams for the challenge, so I might need to scan cheap free agents just like the minors. From there it's off to the races with assessing possible trades etc.

[Pelican]

A few “don’ts” to complement these worthy suggestions.

I would totally disregard the AI ranking of prospects in your organization. In my experience there are hits and misses, with some excellent players passed over completely. The rankings are meaningless. Even with scouting on high. I gather this feature is either broken, or meant to be more like a media view from outside the organization.

Likewise I would ignore the aggravating red (down) and green (up) arrows next to players, in terms of promotions and demotions. You’ll quickly find they don’t follow the logic expressed above. Honestly, they don’t seem to follow any logic whatsoever. They are an unneeded distraction. If the AI really operated on that basis in running other organizations, the user would eventually dominate the game!

One other thought. If you are using real historical players, and in particular contemporary players, you will have the foresight/hindsight to know that an 18-year-old draftee, Pedro Oliva say [my 1960 Season sim], is a potential HOF player. To mitigate that, I have development on and a high TCR, so Tony Oliva might - or might not - develop. It’s still fun to draft him and watch.

[CH1MA3RA]

absolutely agree on disregarding the red/green arrows that you see on the organization screen.I would also date to suggest that you disregard the POT rating in general. I still have it visible in my various saved views, but I use it more as a frame of reference but I don't make any decisions based soley on that. Once I have a player's defensive position or pitching role assigned based on my evaluations, then I check their hitting/pitching ratings compared to the level they are at and use that as a baseline to see if they are at the proper level. I will often use the OVR rating when compared to a specific level to also help gauge where they should be placed, so if a player has a 40 OVR with the AA level selected, I would likely have them playing in AA. If they ever have a 35 or lower at a level, than I know they aren't ready for that promotion just yet.

As for the using the AI prospect rankings, I'm 50/50 on it. I use it to start my shortlist off with 30 players, but as I evaluate them that list will get trimmed and then I will end up adding guys I like that weren't listed by the AI. It's a solid foundation to build a list from but not the be-all and end-all. I like to build out my shortlist (titled SPEC) to include my top 20 Hitters and top 20 Pitchers. I have a house rule that I never include a player age 25+ on my SPEC list. It's my belief that any top prospect should be in the majors well before they reach 25, and if they aren't then they MUST be in AAA working on polishing their tools to earn a 40-man spot or be AAAA type depth. If they haven't been successful enough at AA to earn a spot on the AAA roster by this point, then they are either traded or dropped, and I don't break/bend that rule either. When you gotta move on from a guy, you gotta rip the band-aid off.

[uruguru]

I am sort of the exact opposite of these approaches. I think that imprecision is more realistic and I am ok with making what might turn out to be mistakes in hindsight.

When I am dealing with fictional players, I set scouting off, dial TCR all the way up to 200, and turn off all potentials. I then set the current and miscellaneous ratings to the 1-5 scale (e.g. 5 might translate to "wow this guy has a great arm!").

I also use the Stars for the overall rating which gives me a nice 1-10 scale for overall performance and that's what I go by. I'll use those 1-5 skill ratings to determine if a player is capable of playing a key defensive position. Also since catcher defense is overpowered in this game I try to compensate by turning catcher framing completely off.

The nice thing about the lower granularity of the ratings is it prevents me from over-thinking the game or excessively shuffling or trading players to min-max my team. I would never trade my 3-star 2B for someone else's 3-star 2B, but I might be tempted to trade my 53/80 2B for someone's 57/80 2B. Which is completely unrealistic so I don't want that temptation.

[Hrycaj]

I play full stats only fictional. So I'm extensively pouring through stats that I value and reading scouting reports. Like others have mentioned, I'm also canning a lot of staff and hiring people that fit my organizational values. If this is a save where I'm taking over a team after running any length of time I'm pouring through league history reports to get a feel for the league. By the way. This is a great thread. I love reading how other people play the game even if they don't play the same style that I enjoy.

[CH1MA3RA]

that's an interesting take on the star ratings vs 20/80 scale and turning off potentials. While I will always be a 20/80 guy I very well might experiment with turning TCR all the way up and turning off potential ratings.

I do tend to micromanage and shuffle players around a lot, so perhaps that will reduce my tinkering.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by CH1MA3RA

that's an interesting take on the star ratings vs 20/80 scale and turning off potentials. While I will always be a 20/80 guy I very well might experiment with turning TCR all the way up and turning off potential ratings.

I do tend to micromanage and shuffle players around a lot, so perhaps that will reduce my tinkering.

I think you would do better by turning off current ratings, and leaving potentials on.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I think you would do better by turning off current ratings, and leaving potentials on.

I dunno. Two things in this game feel like real cheat codes to me: scouting and potentials. In fact, I feel like potentials are such a cheat code in the game that we need scouting to obfuscate them. imo, Occam's Razor just tells me to eliminate both of them and focus on what players actually are: their current ratings (which we can see on the field) and their age (which gives us an idea of how likely they are to improve).

This is just my opinion. Obviously the beauty of OOTP is that it's such a sandbox that people can tune it to their personal preferences.

[CH1MA3RA]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I think you would do better by turning off current ratings, and leaving potentials on.

I use current ratings a lot though, by changing what level ratings are set to compare against, to see if their current tools are worthy of the next level in their progression.

I would actually love if I could turn off only the Potential (Overall) rating, but leave the tools potentials intact. I find myself ignoring the Potential rating quite often but I do look at their tools potential during their progression. As the tools progress closer to their potential the true Overall rating will follow suit, but I don't need to clutter my mind with someone being a 55, or 65-grade potential if they are only really a 35-grade currently with a bunch of tools that need further development.

It's a weird lens to view the game through but I kinda feel like it's a hybrid of the favors tools vs highly favors potential development process.

It sounds like Uruguru is a highly favors tools guy though LOL. I respect that. It's just not my style I guess

[CH1MA3RA]

In fact, I often see a ton of IAFA and Draftees with a 20/80, 25/80, etc when they enter the league, but the truth is... they are likely only a 45-55 at their ceiling. This is why i ignore the larger Potential rating and try to look at the tools themselves.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by CH1MA3RA

I would actually love if I could turn off only the Potential (Overall) rating, but leave the tools potentials intact.

Go to Global Settings and set Potential Rating to "None displayed". That does specifically what you are asking.

It sounds like Uruguru is a highly favors tools guy though LOL. I respect that. It's just not my style I guess

One thing that was harped on in Moneyball is that potential is bunk. It's highly unpredictable in real life. In OOTP, it's not highly unpredictable. It's a cheat code for player development that doesn't exist in the real world.

That's why I turn them off, and then turn TCR up to max (so that the AI can't use the cheat code as well).

[CH1MA3RA]

are you referring to the Moneyball movie or the book that the movie was based on? Because at the root of both was the story of how the A's implement the research of Bill James into their player evaluations, which started the sabermetric trend. This new way to look at players wasn't about ignoring potential it was about not looking at the right things, like on-base instead of batting average, amongst many other elements.

Real life scouting reports absolutely have potential ratings involved. I've written them myself in fact. Often you will find a prospect that has a current 35 hit tool, but at their ceiling they could be a 55 grade, so you rate them as 35/55 for that tool. Potential ratings are very much a part of the real life process and teams often create their own metrics and formulas for OFP (overall future potential) based on the tools that they are looking for/grading.

If potential wasn't being included in the evaluation process at all then the guys that fly through the minors only to end up as quad-A types would see a whole lot more professional playing time since their current tools are higher rated than those with higher ceilings. The art of player evaluation is a balance between determining their current ability and what it MIGHT become as they progress, mixing that with various metrics for forecasting their progression, and the entire player development system within the organization.

Potential isn't a cheat code because at the foundation of the game these players, whether in real life or in OOTP, still need to develop and that variance is where the unknown element lays. If you have TCR set to 0 then there would be no variance and then yes, you could convince me that potential ratings are a cheat code, but with any TCR variance at all, then there's no way to know IF that player will actually meet their ceiling.

There are plenty of players who have never reached their potential and fell to the wayside during their developmental process just like there are plenty of players that burst onto the scene after having been written off with a low ceiling.

As for the Potential Rating being turned off, thanks for the clarification on that. I thought that might turn off all potential ratings for the tools and not just the listed main Potential rating.

Cheers

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by CH1MA3RA

There are plenty of players who have never reached their potential

There is no potential. There are physical skills, playing ability and age. Whether skills and ability will go up with age is very unpredictable.

Nolan Ryan is my favorite example. He was pretty much a washout.. a kid with tremendous skill (99 mph fastball) but not much playing ability (he was very wild). It wasn't until he was traded to California and his mechanics were ironed out by the pitching coach that he became NOLAN RYAN. He was literally about to quit baseball before that point.

In OOTP terms, Nolan Ryan did not reach his potential. He instead had a talent change at a specific point in time, just like Randy Johnson. That is the key difference between those guys and someone like David Clyde.

But in OOTP, Ryan's real-life talent change is baked into his potential ratings so that he just naturally develops into a Hall of Famer. That is obviously necessary for verisimilitude, so now everyone knows to draft Nolan Ryan in the first round. No one in OOTP drafts Clyde in the 1st round, but in the real world he may have been the most "can't miss" prospect in my lifetime.

Someone could probably see what pct of Hall of Famers were actually first-round draft picks. Probably less than half. Seaver went in the 10th. Piazza in the 62nd, I think. But those guys are always 80 potential and 1st-round picks in OOTP.

[garry1221]

Originally Posted by WarningTrakPower

First thing I like to do with a new sim is combo through the entire MiLB system. I start with the rookie teams to see who “should be” in A ball (or higher, but not likely). This includes reviewing stats from previous seasons and ratings relative to the level I would need to promote them to.
Then I move up to the next level and repeat. It is a time consuming process but it is quite immersive. I have found guys and been like “wow this guys ratings aren’t impressive but he has had success at every level” to which I will add them to my default shortlist to keep an eye on them.
After I have gone through and done all the promotions (rarely do I demote players unless default sim has them in AA when they should be in rookie ball) I may decide to purge some of the excess fridge prospects who have stalled out at a level to make room for younger players with more upside. This also allows me to release say my AA team doesn’t really have a good defender at SS say to which I can go to free agent pool (or trade).

This is similar to my process. I don't invest myself heavily in prospects that someone else drafted or signed. I'll start at rookie and move up 1+ WAR guys. I'll also look at the abilities and if they are close to maxed out for the level, I'll move him up. I'm late to the party this year and i'm still working my way up my org. I like keeping 30 players per minor league team, 3 C 7 IF, 5 OF, 15 P, 6 - 8 capable of being starters (50+ Sta, 3+ pitches) If a 1 WAR player is younger than average for the level, I may keep him there if his abilities have room for growth. I'll peg him for mid season promotion instead.

Originally Posted by CH1MA3RA

I've fine-tuned it down to only a couple hours of prep work when I start a new save. I no longer go player-by-player and go too in-depth as I used to. Instead I use a positional value tree and go C, SS, CF, 3B, RF, 2B, LF, 1B.

I look at all C and if they don't have a CAB of 55+ then I change them to DH (caveat is that I set pitch framing impact to 8-High in the newer versions). Once I have the C set, I filter the player list for IF ARM 60+. These are the players I look at for SS and 3B. If their IN RNG is 65+ then they are SS, if it's less than that then I set them as 3B since their arm plays on the left side. I use a things like 45 IF ERR and 45 IF RNG as the floor for acceptable ratings for the infield, if the position doesn't require higher. There's always fringe guys though, so I am more flexible with these floors the further into the eval I get.

If any of the non-SS from this group grade out good enough as CF then that supercedes being a 3B, based on that value tree. But once these are done I then do the same process for CF using OF RNG 65+ and OF ERR 55+. Any player without enough OF RNG that has a 60+ OF ARM gets set as RF.

Once C, SS, CF, 3B, RF are set I look at 55+ Turn DP and 55+ IF RNG to find 2B. Anyone left on the list that aren't set as any of the previous get set to DH.

When I look at LF and 1B I don't have many restrictions, except for Height on the 1B. I look for 6'0" or taller and ideally they throw L, but that part isn't as imperative for me. The players left in this part of the process tend to be pretty easy to eval since they likely have lower ratings for IF ERR/RNG, and OF ERR/RNG. Basically.... if they are passable at either 1B or LF, then I put them there. Anyone left over stays as DH.

Once the position eval is complete, then I start reviewing rosters and level assignments, starting at AAA to see if there is any fat that can be trimmed at the top to make room for younger players to move up the ladder.

One example when I ignore the position evals is for guys in Rk and DSL, if they are a natural SS but don't rate high enough for me....things like that. I'm more lenient at SS and CF at those levels but I stick to these position assignments as a hard and fast rule at A+ and above. The fringy guys that aren't a "true CF/true SS", etc will get multi position training starting in A+ and so on.

While I'm not quite as strict yet about ratings, its not far off. After I have my 15 position players, i set my own depth chart. In general, I want my starters in rookie to get time at 2 positions. Util 1 gets filled by my bench players every 4 games. This makes sure everyone gets at least some playing time through the season. Util 2 i shuffle my starters around every 7 games. At rookie I will typically keep em to similar position. 2b slides to ss. 3b to 1b, 1b to dh. Something similar. Next fastest OF slides to cf, next best arm goes RF. Doing this allows my starters to play 85 ish percent of games, bench should get around 100 PA. My ultimate thought is players trained up at 2 or 3 positions minimum. Sometimes catchers can't do anything else so C/DH.