Manager only - Potential ratings only

[Caridnals-BK]

I'm wondering if my settings are causing my AI GM to make annoying moves with my rotation and make me want to virtually strangle them.

I play this league as Manager only with just potential ratings.

One instance he demoted that day's starting pitcher and promoted someone from AAA who had pitched the day before, leaving me with only a long reliever to start. I wish there was a minimum rest percentage the AI had to follow to promote a pitcher.

Next, just after the trade deadline, he demoted who I was using as my #1 starter, Rich Rodas, to AAA and promoted a rookie, Dave Stieb, who had pitched 10 relief innings this year, giving up 16 hits with 6 walks and no strikeouts. I'm not really sure who the GM wants where.

The GM slightly favors Prospects, but Rodas is just in his sophomore year. In 21 starts, Rodas was 13-3 with a 1.27 WHIP and 3.55 FIP. This followed 14-9 rookie season, 1.17 WHIP and 3.71 FIP. He finished 3rd in Rookie of the year voting. It's a non-sensical move.

The talent evaluators are set to this:
Ratings: 15%
Current Year stats: 60%
Previous year: 20%
2 years ago: 5%

The AI Gm seemed to rework the pitching staff at the deadline, adding a decent starter (10-7; 2.75 ERA; 1.14 WHIP - for a young good prospect), an aging starter (4-4; 3.29; 1.34); and a mediocre veteran reliever (1-4; 5.59; 1.43).

All told, only 4 of the pitchers on staff were there at the beginning of the season.

Another thing that would be nice to have, sample lineups from your GM. A way to see what they're thinking (if at all...) Same way you can check sample lineups from your bench coach, etc.

Are my evaluators messed up? Or am I stuck with weird AI moves.

It's my first season with this team, second team all told. I quit the last one to get away from that GM.

[Rain King]

Turning off Current Ratings for yourself is not going to hide them from your GM. So, he is going to be making some moves using something you aren't seeing (outside of the written scouting reports) so it is going to be hard to comment on some of that.

However, I do think that it is currently a problem that the AI does not take into account the upcoming starting pitcher schedule when making moves...especially internal moves (it would be more understandable in a trade scenario) and often will leave you and/or the AI teams in a bind. I'm hoping that gets improved.

[Caridnals-BK]

Thanks!

And then 4 days later, Stieb was demoted on his start day with Rodas re-promoted a day after throwing 112 pitches.

lol

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Caridnals-BK

I'm wondering if my settings are causing my AI GM to make annoying moves with my rotation and make me want to virtually strangle them.

I play this league as Manager only with just potential ratings.

One instance he demoted that day's starting pitcher and promoted someone from AAA who had pitched the day before, leaving me with only a long reliever to start. I wish there was a minimum rest percentage the AI had to follow to promote a pitcher.

Next, just after the trade deadline, he demoted who I was using as my #1 starter, Rich Rodas, to AAA and promoted a rookie, Dave Stieb, who had pitched 10 relief innings this year, giving up 16 hits with 6 walks and no strikeouts. I'm not really sure who the GM wants where.

The GM slightly favors Prospects, but Rodas is just in his sophomore year. In 21 starts, Rodas was 13-3 with a 1.27 WHIP and 3.55 FIP. This followed 14-9 rookie season, 1.17 WHIP and 3.71 FIP. He finished 3rd in Rookie of the year voting. It's a non-sensical move.

The talent evaluators are set to this:
Ratings: 15%
Current Year stats: 60%
Previous year: 20%
2 years ago: 5%

The AI Gm seemed to rework the pitching staff at the deadline, adding a decent starter (10-7; 2.75 ERA; 1.14 WHIP - for a young good prospect), an aging starter (4-4; 3.29; 1.34); and a mediocre veteran reliever (1-4; 5.59; 1.43).

All told, only 4 of the pitchers on staff were there at the beginning of the season.

Another thing that would be nice to have, sample lineups from your GM. A way to see what they're thinking (if at all...) Same way you can check sample lineups from your bench coach, etc.

Are my evaluators messed up? Or am I stuck with weird AI moves.

It's my first season with this team, second team all told. I quit the last one to get away from that GM.

It’s my belief that your talent evaluation will result in strange AI behavior.

[Caridnals-BK]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It’s my belief that your talent evaluation will result in strange AI behavior.

Thanks. In another post, I saw you suggest using 55/30/10/5, so I'll give that a whirl.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Caridnals-BK

Thanks. In another post, I saw you suggest using 55/30/10/5, so I'll give that a whirl.

at least 55 ratings... You may want to just go with the default at 60/25/10/5

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Caridnals-BK

Thanks. In another post, I saw you suggest using 55/30/10/5, so I'll give that a whirl.

FWIW I've played 25/25/25/25 for a few versions now and have seen no reason to change. Other users have found "what works for them" with a different mix. PSU is a good example of one that sticks with a higher ratings evaluation than stats.

Player evaluations and how they affect roster moves are an age old discussion on these boards. Here's a couple of links to threads from years past that has viewpoints from many users. I thought we went through it on the v23 forums too, but couldn't find the thread to link, if there was one. You may find the reading informative, ie there is talk on both the theories behind the settings users decide to use and the advantages/disadvantages of using those different evaluation settings.

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...ght=evaluation

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...ght=Evaluation

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Sweed

FWIW I've played 25/25/25/25 for a few versions now and have seen no reason to change. Other users have found "what works for them" with a different mix. PSU is a good example of one that sticks with a higher ratings evaluation than stats.

Player evaluations and how they affect roster moves are an age old discussion on these boards. Here's a couple of links to threads from years past that has viewpoints from many users. I thought we went through it on the v23 forums too, but couldn't find the thread to link, if there was one. You may find the reading informative, ie there is talk on both the theories behind the settings users decide to use and the advantages/disadvantages of using those different evaluation settings.

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...ght=evaluation

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...ght=Evaluation

TBH...One of the big reasons I stuck with the higher ratings all of this time was because of the "make this work now" button. It was easy to see how the AI lowered its threshold/standards when I was using this function. Without it, it may very well be a better fit to go a little lower on the ratings. I don't know it's q personal decision I guess....but I can tell people from experience in using the "make this work now" function that from what I could see, the threshold for lesser demands was 55. So, that's why I have come down a little bit...I use the "hard trading mode" and so, I figure a little more on stats won't hurt. So for me, something like 55/25/15/5 or 55/30/10/5 makes a lot of sense if I am using this new trading mode.

These are just my observations over the years, so ultimately do what you want, it's your game...but I think 15 for ratings is way to low...at least for me it would be.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

TBH...One of the big reasons I stuck with the higher ratings all of this time was because of the "make this work now" button. It was easy to see how the AI lowered its threshold/standards when I was using this function. Without it, it may very well be a better fit to go a little lower on the ratings. I don't know it's q personal decision I guess....but I can tell people from experience in using the "make this work now" function that from what I could see, the threshold for lesser demands was 55. So, that's why I have come down a little bit...I use the "hard trading mode" and so, I figure a little more on stats won't hurt. So for me, something like 55/25/15/5 or 55/30/10/5 makes a lot of sense if I am using this new trading mode.

These are just my observations over the years, so ultimately do what you want, it's your game...but I think 15 for ratings is way to low...at least for me it would be.

Going with high rating evaluation as a way to temper(?) for lack of a better word the "make this work now" option an interesting thought. Could vey well be.

I was never one to use the "make this work now" button. Maybe that is why the "four 25's" have worked well for me? Sir Michael was the originator of the idea and I gave it a try after reading one of his threads, or a thread where he mentioned it. I haven't seen a reason to move off of it, as they say "if it ain't broke..." Of course that only means "if it ain't broke.." for me, other user's milage may certainly vary

I think I'd be leery too to use 15% for evaluation on ratings too. Hell, when Sir Michael first posted the 25/25/25/25 I almost stopped reading his post without even getting to his reasoning. Then I read his thoughts behind it and thought maybe it would be worth at least trying. IIRC I was midseason in my game and waited until off season to give it a try, and yes I did back up my league file figuring there was a good chance I wouldn't like it or it may even ruin my save.

Definitely a user needs to find what works for him or her. Figured he was asking enough questions that the past threads might be of interest to him.

[Caridnals-BK]

Thanks for the recommendation and links everyone.

The AI GM must know what it's doing as I went 42-17 after the trade deadline, won 100 games, and won the AL West with an 18 game lead.

The demoted pitcher still won 20 games in 29 starts with an ERA of 2.78, 1.22 WHIP, 3.26 FIP.

[fredbeene]

Originally Posted by Caridnals-BK

I'm wondering if my settings are causing my AI GM to make annoying moves with my rotation and make me want to virtually strangle them.

I play this league as Manager only with just potential ratings.

One instance he demoted that day's starting pitcher and promoted someone from AAA who had pitched the day before, leaving me with only a long reliever to start. I wish there was a minimum rest percentage the AI had to follow to promote a pitcher.

Next, just after the trade deadline, he demoted who I was using as my #1 starter, Rich Rodas, to AAA and promoted a rookie, Dave Stieb, who had pitched 10 relief innings this year, giving up 16 hits with 6 walks and no strikeouts. I'm not really sure who the GM wants where.

The GM slightly favors Prospects, but Rodas is just in his sophomore year. In 21 starts, Rodas was 13-3 with a 1.27 WHIP and 3.55 FIP. This followed 14-9 rookie season, 1.17 WHIP and 3.71 FIP. He finished 3rd in Rookie of the year voting. It's a non-sensical move.

The talent evaluators are set to this:
Ratings: 15%
Current Year stats: 60%
Previous year: 20%
2 years ago: 5%

The AI Gm seemed to rework the pitching staff at the deadline, adding a decent starter (10-7; 2.75 ERA; 1.14 WHIP - for a young good prospect), an aging starter (4-4; 3.29; 1.34); and a mediocre veteran reliever (1-4; 5.59; 1.43).

All told, only 4 of the pitchers on staff were there at the beginning of the season.

Another thing that would be nice to have, sample lineups from your GM. A way to see what they're thinking (if at all...) Same way you can check sample lineups from your bench coach, etc.

Are my evaluators messed up? Or am I stuck with weird AI moves.

It's my first season with this team, second team all told. I quit the last one to get away from that GM.

doesn't work. potential ratings cut off at 29 so peak seasons never get imported depending on the year. will never be fixed or at the very least another option

[NoOne]

at least with normal accuracy, ratings are going to be less volatile information resulting in less "whacky" decisions by AI... it is more often accurate than weighted 1-year sample sizes. Minor leagues are a different animal than ML for this question. I'm only talking about the ML.

if a good vs bad is interpreted here, that's a misunderstanding. It is true, though. Maybe, you want some less rational decisions made? There's a good argument that is more like real life. Most people choose beliefs over evidence-based conclusions... kinda depressing when i type that out... lol.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by NoOne

at least with normal accuracy, ratings are going to be less volatile information resulting in less "whacky" decisions by AI... it is more often accurate than weighted 1-year sample sizes. Minor leagues are a different animal than ML for this question. I'm only talking about the ML.

if a good vs bad is interpreted here, that's a misunderstanding. It is true, though. Maybe, you want some less rational decisions made? There's a good argument that is more like real life. Most people choose beliefs over evidence-based conclusions... kinda depressing when i type that out... lol.

This is true. I believe. There’s a large chasm between vets and prospects. Vets should be a relatively known commodity outside the odd TCR episode (which is realistic) but minor leaguers should be volatile to a degree. I believe there needs to be somewhat of a consensus when it comes to top prospects (even if they won’t pan out) and lots of volatility at those levels as well (and everything in between). I celieve that is what we have now. So it’s a good thing! My biggest complaint has always been with the actual scouting system…to me it just seems to lack strategic input from the GM and I any terribly realistic or fun.

I’m sorry to always keep comparing OOTP to FM, but that’s a really great scouting system that is fun and requires strategic input from the manager. I realize we are talking about two different sports, but it just feels like there are elements of that system that could work well in OOTP. One thing I don’t like about FM however is that once you completely scout a player, the ratings that are revealed are true. I think that OOTP always has discrepancies amongst scouts is a good thing…even if those opinions aren’t hugely different. I do wish ther staff such as coaches had opinions on players in OOTP….or at least visible opinions. This reminds me, for 25 it would be fantastic if we could ask managers or coaches how they would use any player in their lineups/rotations/bullpen. Currently you can only ask about players within your organization.