AI managers

[ses_777]

Has anyone else experienced an AI strictly making the lineup and pitching staff based on overall ratings and not intangibles like leadership and past performance.......I am GM for the rangers and the manager banister strictly sets the position depth and starting pitching based on overall ratings....he moved Sam Dyson to starting pitching and benched beltre for the backup once the ratings went up for the backup who was not a strong prospect but a journeyman

[NotMuchTime]

Sadly, it's a common occurrence.

[ses_777]

Just doesn't make sense to me.....I would rather play a veteran at 2 stars that has proved himself for 10+ years than a journeyman of 10+ years at 2.5 stars....makes no sense cause then you have disgruntled leaders that are making $15 + million a year

[NoOne]

do you have AI evaluation turned on (including stats to some extent in overall rating)? that will get stats (recent performance) incorporated into the decision.

although whether someone is a leader or not isn't going to be a reason for placing them in a particular spot in the order. i don't think anythng in the game does this, and i don't think anyone does this in real life, but i could be wrong. strong leader, weak bat = 7,8,9 in the order. the key being the weak bat.

other things inside the coach profile will affect his choice of lineups and staff. for example, if he strongly favors younger players, he'll be more likely to put an aging beltre on the bench, regardless of being better than the replacement -- stronger the preference, the worse the replacment player could be to steal his starting position.

i make my coaches now, so i am not sure what's shown in the profile and what is exclusive to the editor relative to overall roster strategies. if this type of thing frustrates you, take control of these things and avoid it... if you like it, then it's just the way the cookie crumbles.

[NotMuchTime]

Originally Posted by ses_777

Just doesn't make sense to me.....I would rather play a veteran at 2 stars that has proved himself for 10+ years than a journeyman of 10+ years at 2.5 stars....makes no sense cause then you have disgruntled leaders that are making $15 + million a year

Don't dig too deep, you might not like what you find. The game gives nobody a long leash. A player could have 2,999 hits, a $13,000 contract and still get benched or sent to AAA.

[NoOne]

100% ratings and 100% accuracy will limit this a bit... less stuff based on small samples = better ai decisions...i am assuming the AI looks at more than just an overall rating.

i can say when i did a long-term sim, offensive stats are elevated with these settings. you can extrapolate all the possibilities that means... maybe it helps lineup decisions more? maybe it hurts pitching decisions? etc etc... all sorts of combinations of more than jsut htese 2 options. unfortunately, i didn't look into the data at the time... i just knew i wasn't going to play that way and forgot to change that setting for that long-term simulation, lol. (all things remained the same except accuracy and ai evaluation when i re-ran it from year 51.)

[Barkingturtle]

Mangers now have a set of "Player Valuation" bars.

Most seem to favor "Scout Value," which is going to be ratings.

Some favor "Current Years Stats," and there are also bars for "Last Year Stats" and "2 Years Ago Stats."

Basically, whenever I'm shopping for a new manager now, I am focused mainly on finding one who values players primarily by their current stats. I don't even bother with personality or strategy. It's stupid and it's just another reason why OOTP17 is my least favorite version in probably five years.