realistic majors & minors roster AI management

thehef · 09-29-2020, 12:57 AM

I like to test & play historical with minors. However, I see what I feel are too many instances of single A and double A players making OOTP major-league rosters, in place of established major leaguers. As an example:

1967 Cardinals:
- IRL their starting second-baseman was Julian Javier, .281/.314/.404
- OOTP, however, decided to put Javier (at this point a 31-year old established vet) on the AAA Tulsa Oilers, where he hit .340/.371/.453 (Javier did get 50+ MLB at-bats as a Sept call-up).
- In Javier's place on the big-league club was Steve Huntz, who IRL was .242/.337/.379 for double-A Arkansas (plus a 3-game call-up). How did Huntz do at the big-league level in OOTP? 150 games, .207/.283/.593

Javier rates out better on offense, but not as good on defense: 65/55/35/35, compared to Huntz' 35/45/50/55.

What I'd like to do is see if some changes in settings will reduce these types of occurrences. I'm hoping the answer lies in tweaking some of these:

Adjust/weaken... 100/40/30/10
Scouting system off (therefore, scouting = 100% accurate)
Player Development disabled
Player Eval AI Settings: 30/50/15/5 (defaults)
Incomplete minor league rosters allowed
Roster AI with incomplete minors = fill teams top to bottom first
No financials
Recalc = 1-year
Ratings based upon Real Stats
Potential based upon Remaining Years of Career

I'm all for testing things out to see what works, but with so many potential variables, I don't know where to start...

I'm thinking that staying with 1-year recalc is a good choice since I want players to play on or near the league-level that they played IRL, for that particular season. I'm wondering: If I'm using 1-year recalc and want to get the most out of that, then maybe on my Player Eval Settings, I should go very heavy on Ratings Weight, since that 1-year recalc should result in settings that are very much in alignment with players real life statistical performance for each particular season. So maybe 65/20/10/5?

Also wondering about Base Ratings on.. and Base Potential Ratings on... if changes to those might make a difference.

Thoughts?

09-29-2020, 12:57 AM	#1
thehef Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,345	realistic majors & minors roster AI management I like to test & play historical with minors. However, I see what I feel are too many instances of single A and double A players making OOTP major-league rosters, in place of established major leaguers. As an example: 1967 Cardinals: - IRL their starting second-baseman was Julian Javier, .281/.314/.404 - OOTP, however, decided to put Javier (at this point a 31-year old established vet) on the AAA Tulsa Oilers, where he hit .340/.371/.453 (Javier did get 50+ MLB at-bats as a Sept call-up). - In Javier's place on the big-league club was Steve Huntz, who IRL was .242/.337/.379 for double-A Arkansas (plus a 3-game call-up). How did Huntz do at the big-league level in OOTP? 150 games, .207/.283/.593 Javier rates out better on offense, but not as good on defense: 65/55/35/35, compared to Huntz' 35/45/50/55. What I'd like to do is see if some changes in settings will reduce these types of occurrences. I'm hoping the answer lies in tweaking some of these: Adjust/weaken... 100/40/30/10 Scouting system off (therefore, scouting = 100% accurate) Player Development disabled Player Eval AI Settings: 30/50/15/5 (defaults) Incomplete minor league rosters allowed Roster AI with incomplete minors = fill teams top to bottom first No financials Recalc = 1-year Ratings based upon Real Stats Potential based upon Remaining Years of Career I'm all for testing things out to see what works, but with so many potential variables, I don't know where to start... I'm thinking that staying with 1-year recalc is a good choice since I want players to play on or near the league-level that they played IRL, for that particular season. I'm wondering: If I'm using 1-year recalc and want to get the most out of that, then maybe on my Player Eval Settings, I should go very heavy on Ratings Weight, since that 1-year recalc should result in settings that are very much in alignment with players real life statistical performance for each particular season. So maybe 65/20/10/5? Also wondering about Base Ratings on.. and Base Potential Ratings on... if changes to those might make a difference. Thoughts? Last edited by thehef; 09-29-2020 at 01:04 AM.