Playing Stats Only

[mbi]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Pretty much what I do. Scouting on very low with AI Eval @ 25% across the board which is pretty much stat heavy.

Ratings on a 2-8 scale.

Since these settings (w/heavy favor prospects, trade very hard. Talent change = 200) I never seen a stupid roster move by the AI nor have I been able to dominate the league.

I'm coming over for 12 so I'm not exactly sure how much improvement has happen since, but I'm looking for help & hints since I have flat dominated my league.

99+ wins 6 straight years, 2 World Series crowns, easily the best system in the game.

I want to actually deal with a scenario where I can be bad.

[olivertheorem]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Sure, it's viable. I apologize if I made it sound like I didn't think so, that wasn't my intent. I simply think it's a little extreme for the reasons I explained.

As I alluded to, I lean heavily toward stats myself, but don't think that ratings should be completely ignored. The ratings to me represent the tools, the built in physical characteristics that each player has.

If you like playing that way though, go for it. I'm not criticizing, honest. Just adding a slightly different viewpoint.

I meant that I thought your perspective was viable, not mine.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Pretty much what I do. Scouting on very low with AI Eval @ 25% across the board which is pretty much stat heavy.

Ratings on a 2-8 scale.

Since these settings (w/heavy favor prospects, trade very hard. Talent change = 200) I never seen a stupid roster move by the AI nor have I been able to dominate the league.

You're a better man than me using that setting. Do you see players go up and down 4-5 times per season?

[awick]

Talent change randomness = 200! Wow, I would expect player careers to look absolutely chaotic.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by awick

Talent change randomness = 200! Wow, I would expect player careers to look absolutely chaotic.

Not at all. In fact there was data that debunked that myth on this forum awhile back.

If anything, there are more bust and diamonds in the rough than the default setting. I still see most 1st rounders have good and consistent careers and late rounders out of a job later down the road.

[Cras]

The draft is the reason why I never bit on some of the recommendations of setting TCR to 67. For me, there has to be some randomness going on in the draft, late rounders need the change to bloom and make it to the big leagues, but no insanely so. In short, I dont want it to be predictable.

Now on the other hand, I do not want it where I cannot trust past performance, or worse find myself seeing what I saw a few versions back with the Dr Jekyll Mr Hyde thing where the player would bounce back and forth between a good year, to a bad year, back to a good year, then a bad year.

I have mine set to 100....or maybe a few ticks higher, I dont really recall, but seeing that you survived 200 well enough......well that certainly is both interesting and truly unexpected for me.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by RchW

You're a better man than me using that setting. Do you see players go up and down 4-5 times per season?

Nope. When I turn scouting to 100% accurate, most players are usually static throughout the year.

[mbi]

Randomness at 200 has been great. In 7 years of drafting, my only top 25 pick was 5th overall and he flamed out in AAA and only got a few MLB ABs. Otherwise I have produced a borderline starters, a few complete train wrecks, and a few still to be determined guys, but with all back end picks this is exactly what I would predict.

The best player I've produced was a 44th round pick who just was awesome from the get go, and I feel like the draft talent overall is perfect actually.

My biggest gripe is just how the AI evaluates players, and just makes real dumb decisions when it comes to line-ups, defensive positioning, and occasionally who is starting.


But randomness at 200 hasn't shown me anything other then realism.

[mbi]

Again, I stole these settings from someone else on the board but I have

Batting Aging Speed: .825
Batting Dev. Speed: 1.150
Pitching Aging Speed: .775
Pitching Dev. Speed 1.000

Injury frequency on Very High and Fatigue at Average

[RonP]

That is surprising but welcome information to me. I will try that out in 14.

[mbi]

Originally Posted by RonP

That is surprising but welcome information to me. I will try that out in 14.

For a little data here is Jay Bruce who became the best player ever.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

If anything, there are more bust and diamonds in the rough than the default setting. I still see most 1st rounders have good and consistent careers and late rounders out of a job later down the road.

Originally Posted by mbi

But randomness at 200 hasn't shown me anything other then realism.

In my tests, OOTP drafts are a fair bit too 'stable', compared to real life, on the default Talent Change Randomness setting. So if you want realism, it should be juiced up. That said, realism isn't always fun, and fun is really why we play, so if you don't like seeing your top draft picks flame out quite often, you might prefer the default setting. I'll probably be going with a 150 or 200 setting when I start a proper league with the new game though.