Handling Prospects?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by BigRed75

That's all well and good for figuring out if a prospect is ready for the bigs, but what if you want to know if they're ready to go from High-A to AA, or Low-A to High-A? That's when ratings relevant to the league is absolutely essential.

If you just go by absolutes, or ratings relative to MLB, all it will tell you is that the player isn't ready for MLB. But you already knew that, because he's in frickin' Single-A.

This is 100% correct. Using the relative ratings functions helps you differentiate between all those guys with a 20 rating (on 20/80 scale) when set to MLB ratings. Change it to a minor league level and a rating could change to 50 or 70 or 30, and then you have a better idea of whether that player is ready to play at that level. This is why I think it's one of the best additions to the game (and the most useful for me) in the past few years.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by BigRed75

That's all well and good for figuring out if a prospect is ready for the bigs, but what if you want to know if they're ready to go from High-A to AA, or Low-A to High-A? That's when ratings relevant to the league is absolutely essential.

If you just go by absolutes, or ratings relative to MLB, all it will tell you is that the player isn't ready for MLB. But you already knew that, because he's in frickin' Single-A.

You don't need to change ratings relative to a league to figure it out. If you've played at least 3-4 months in a league you should have a pretty good grasp of what ratings you need for rookie, short A, low A, high A, AA, AAA and MLB.

I feel like changing ratings relative like you're doing is a crutch. If you need to use it, go right ahead, but I feel like that's the equivalent of using bumpers for bowling or training wheels on a bike. It'll help you when you're starting out, but you'll never learn to recognize on your own when a player should be promoted.

You don't need to change the ratings to figure out how to develop a prospect. It's most definitely not essential. If you feel it helps you, then go ahead and continue using it, but you should be able to figure out on your own without changing the ratings when a guy should be demoted/promoted.

[BigRed75]

I appreciate the patronizing attitude. You're a peach.

[Jeembo]

Originally Posted by BigRed75

I appreciate the patronizing attitude. You're a peach.

Hmm, I would have thought sour puss would have been a bit more accurate.

[NoOne]

first, this isn't to convince. keep doing what floats your boat. since you think i am mistaken, i'll explain it.

why would relative ratings be better? they can be false if the talent in the league is an outlier or merely just a normal ebb and flow. some years they could be overrated or underrated and everything in between. this makes it empirically less clear for promotions when compared to scale that doesn't shift on you. that shouldn't keep you from doing what you are comfortable with, but it adds another level of inaccuracy above and beyond the scouting setting.

if i know a 38/100 contact is ready for AAA, i promote at 38 contact. not only is it the exact same concept as what you are doing with relative ratings, it is more precise in nature because it doesn't float.

also about the scale use:

20-80 is just 0-60 (scaled from 0-200 in editor). it is no different than starting at 0 or 1 or 678. it all scales back to the 0-200 in the editor. the benefit of a larger scale, like 20-80, is the greater resolution. i mentioned above that scale needs to be large enough to resolve enough difference between players. promoting at the smallest 7-point scale (2-8) is more difficult than the 1-20 scale. (stars are 1-10, but is there a 1-5 scale? not sure... concept doesn't change)

I don't see all 20's as you do, though. are you talking about the overall rating? you definitely don't want to use overall for promotions. that would be adding yet another layer of inaccuracy to the decision.

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by NoOne

why would relative ratings be better? they can be false if the talent in the league is an outlier or merely just a normal ebb and flow. some years they could be overrated or underrated and everything in between. this makes it empirically less clear for promotions. that shouldn't keep you from doing what you are comfortable with, but it adds another level of inaccuracy above and beyond the scouting setting.

Not true. The old saying "you can only play the cards you are dealt" holds true here. If you happen to be in AA with really strong players, and you rake, it'll reflect that. Or the opposite. If you don't do well against a strong group, maybe you shouldn't be promoted because theoretically that's who you'll face at the next level.

But say, for whatever reason, talented has flowed at AA and ebbed at AAA. That way, flipping the ratings relative switch over to AAA would show the player might very well hold his own there.

Originally Posted by NoOne

if i know a 38/100 contact is ready for AAA, i promote at 38 contact. not only is it the exact same concept as what you are doing with relative ratings, it is more precise in nature because it doesn't float.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. For me, the natural ebb and flow of talent means that a 38/100 might NOT be ready for AAA, if, say, there's a particularly strong cohort of talent in AAA.

Originally Posted by NoOne

I don't see all 20's as you do, though.

Go to a low-A or rookie league player's profile and look at ratings relative to MLB. You'll see a crapload of 20s, 25s and 30s. If you don't have the relative ratings checkbox enabled, you still get 30s and 35s.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by NoOne

first, this isn't to convince. keep doing what floats your boat. since you think i am mistaken, i'll explain it.

why would relative ratings be better? they can be false if the talent in the league is an outlier or merely just a normal ebb and flow. some years they could be overrated or underrated and everything in between. this makes it empirically less clear for promotions when compared to scale that doesn't shift on you. that shouldn't keep you from doing what you are comfortable with, but it adds another level of inaccuracy above and beyond the scouting setting.

This is what you don't understand. All of the scales shift based on the overall talent in the league. An 80 power in a league where 60 homers leads the league will indicate that player will hit approximately 60 homers. A 60 power in the same league will indicate the player would probably hit 30-40 homers.

An 80 power in a league where 40 homers leads the league can be expected to hit approximately 40 homers. A 60 power in the same league would be expected to hit 20-25 homers.

An 80 power in the 1900s would indicate a player might hit 5-10 homers. It all shifts based on the overall ability of the league. No ratings scale remains the same no matter what. Based on what you're saying, an 80 power would always equal the same amount of home runs every year in every league. That's simply not true.

Relative ratings tell us that a 30 power in the MLB translates to an XX power in the league you set it to AT THAT TIME. A year later, that value could change to ZZ for one of two reasons -- the talent in the league has changed and/or the player's talent has changed. But the point is that if you're considering moving a player up a level, set his ratings relative to that level and then see that his ratings are all or mostly below average for that league, you know he can be expected to perform below average in that league, assuming you trust your scout.

Is this realistic? Not exactly. But it's OOTP's equivalent of the director of minor league operations asking his scouts and field staff if X player should be promoted. The answer will typically be "yes" or "no, he will struggle at the next level because ..." or some derivative of those two answers. By allowing us to see ratings relative to each level of the minors, OOTP allows us to answer those questions ourselves, rather than building an ask/answer function that makes the game answer that question for us.

If you choose not to use it, that's fine. Just as those who choose to use it shouldn't be looked down on, as another poster did in a post earlier today.

As for all the 20s, search by all players in the entire world in your game (assuming you're playing an MLB structure) with ratings set relative to MLB. If you don't see hundreds of current 20 (or equivalent bottom rating) for each skill, then I want to be a GM in your game. Same goes for the draft. The relative ratings gives us a way to differentiate between all of the guys who look like total duds. They may still be total duds, but it allows us to see that player X is expected to max out at Double-A while player Y isn't expected to get past Single-A.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by BigRed75

Not true. The old saying "you can only play the cards you are dealt" holds true here. If you happen to be in AA with really strong players, and you rake, it'll reflect that. Or the opposite. If you don't do well against a strong group, maybe you shouldn't be promoted because theoretically that's who you'll face at the next level.



But say, for whatever reason, talented has flowed at AA and ebbed at AAA. That way, flipping the ratings relative switch over to AAA would show the player might very well hold his own there.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. For me, the natural ebb and flow of talent means that a 38/100 might NOT be ready for AAA, if, say, there's a particularly strong cohort of talent in AAA.



Go to a low-A or rookie league player's profile and look at ratings relative to MLB. You'll see a crapload of 20s, 25s and 30s. If you don't have the relative ratings checkbox enabled, you still get 30s and 35s.

All spot on responses, and much more succinct than my long-winded post.

[NoOne]

The problem is you think results have somethign to do with development and they do not. it doesn't matter what the player does in AAA as long as he is rated for it. relative competition isn't even part of the equation, so why would including it in ratings be anything but less clear information for promotion?

i've had numerous prospects hit low-.100s and be fine at any tier you can name. it simply doesn't matter for development.

i do use ratings relative to mlb all the time, and i see no problem differentiating between players in rookie and short A. i'm not going to argue about smoke this was only brought up by you saying you couldnt' differentiate between the players... which isn't true for me, so i don't see how this is a valid argument when you brought it up as a reason for using relative ratings.


you think it works differently, that's our disagreement. i say it's a static minmum and they will develop well.. you think it's relative to current competition in that particular league... whatever floats your boat.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by NoOne

The problem is you think results have somethign to do with development and they do not. it doesn't matter what the player does in AAA as long as he is rated for it. relative competition isn't even part of the equation, so why would including it in ratings be anything but less clear information for promotion?

i've had numerous prospects hit low-.100s and be fine at any tier you can name. it simply doesn't matter for development.

i do use ratings relative to mlb all the time, and i see no problem differentiating between players in rookie and short A. i'm not going to argue about smoke this was only brought up by you saying you couldnt' differentiate between the players... which isn't true for me, so i don't see how this is a valid argument when you brought it up as a reason for using relative ratings.

you think it works differently, that's our disagreement. i say it's a static minmum and they will develop well.. you think it's relative to current competition in that particular league... whatever floats your boat.

It absolutely plays a role. If players struggle, they will become unhappy and it will affect their development. This has been stated by the developers many versions ago as fact.

EDIT TO ADD: Here it is straight from the manual under the CHALLENGE part of player development.

[ThePretender]

The stats themselves don't matters what matters is that they're challenged appropriately. As in, if they are rated well enough to be in AA, whether they hit 200 or 400 they will develop. But if you send the AA guy to AAA and his ratings aren't AAa ready, he'll struggle and could decline.

That's why I said what I did before. You don't need to use relative ratings if you can judge what is appropriately challenging for a player based on his ratings.

[MrBojangles]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

The stats themselves don't matters what matters is that they're challenged appropriately. As in, if they are rated well enough to be in AA, whether they hit 200 or 400 they will develop. But if you send the AA guy to AAA and his ratings aren't AAa ready, he'll struggle and could decline.

That's why I said what I did before. You don't need to use relative ratings if you can judge what is appropriately challenging for a player based on his ratings.

So, a good prospect will stagnate if not properly challenged? Am I understanding you correctly? I didn't realize that the game was that complex.

[JHopkins19]

I drafted a SP in the first round who was rated something like 21/67 or something. He was a college pitcher, 21 years old, so I started him in sing,e A and he did well. I promoted him at the end of the season to High A. At the beginning of the next season his new rating is 20/20. I am not that far into this season yet to see how he is doing, but is there a chance his ratings will go back or is the game telling me I drafted a bust?

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by JHopkins19

I drafted a SP in the first round who was rated something like 21/67 or something. He was a college pitcher, 21 years old, so I started him in sing,e A and he did well. I promoted him at the end of the season to High A. At the beginning of the next season his new rating is 20/20. I am not that far into this season yet to see how he is doing, but is there a chance his ratings will go back or is the game telling me I drafted a bust?

don't look at overall for promotions or in the case of some settings configurations for anything at all of importance, lol.

the game could be scouting him wrong. check OSA rating too. if you have 100% stats, i don't know what to tell you. you are in the dark on purpose without ratings. never give up on a guy until he's ?28? - whatever manual mentions on developement subject. if his potential fell to 20, that's not a good sign in general. i wouldn't be concerned with his development at that point, but you need to keep an eye on him in case of scouting failures.

rhetorical:
is you amatuer scouting budget really low? moder league i'd say anything below 3-4M (**total guess**) on normal scouting with a great scout is going to start to get sketchy. it may not be the minimum you can get away with decent expectations but it's nearing it. think about ancillary stuff likethat that may be causing the effect you see and rule it out.

--------------------------------------

i kinda misread what you wrote, but this is relative too, so i will just leave it:

i can tell you with a 100pt scale on individual ratings a very rough estimate of promotion points... this assumes accurate scouting. so, you need to check-in on them after a month or two and make sure they are not extremele poor or good. as in 10+ ERA and sub-.100 BA with K's up the wazoo and no walks type buffoonery. worse upper end relative to league's stats, if needed.

i would go by control then use common sense based on stuff and movement of other pitchers in that league. make sure neither lags by too much, and if one does, the other should be elevated to compensate or anything similar that can compensate.

found a copy paste of somethign i attempted to re-create. i had some really solid numbers, but these are merely close to good... so, you may need to refine them.

*** currently, i've been using lower thresholds for AAA/AA - about 3-4 less than what you see below for contact/control- and it's been fine so far. if you take the averages i gave above for each tier and find corresponding players with that in their editor you can flesh it out faster... i've neglected to do so and live with the guesstimates, now. Simple steps to translate for pitchers at each tier: ERA's i think i stepped them 0.50. AAA at 5.00 or less, +.50 from there. obviously when playing you don't get the benefit of the profile editor. understanding ratings combinations is the learning curve. there are ways to speed up the learning process. AAA and AA below are definitely bad control/contact values... BAD VALUES, lol. Eye is extremely marginalized by a decent contact value while in the minors. i think this develops better at upper levels and the majors, not unlike power.

AAA - stuff / move / control for pitchers
contract / pow / eye for batters - notice ignoring power.

batters 41-44 .. 36-39
pitchers 45ish 45ish 45ish

AA

batters 35 .. 30
pitchers 40ish 40ish 35ish

A

batters 26 .. 21
pitchers 30 35 26+

short A

batters 21+ .. 16-20
pitchers 21+ 30? 21+

how to convert to your scale:

the numerator is the destination scale. denominator is my 100pt scale. so if you use 20-80, then (60/100) * X-rating (with 20-80 you must add result to 20, otherwise no extra step and it's converted). if you scale down too much, you may need to apply common sense to how things round up/down. it's even possible that you may not have enough resolving power to even see the correct point.

if you notice discrepencies it's due to whether "zero" is counted or rounding... e.g. 20-60 is actually 61 slices. you'll notice this when converting from the player profile editor, too. everyone should play a throwaway league for 2-3 seasons and egregiously look at the player profile editor to learn quickly. take notes on minors and what you see blah blah blah or rely on memory like me - dumb-dumb, dumb-dumb, dumb.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by MrBojangles

So, a good prospect will stagnate if not properly challenged? Am I understanding you correctly? I didn't realize that the game was that complex.

Yeah. If you put a guy who should be in A ball in AAA, it'll hurt development, just like if you put a AAA guy in A ball, he'll decline from not being challenged. It makes sure you put guys at the right level, and don't keep them in AAA when they're MLB ready.

[NoOne]

i just moved a 17 year old to the majors (scouting discovery). he's developing on the bench as well or better as he would in the majors...

no guarantee but, i'll think about simming a couple more season and post the scouting report... i don't think he had a high-ceiling but we wasn't a 20/80 ovr/pot.

because of how some leagues are without minors, maybe the majors work differently in regard to development... this guy doesn't seem hampered one bit being a sub-.200 rated hitter in the MLB.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

I play fictional leagues with five minor league levels (R, S-A, A, AA, AAA), plus the international complex. I control promotions/demotions, but let my minor league managers control pitching rotations and lineups. I will force start some prospects to make sure they get experience at certain positions or as starting pitchers as needed.

My general principles:
- Most high school draftees go to my rookie league team. Most college draftees go to my S-A team, unless they are 20 or younger.
- My good international complex prospects will be promoted to my rookie team by their age 18 or 19 season. Sometimes when they are 17, if they are really, really good and there's a hole in my R squad.
- Everyone gets a full season at each level. If they put up average-to-decent numbers, they get promoted. If they don't, they repeat.
- Anyone who repeats a level is "on notice" and is fair game for releasing if they continue to underperform (or if I just need to make room for somebody coming up).
- The only exception to this is in my Rookie team. I promote virtually everyone on that team after one season. The seasons are just too short to really judge anyone by. Full season A is where I really start making cuts, including with scrubs from S-A that are getting displaced by my second year players from Rookie ball.

I am sure in some cases I am promoting prospects too quickly, and sometimes not quickly enough. But I pretty consistently get results, both in getting players to my Major League squad and in getting high rankings for my minor league system.

That said, my play style is probably more straightforward than the MLB set up, since I don't have any high- or low-A distinctions to worry about, nor tiers of different rookie or S-A classifications.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

I am sure in some cases I am promoting prospects too quickly, and sometimes not quickly enough. But I pretty consistently get results, both in getting players to my Major League squad and in getting high rankings for my minor league system.

you could make a very minor adjustment to your typical way of doing things.

just as you make an exception for a 17 year old discovery to move earlier than you typically do it.... allow a particular development rate to signify that you should promote early. same exact way you handle moving players out of the international complex but at each tier after that, too.

psa: i'm gung ho about getting them to the bigs early. i want long carreers for league records and such, but more importantly i want to be able to sign them to a long-term contract in their mid 20's, not their late 20's. even if they refuse an extension during club control, if you get them to the mlb by 18-22, you have a chance of significant control over how screwed over you get by a bloated long-term contract and a aged, decrepit player the last few years.