Do You Bring Top Prospects Up In September?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

They are referring to the "7th year". If you hold a player back and promote him a couple weeks after the start of the season, you will prevent a player from getting 172 service days, thus getting basically 7 years before FA.

So if we're using the modern MLB schedule that's been in effect since 2018, there are 186 days in the regular season. If we wait until after day 14, that should get us to less than the 172 service day threshold for that season, right?

[jpeters1734]

correct. Once there's no longer 172 days(or whatever the setting is at) left in the regular season, a player cannot gain a full year of service

[jimmysthebestcop]

Yeah it's so wrong but I do it to my Superstar prospects thank you Cubs for teaching me

[CBeisbol]

I often set the minimum days needed for a year of team control to a half a season or less to,discourage this practice.

If the player spends a significant part of the season on the roster, they get a year

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

That isn't true according to official OOTP documentation. Players develop on the MLB bench, but not faster than if they were starting in AAA. However, a player will develop faster on the MLB bench than the AAA bench

it doesn't say it isnt...

if i recall it's basically stated as -- MLB development is faster than AAA.. AAA is faster than AA (or at least a higher ceiling for diminishing returns - this would model stangating at a lower level too long easily -- , you get the idea, some mechanism akin to that with any sort of flavor they add to impact outcomes.) and so on with each level in a similar and repeating fashion.

is riding the bench better? no idea...

it's better to play and fail in the mlb than AAA; i'd wager my house on that one. flip a coin if the bench is better than AAA. I'd guess early on it's fine, but not in, say year 2 or 3.

past experience tells me their rookie year they are more resilient to problems associated with riding the bench for too long. if i try to keep a start-quality guy behind someone for 2 years instead of trading the guy ahead of him, it usually ends badly for the guy waiting on the bench if it gets prolonged to 2-3 years of bench riding.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

So if we're using the modern MLB schedule that's been in effect since 2018, there are 186 days in the regular season. If we wait until after day 14, that should get us to less than the 172 service day threshold for that season, right?

Only if they have zero days accrued.

if they have 15 days accrued, you have to wait ~29 days, assuming they don't go on the IL.

it doesn't matter if it takes 3 or 10 years to reach 172 games or 344games etc, that's when you get the "year of service time" accrued.

so, you can never accrue more than 1 svc year in any calendar year, for good reason. (asuming you don't go past december or start before january, i guess)

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I often set the minimum days needed for a year of team control to a half a season or less to,discourage this practice.

If the player spends a significant part of the season on the roster, they get a year

dont you end up with 10year vets with 12 years of svc time or something? (ie svc time > actual years played)

if age is't the only factor it considers, wear-n-tear could easily be associated with svc time too... especially for a position like C... hopefully they use gp or age for that for your context too.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by NoOne

it doesn't matter if it takes 3 or 10 years to reach 172 games or 344games etc, that's when you get the "year of service time" accrued.

he meant days, not games

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by NoOne

it doesn't say it isnt...

if i recall it's basically stated as -- MLB development is faster than AAA.. AAA is faster than AA (or at least a higher ceiling for diminishing returns - this would model stangating at a lower level too long easily -- , you get the idea, some mechanism akin to that with any sort of flavor they add to impact outcomes.) and so on with each level in a similar and repeating fashion.

is riding the bench better? no idea...

it's better to play and fail in the mlb than AAA; i'd wager my house on that one. flip a coin if the bench is better than AAA. I'd guess early on it's fine, but not in, say year 2 or 3.

past experience tells me their rookie year they are more resilient to problems associated with riding the bench for too long. if i try to keep a start-quality guy behind someone for 2 years instead of trading the guy ahead of him, it usually ends badly for the guy waiting on the bench if it gets prolonged to 2-3 years of bench riding.

There is absolutely nothing that says players develop faster because they are in the Majors vs. AAA. If a player is getting playing time in the minors, they will develop as fast as any player on the ML

https://manuals.ootpdevelopments.com...er_development

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

he meant days, not games

i meant days too... service time ... i mispoke but context should keep it clear.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

There is absolutely nothing that says players develop faster because they are in the Majors vs. AAA. If a player is getting playing time in the minors, they will develop as fast as any player on the ML

https://manuals.ootpdevelopments.com...er_development

there absolutely used to be, but it's not worth my time to look. it could be on one of many other pages than the one you links.

think about it... otherwise there'd by no benefit to promoting players.. you could leave them in rookie or AAA (relatively the same to context) and just let them continue to develop with the slight boost form overperforming statistics along with playing time.

i think you said it too.. riding the bench in the mlb is better than riding the bench in the MiL ... it means the same exact thing, lol.

"However, a player will develop faster on the MLB bench than the AAA bench "

that logic agrees with my statment above in a very parrellel way.

now, you also said that riding the mlb bench is not better than playing in AAA.. .which is substantiated by less than what i am using to draw a conclusion, and that's okay (stuart smiley reference). it's just a maybe.. and i'd wager numerous contexts where it would not be true. players that are too developed for AAA absolutely should not be there. they will hurt their ratings more often than help at that point. even the mlb bench is better for a year, no more.

One more thing i almost forgot -- the modifiers per league -- essentially tells you the ~ceiling, more or less for development at that level. soft ceiling... soft cap i think is a term used in some games. there's a reason why AAA is lower than MLB. even if not directly causal to it, it is a representation or reflection of it -- to fill the league it uses that to give ratings that fit, for example.. .so it is related one way or another.

as far as 'better development' i guess it needs minimum not to be incompetent, but again that should be common sense.. you aren't bringing severely undeveloped players to the MLB just for kicks.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by NoOne

there absolutely used to be, but it's not worth my time to look. it could be on one of many other pages than the one you links.

think about it... otherwise there'd by no benefit to promoting players.. you could leave them in rookie or AAA (relatively the same to context) and just let them continue to develop with the slight boost form overperforming statistics along with playing time.

i think you said it too.. riding the bench in the mlb is better than riding the bench in the MiL ... it means the same exact thing, lol.

"However, a player will develop faster on the MLB bench than the AAA bench "

that logic agrees with my statment above in a very parrellel way.

now, you also said that riding the mlb bench is not better than playing in AAA.. .which is substantiated by less than what i am using to draw a conclusion, and that's okay (stuart smiley reference). it's just a maybe.. and i'd wager numerous contexts where it would not be true. players that are too developed for AAA absolutely should not be there. they will hurt their ratings more often than help at that point. even the mlb bench is better for a year, no more.

One more thing i almost forgot -- the modifiers per league -- essentially tells you the ~ceiling, more or less for development at that level. soft ceiling... soft cap i think is a term used in some games. there's a reason why AAA is lower than MLB. even if not directly causal to it, it is a representation or reflection of it -- to fill the league it uses that to give ratings that fit, for example.. .so it is related one way or another.

as far as 'better development' i guess it needs minimum not to be incompetent, but again that should be common sense.. you aren't bringing severely undeveloped players to the MLB just for kicks.

look at the "playing time" and "challenge" sections. That addresses your theory on AAA quality players remaining in R. It also explains why the MLB bench is better than the AAA bench