My frustration with this game, in 2 pictures

[Fronzizzle]

People have posted similar things like this, and I've seen some bad examples before but...

Picture one is of Kevin Holder. He was the 1-1 pick three years prior. He's listed at the #1 overall prospect in the game. His performance hasn't been outstanding, but decent (and he hasn't been promoted very well). The Pirates have left him unprotected in the Rule 5 draft.

Picture two is the bottom half of the Pirates 40-man roster, complete with many 2-star (potential & current) players, including a 34-year old RP that is rated at 1.5 stars.

In what universe would this actually happen? None. Zero.

On top of that, when I try to trade for Holder from the Pirates, they are asking only for my 4 or 5 star players. So in other words, they'd rather lose him for nothing than take a solid 3-star prospect or regular.

I love this game - this is the 4th or 5th version I've owned - but there are numerous items like this that I think need to be buttoned up.

[slugga27]

Eh this is up for debate. If we look solely at ratings (which I hate doing--I play stats-only), he's a two-star player. I would find it hard to be forced to stash a two-star player on my major league roster for an entire season...

[Ether]

To play devils advocate, your scouting accuracy for this player is low. He could very well be a major bust who will skirt AAA/MLB rosters for his career. The only way to know for sure is to give him a claim. If your current scouting report of him is true though, I would think that’s poor asset management by the AI and would agree with you.

[jimmysthebestcop]

Show us his WRC+ and wOBA for his last 3 minor league years. No way this guy is a bust. He probably stopped developing because he needed MLB time to fully develop. The AI always has a problem with that. Very very very few players completely blowup and reach the potential while in the minors. Most need to develop 2+ years at the MLB level.


It's not necessarily a problem with the Rule 5 draft itself just how the AI sets up its 40 man. Most teams have bizarre 40 man. Just browse through every team's 40 man. They will have A+/A/A- players on there. I've almost never had to protect one of them in OOTPb like ever. Maybe a handful of times in 5 versions over decades and decades.
But not protected in Rule is a joke. At the very least say if his position is blocked or they can't use him. Then trade him. But honestly I bet the other AI teams wouldn't take him in the Rule 5 draft either. They select the strangest people in the Rule 5 draft.

Plus the AI gets it's jollies off to International players. They love protecting young Int guys that are still 5 years away from the show but since they are Rule 5 eligible they protect them even though they would never lose them in the draft.

The guys I tend to lose in the Rule 5 draft to the AI are always the AAAA or bench type of players. They don't believe in the stash on the bench for 1 year philosophy. Being on the bench in mlb and is still better development chance then in the minors.

[Ether]

#1 prospect, durable, and he always busts his hump. Seems like the complete package.I actually feel bad for the guy and it’s not even my save.. and he’s not even real lol.

[Syd Thrift]

He's 25 and at that age is kind of unlikely to reach those POT numbers. That's of course, if your scouting report of the guy is still accurate and he didn't have a massive talent dump over the course of the season, which is known to happen. I can actually see the logic in this, although I think the vast majority of teams would still employ the sunk cost fallacy in keeping him. I mean, I don't see a particular reason for leaving him off the 40 man unless there's truly no place for him, but it's not *completely* nonsensical.

Perhaps that should be a larger part of the game - they should keep using players they spent a lot of capital on for longer than they should - but that would also make the AI act less intelligently as it currently does, and one complaint you hear over and over from people is that the AI makes it too easy to build dominant teams.

[jimmysthebestcop]

Honestly 25 is pretty young if your are playing OOTPb modern mlb with default settings. They develop slower and age slower then real life still.

And it is probably AI Pitt's fault he didn't develop. Players can't fully develop in the minors they need MLB. If they would have made him a bench player the year before he probably be an all star at 25 and then burnout out at 29/30.

17 HR in A- means he was way past that league. That was in 2032. Young players dont hit that many in A ball. Probably drafted him right from college then. My college guys usually go right to A+. With a chance to hit AA by Aug/Sept if they are doing good.

Those college guys get drafted at 21/22 they almost always develop older right around 24-25. Then they turn to burnout quickly in mlb unless they are high work ethic guys.

Or we could talk about why the AI has most of his games at 2b when he is clearly a 3b. Maybe even a LF i would like to see his outfield ratings.

[Fronzizzle]

I think that maybe - maybe - you can make an argument for why he wouldn't be protected in a vacuum. However, I don't think that holds water when you look specifically at the Pirates' 40-man roster. There are 10, 12 candidates that could be cut and make it through waivers. And even if they didn't...no big loss.

To another point above about his development, I'm seeing a ton of top prospects be left in A and A+ for 2/3 years, then put in the majors. Little to no time in AA, often no time in AAA. It's weird.

I guess my biggest issue with this isn't just that he was unprotected when he easily could have been put on the roster. My issue is this:

* Whatever logic the game uses declares him the #1 overall prospect in baseball.
* Whatever logic the team uses says he's not worthy of a 40-man rosters spot and we don't care if we lose him in the Rule 5 draft.
* That same logic the team uses thinks that another team should pony up a top prospect to trade for him, even though we could lose him for nothing.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Curious to see his stats and what settings you are using as far as AI evaluation.

[jimmysthebestcop]

The ai teams usually love prospects that are ranked even if another one has similar ratings and stats if one is ranked huge asking price. Other guy a bag of baseballs.

But I rarely see ai besides the worst couple teams take anyone in rule 5. Wonder if Pitt knew no ai team would draft him

[Fronzizzle]

I can't find the whole history of the Rule 5 draft, but on average I get about 8-10 players selected each year.

I simmed the Rule 5 draft for this season and he was selected. I think he went to the team picking 20th, but was the 6th selection. In my universe, any half-decent C gets chosen and usually RP that are around 3 stars.

My AI evaluation settings are 40/30/20/10.

Here are his full stats:

[Fronzizzle]

Oh, and you see he's now on the Tigers - after the Rule 5 draft, I tried to trade for him and the team that took him (Colorado, I think) wanted any number of 3-star prospects, so I traded them a 24-year old C that will probably be a starter for them this year.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by Fronzizzle

I can't find the whole history of the Rule 5 draft, but on average I get about 8-10 players selected each year.

I simmed the Rule 5 draft for this season and he was selected. I think he went to the team picking 20th, but was the 6th selection. In my universe, any half-decent C gets chosen and usually RP that are around 3 stars.

My AI evaluation settings are 40/30/20/10.

Here are his full stats:

He's 24, coming year he'll be 25. He's an okay (55) second baseman, who just had a 93 OPS+ in AA at 24.

Name me a few real major leaguers who have below-average 2B in AA at 24 on their resumes. He kind of sounds like Ryan Flaherty.

Pick, say... the 2015 Eastern League. Look at the 24-year-olds there. 16 listed on bb-ref. Two have gone on to a MLB career (Mike Tauchman and Tyler Naquin).

[SirMichaelJordan]

More weight on stats and he wouldn't even be the #1 prospect.

Those potential ratings are driving that and he's already 25 so it's a slim chance he'll reach that potential.

[Fronzizzle]

For those still following...after trading, I gave Holder the starting 2nd baseman job.

He was fine on defense, making only 4 errors with a range factor of 3.99 and a zone rating of +5.0.

On offense, he was was a star - he slashed .266./.351/.511, good for a 124 OPS+ and 4.8 WAR. He won Rookie of the Year and Silver Slugger at 2B. Picture below.

Also, the Pirates finished 2 GB from winning the division...their 2B slashed .230/.270/.468 and had 2 WAR solely on his defense. Easy to argue that just keeping and playing Holder was the difference between winning the division & going home.

Ratings, stats, a combination...there is no justifiable reason to leave him unprotected.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Fronzizzle

For those still following...after trading, I gave Holder the starting 2nd baseman job.

He was fine on defense, making only 4 errors with a range factor of 3.99 and a zone rating of +5.0.

On offense, he was was a star - he slashed .266./.351/.511, good for a 124 OPS+ and 4.8 WAR. He won Rookie of the Year and Silver Slugger at 2B. Picture below.

Also, the Pirates finished 2 GB from winning the division...their 2B slashed .230/.270/.468 and had 2 WAR solely on his defense. Easy to argue that just keeping and playing Holder was the difference between winning the division & going home.

Ratings, stats, a combination...there is no justifiable reason to leave him unprotected.

But the combination is exactly what’s going on though. It’s working exactly how you have it set.

He had a bad current year, your current year evaluation is 50. His GM could give even more weight to current year and less to ratings based on the baseline set. There isn’t much weight to his last year stats where he was a 4.7 war in the minors. Not much there for his 2 years ago stats. It seem to me that the GM overreacted to his bad current year.

His current ratings aren’t that high and his true potential is really a mystery because he’s showing very low accuracy.

Yes he’s the number 1 prospect but I’m assuming it’s based on yearly and not dynamic meaning that it wasn’t updated at season end where he probably isn’t #1 anymore as that title was given in April because of his stats from last year most likely.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

But the combination is exactly what’s going on though. It’s working exactly how you have it set.

He had a bad current year, your current year evaluation is 50. His GM could give even more weight to current year and less to ratings based on the baseline set. There isn’t much weight to his last year stats where he was a 4.7 war in the minors. Not much there for his 2 years ago stats. It seem to me that the GM overreacted to his bad current year.

His current ratings aren’t that high and his true potential is really a mystery because he’s showing very low accuracy.

Yes he’s the number 1 prospect but I’m assuming it’s based on yearly and not dynamic meaning that it wasn’t updated at season end where he probably isn’t #1 anymore as that title was given in April because of his stats from last year most likely.

I just go back to the idea that in real life the #1 overall prospect in baseball would never, ever, ever be a 24-year-old second baseman in AA. Throw in a below-average season at 24 in AA and it's unlikely he makes a top 100 list by someone like Baseball America.

Look at the MLB top 100 right now. There are just nine players on the list aged 24 or older. There is one true second baseman, and a handful of others listed as SS/2B. The only 24+ year old still in AA is Yankee pitcher Clarke Schmidt, who didn't sign until he was 22 and only has 27 professional games under his belt.

I guess you could compare him to SS/2B Gavin Lux, who's the #2 overall prospect right now. But while this guy had a poor year at 24 in AA, Lux had a 1.197 OPS in AAA at 21 and has already made his MLB debut. There could hardly be a bigger difference.

[Fronzizzle]

Let me start out by saying that generally, I agree with this - top prospects aren't usually that old, nor 2B.

I think the point of my post is getting lost in his #1 ranking, though. Forget for a minute what his overall ranking is and look at the facts, and keep in my the "in real life" term you used:

He was selected 1-1. After the draft, he performed admirably in R, did well in A-, did GREAT in A+ and then stepped back in AA. So the former overall #1 pick has 3/4 years with performance, is rated highly by scouts...and he goes unprotected in leu of some 34-year old schlub relief pitchers. In "real life", that doesn't happen. Ever.

On top of that, after they decide that he's not good enough to protect and I tried to trade for him, they only asked for/would accept 4-star players or prospects. I tried younger (i.e. non-40 man) guys, young MLB players, AAA prospects, different positions, etc. They treated him like you would treat your #1 prospect (as they should) and demanded a high return.

So, their logic was that "this guy isn't good enough to protect, but if you want him you better pony up." That just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, if he's good enough that you'll only accept top prospects in a trade, he's good enough to keep around, no?

I know hindsight is 20-20 and all of that, but since I got Holder he's been one of the best players in the league, including a 9.2 WAR season and World Series MVP (see screenshot).

Obviously, I like playing OOTP or this wouldn't be the 4th version I bought, nor would I be simming up through the 2038 season. I just wish there were a few things that would get tightened up and this sort of thing is one of them.

[jimmysthebestcop]

Honestly I think college bats always develop around 24 to 25 (if they develop). He was 1 month from being 22 when drafted. Unless you are Soto, Harper, Acuna you don't get through the minors in less then 3 years. Especially on the OOTPb default development rate.

Sometimes you draft a college guy and they aren't even ready for A ball at 21. Even first rounders. I'm not sure if an MLB team would waste a #1 pick on a 22 year old who they thought couldn't go straight to A ball.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Fronzizzle

Let me start out by saying that generally, I agree with this - top prospects aren't usually that old, nor 2B.

I think the point of my post is getting lost in his #1 ranking, though. Forget for a minute what his overall ranking is and look at the facts, and keep in my the "in real life" term you used:

He was selected 1-1. After the draft, he performed admirably in R, did well in A-, did GREAT in A+ and then stepped back in AA. So the former overall #1 pick has 3/4 years with performance, is rated highly by scouts...and he goes unprotected in leu of some 34-year old schlub relief pitchers. In "real life", that doesn't happen. Ever.

On top of that, after they decide that he's not good enough to protect and I tried to trade for him, they only asked for/would accept 4-star players or prospects. I tried younger (i.e. non-40 man) guys, young MLB players, AAA prospects, different positions, etc. They treated him like you would treat your #1 prospect (as they should) and demanded a high return.

So, their logic was that "this guy isn't good enough to protect, but if you want him you better pony up." That just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, if he's good enough that you'll only accept top prospects in a trade, he's good enough to keep around, no?

I know hindsight is 20-20 and all of that, but since I got Holder he's been one of the best players in the league, including a 9.2 WAR season and World Series MVP (see screenshot).

Obviously, I like playing OOTP or this wouldn't be the 4th version I bought, nor would I be simming up through the 2038 season. I just wish there were a few things that would get tightened up and this sort of thing is one of them.

By default, the AI is always going to want more for their players. Not really the same logic being used between trading and keeping them off the 40. Roster AI isn’t perfect but the reason his past minor league experience isn’t being considered is because the AI eval settings is not weighing it that much.

I would suggest giving more weight to ratings or if you prefer stats, give more weight to the other years so the AI won’t freak out after a bad year.