"Disruptive Influences" complaints from players?

[bigd51]

My Rookie League team ended the season 16-38 in last place. Nearly every single one of my batters played terribly (.160 / .232 / .472 slash line as a team) and my pitchers were equally bad.

Upon checking the Team Chemistry page, I noticed 25(!) player complaints in the bottom right box citing "Disruptive Influences" as the reason for their ire, but I have no clue what that is specifically referring to.

I have 5 leaders on the team and zero "problem" players, aside from one 5-star potential RP w/ low Leader, Loyalty, and Work Ethic ratings.

My Manager is "controlling" and has "average" relationships w/ the players and my pitching and hitting coaches are "personable" w/ "good" relationships.

At first, I thought it may be just b/c of losing games, but my Low-A team played just as terribly and the player complaints for that team specifically stated "Doesn't handle losing very well" as the reason. And I thought, if "Disruptive Influences" meant "Doesn't handle losing very well" then it would just say the latter; the same way it does for my Low-A team.

So what could they be referring to when they cite "Disruptive Influences" as a complaint?

[LansdowneSt]

Look for someone in this area (see picture). Keep in mind that if you are in Rookie Ball, the clubhouse cancer may have been promoted elsewhere in the organization by the time you noticed his effect. If he is gone, things should improve for that team but get worse wherever he went.

With 25 complaints, my first question though was - who is the one guy that didn't complain? .... it's him.

[bigd51]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Look for someone in this area (see picture). Keep in mind that if you are in Rookie Ball, the clubhouse cancer may have been promoted elsewhere in the organization by the time you noticed his effect. If he is gone, things should improve for that team but get worse wherever he went.

With 25 complaints, my first question though was - who is the one guy that didn't complain? .... it's him.

I don't have any players in the negatives area. I tend to stay away from those types of players entirely, regardless of how good they are.

I also have more than 26 players on the roster and unfortunately can't see the entire list of players who complained.

I'm thinking it's just win/loss related, but I don't know why it would say "Doesn't handle losing well" on one team and "Disruptive influences" on another if it was.

Even still, I wouldn't even know how to change that b/c I've always sucked at assembling good minor league teams without loading the rosters w/ 24+ year old's and taking away playing time from my prospects.

[billyray1984]

Originally Posted by bigd51

Even still, I wouldn't even know how to change that b/c I've always sucked at assembling good minor league teams without loading the rosters w/ 24+ year old's and taking away playing time from my prospects.

Altough my experience is very anecdotal, I've come to find out that winning in the minors is really important for player development since it makes for happy players. The reason your rookie ball teams suck is because the AI is having 25 year olds play there for the other orgs. There's no chance your 18 year old batter has any chance against a guy who got demoted from AA by the opposing AI and has 50 stuff at the MLB level.

Put a hard cap on age at the entry levels (I use 23 year old for rookie ball and 22 for the DSL) and keep competent pitching and fielding depth there and your teams should at least avoid being raging dumpster fire. The purpose of your rookie teams is for your highly touted prospect to get playing time, not your very late rounders.

I'll now play someone in rookie ball who is a bit older but who is crushing the league even though he has no shot at the majors if that means the guy I drafted in the 1rst round gets to play on a winning team. The guy who is 18 and that I drafted in the 17th round can ride the pine aand if he develops fine, if not, I'll draft an identical guy to him next year.

You can also set your older players to "bench" in your strategy so that they don't get the starting job.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by billyray1984

Altough my experience is very anecdotal, I've come to find out that winning in the minors is really important for player development since it makes for happy players. The reason your rookie ball teams suck is because the AI is having 25 year olds play there for the other orgs. There's no chance your 18 year old batter has any chance against a guy who got demoted from AA by the opposing AI and has 50 stuff at the MLB level.

Put a hard cap on age at the entry levels (I use 23 year old for rookie ball and 22 for the DSL) and keep competent pitching and fielding depth there and your teams should at least avoid being raging dumpster fire. The purpose of your rookie teams is for your highly touted prospect to get playing time, not your very late rounders.

I'll now play someone in rookie ball who is a bit older but who is crushing the league even though he has no shot at the majors if that means the guy I drafted in the 1rst round gets to play on a winning team. The guy who is 18 and that I drafted in the 17th round can ride the pine aand if he develops fine, if not, I'll draft an identical guy to him next year.

You can also set your older players to "bench" in your strategy so that they don't get the starting job.

I do have service limits at the rookie levels, but not age limits. I have each set to 3 years (which means no more than 4 years) I suppose I am getting a bunch of 25 & 26 year-olds with zero hope on all of the teams’.

[Pdubya64]

Appreciate the takes on this guys.

So far, I am taking the time to go through my minor leagues and culling players whose age is out of "the window" I set as too old, although it is tempered by mostly kicking the 20 potential guys to the curb; however, I find you have to be careful with positions to make sure you have enough players to field a proper team.

I suppose I could set age limits, will have to mull it over next time. I can confirm that winning in the minor league has a direct effect on happiness just like the majors (as it should).

Interested in hearing other points-of-view on this topic.

[bigd51]

I've been thinking of age limits, myself, but have been reluctant due to the uncertainty of how it would affect CPU rosters and transactions.

Right now, I'm trying out semi-real-life roster limits:

AAA

Roster size: 33 (28+5 "reserve" players)
Pro Service: No limit

AA

Roster size: 30
Pro Service: No limit

A+

Roster size: 30
Pro Service: 6 years max

A

Roster size: 30
Pro Service: 5 years max

Rookie (ACL/FCL)

Roster size: No limit
Pro Service: 4 years max

Rookie (DSL)

Roster size: 35
Pro Service: 4 years max

...

I'm thinking of bumping the Service Time limit down one year for each league, though. Seeing as days aren't counted against the max limit, "6 years max" actually means "7 years, 0 days" and I'm starting to think that's just too high.

My question is... are the roster size limits I have set too low? Should I take out the roster size limits altogether?

[MathBandit]

Just my 2c, but in my years of playing OOTP not once have I ever thought about morale or made decisions at all based on how players are feeling or might feel in the future.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by bigd51

I've been thinking of age limits, myself, but have been reluctant due to the uncertainty of how it would affect CPU rosters and transactions.

Right now, I'm trying out semi-real-life roster limits:



My question is... are the roster size limits I have set too low? Should I take out the roster size limits altogether?

I play with roster, age, and service time limits to try to get minor league roster composition and behavior that is close as possible to modern MLB. My recommendations (without much explanation because I don't have time right now):

1) Don't set roster limits at the rookie levels. If a team goes too far stockpiling, get in and cut players for them.

2) Roster limit at 30 for the A and A+ levels is fine. Don't go over that because the AI will always try to fill the teams.

3) Cut AA and AAA roster limits to 28. The AI loves to stockpile sub-replacement level old guys and you can't stop them. With the lower roster limit, at least the good prospects come up and get playing time faster if there is an injury crisis.

4) Reduce service time limits. Yours are too high and they compound the unavoidable problem with the AI signing way too many old players for the minors. I would cut the years you have by two. In real life, no player with more than five years of service time is still playing A+ ball.

5) Controversial for some, but I would add age limits too. Otherwise, the AI will keep those college senior draftees playing in A-ball through their age 28-29 season. Setting age 26 as the limit for A+ and 25 for A is already pretty generous. I personally use 25 for A+, 24 for A, and 23 for R. In real life you occasionally have a 25 year old at the low A level, but these players are always there as an emergency and never play a meaningful role.

As always, everyone has their own preferences. The settings I mentioned above give me pretty realistic minor league rosters. The AI makes strange signings and cuts on opening day of the first season, but after that, it handles the different limits reasonably well in my opinion.

[Pdubya64]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

Just my 2c, but in my years of playing OOTP not once have I ever thought about morale or made decisions at all based on how players are feeling or might feel in the future.

Neither have I MB, but I am concerned when it produces effects that impact how my prospects grow and advance in the minors.

[bigd51]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

I play with roster, age, and service time limits to try to get minor league roster composition and behavior that is close as possible to modern MLB. My recommendations (without much explanation because I don't have time right now):

1) Don't set roster limits at the rookie levels. If a team goes too far stockpiling, get in and cut players for them.

2) Roster limit at 30 for the A and A+ levels is fine. Don't go over that because the AI will always try to fill the teams.

3) Cut AA and AAA roster limits to 28. The AI loves to stockpile sub-replacement level old guys and you can't stop them. With the lower roster limit, at least the good prospects come up and get playing time faster if there is an injury crisis.

4) Reduce service time limits. Yours are too high and they compound the unavoidable problem with the AI signing way too many old players for the minors. I would cut the years you have by two. In real life, no player with more than five years of service time is still playing A+ ball.

5) Controversial for some, but I would add age limits too. Otherwise, the AI will keep those college senior draftees playing in A-ball through their age 28-29 season. Setting age 26 as the limit for A+ and 25 for A is already pretty generous. I personally use 25 for A+, 24 for A, and 23 for R. In real life you occasionally have a 25 year old at the low A level, but these players are always there as an emergency and never play a meaningful role.

As always, everyone has their own preferences. The settings I mentioned above give me pretty realistic minor league rosters. The AI makes strange signings and cuts on opening day of the first season, but after that, it handles the different limits reasonably well in my opinion.

I'm glad to see someone using these limits w/ some degree of normalcy. I've always been hesitant b/c so many have said age limits adversely affect CPU decisions. But, at this point, if the CPU wants to make weird decisions based on realistic limits, then so be it. I'm just tired of seeing my minor league teams constantly being over-matched b/c the CPU fills their teams w/ older minor league FA's in an unrealistic way.

Thanks for the details and explanations. A lot of what you say makes perfect sense, so I'm gonna give these changes a shot in the coming offseason.