Have you heard of these mechanics regarding promotion and prospect development?

[Poppo6247]

I recently joined a league where my top prospect (80 potential, 19 year old pitcher) was in Single A where they were 80/80 relative to the talent level. I promoted him to AAA where he's 65/80 relative to the talent level and in the minor league screen it says he's possibly ready for the majors.

When I did so, another member of the league expressed concern that I was rushing him. He stated that I should put him in AA where he is 80/80 rated because:

1. Being at the same level for too long harms morale which hurts development.

2. Prospects get potential dev boosts each individual level that they're promoted.

He said he read it in the manual and/or on the OOTP forums but couldn't recall where. Has anyone else heard of either of these mechanics? I was only aware of a mechanic where players development could be hurt if they're too advanced for their minor league level.

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by Poppo6247

I recently joined a league where my top prospect (80 potential, 19 year old pitcher) was in Single A where they were 80/80 relative to the talent level. I promoted him to AAA where he's 65/80 relative to the talent level and in the minor league screen it says he's possibly ready for the majors.

When I did so, another member of the league expressed concern that I was rushing him. He stated that I should put him in AA where he is 80/80 rated because:

1. Being at the same level for too long harms morale which hurts development.

2. Prospects get potential dev boosts each individual level that they're promoted.

He said he read it in the manual and/or on the OOTP forums but couldn't recall where. Has anyone else heard of either of these mechanics? I was only aware of a mechanic where players development could be hurt if they're too advanced for their minor league level.

Never heard of this and it is for sure not in any manual I read and I just got done working on the OOTP Wiki and never did I see this mentioned anywhere.

I always check my players vs their rankings for what league they are in. If they are a 60/80 in A, I will find where they are like a 45 overall in a higher league and stick them in there. I am for sure NOT keeping anyone that is rated an 80/80 in A or AA. That player should either be in AAA, in the MLB, or traded if you are backed up in that spot.

It hurts a player a LOT more if they are in a level where they get no challenge. If they are hitting .400+ in AA, that's going to hurt them more than being in AAA.

[Rain King]

For me, I would probably start the player in AA for the first month for a couple of reasons.

1.) You don't know if your scout is over-rating the player and it would be much worse to need to demote them if they get off to a rocky start than to let them earn their way up. Let the player prove their promotion with their play.

2.) Ideally they get off to a great start in AA and get a boost to their morale. You don't want them to stay there long enough to get bored with the competition, but a month of domination can help them be in a great place when you move them to the more challenging league.

The dev boosts per level idea is bunk though and shouldn't be a factor. Morale does need to be considered, but it shouldn't be the main factor. This guy seems to be on a fast track and it doesn't seem likely he should have to stay in the minors long enough to get upset either way barring an injury. Skipping a level is a little bit riskier, I tend to be more conservative. You should approach things your own way.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Poppo6247

I recently joined a league where my top prospect (80 potential, 19 year old pitcher) was in Single A where they were 80/80 relative to the talent level. I promoted him to AAA where he's 65/80 relative to the talent level and in the minor league screen it says he's possibly ready for the majors.

When I did so, another member of the league expressed concern that I was rushing him. He stated that I should put him in AA where he is 80/80 rated because:

1. Being at the same level for too long harms morale which hurts development.

2. Prospects get potential dev boosts each individual level that they're promoted.

He said he read it in the manual and/or on the OOTP forums but couldn't recall where. Has anyone else heard of either of these mechanics? I was only aware of a mechanic where players development could be hurt if they're too advanced for their minor league level.

Yeah, I've never heard of either those and I've been playing the game off and on since 2002 (not a typo). EDIT: My guess is someone in this communication chain, who I don't know, has misunderstood something someone else has said.

I myself don't worry too much about dev, I let the AI handle most of it. However, from what I've read and think, you don't want a prospect not to be challenged enough (dominating the league they're in for a long time), but you also don't want them to be in over their head (getting crushed). It's a goldilocks situation, you want them to be at just the right level. I also wouldn't base this too much off their ratings, but more off their stats.

I definitely wouldn't promote them to the bigs unless: 1) I was sure they were ready and they were probably not going to be overwhelmed, and 2) I really needed them and I knew I'd be able to get them playing time. If they either struggle in the majors or they don't get much playing time there, it's probably going to hurt their development a lot more than had you left them in AAA.

You also don't want to prematurely bring them up as it will start their service clock. And I'm not someone who will keep a good prospect down to get another year out of them, but unless they fit the above criteria there's no sense in starting the clock. Besides, at some point in the future you're going to want the flexibility to option some players to the minors, but if you brought them up too early you'll probably end up unnecessarily burning their options faster than you otherwise would have.

I'd say try him at AA, or AAA, your choice. (I'm assuming he's tearing it up in A, but if he's not, leave him there.) Watch his performance for the next few weeks or more and if he's doing awesome, consider promoting him. But if he's not, he's just doing alright, leave him where he is.

[Poppo6247]

Originally Posted by Rain King

For me, I would probably start the player in AA for the first month for a couple of reasons.

1.) You don't know if your scout is over-rating the player and it would be much worse to need to demote them if they get off to a rocky start than to let them earn their way up. Let the player prove their promotion with their play.

2.) Ideally they get off to a great start in AA and get a boost to their morale. You don't want them to stay there long enough to get bored with the competition, but a month of domination can help them be in a great place when you move them to the more challenging league.

The dev boosts per level idea is bunk though and shouldn't be a factor. Morale does need to be considered, but it shouldn't be the main factor. This guy seems to be on a fast track and it doesn't seem likely he should have to stay in the minors long enough to get upset either way barring an injury. Skipping a level is a little bit riskier, I tend to be more conservative. You should approach things your own way.

That's a good thought on my scout overrating him. I did check what OSA says and they have him at 70/80 at AA and 65/80 at AAA.

[Poppo6247]

Originally Posted by kq76

Yeah, I've never heard of either those and I've been playing the game off and on since 2002 (not a typo). EDIT: My guess is someone in this communication chain, who I don't know, has misunderstood something someone else has said.

I myself don't worry too much about dev, I let the AI handle most of it. However, from what I've read and think, you don't want a prospect not to be challenged enough (dominating the league they're in for a long time), but you also don't want them to be in over their head (getting crushed). It's a goldilocks situation, you want them to be at just the right level. I also wouldn't base this too much off their ratings, but more off their stats.

I definitely wouldn't promote them to the bigs unless: 1) I was sure they were ready and they were probably not going to be overwhelmed, and 2) I really needed them and I knew I'd be able to get them playing time. If they either struggle in the majors or they don't get much playing time there, it's probably going to hurt their development a lot more than had you left them in AAA.

You also don't want to prematurely bring them up as it will start their service clock. And I'm not someone who will keep a good prospect down to get another year out of them, but unless they fit the above criteria there's no sense in starting the clock. Besides, at some point in the future you're going to want the flexibility to option some players to the minors, but if you brought them up too early you'll probably end up unnecessarily burning their options faster than you otherwise would have.

I'd say try him at AA, or AAA, your choice. (I'm assuming he's tearing it up in A, but if he's not, leave him there.) Watch his performance for the next few weeks or more and if he's doing awesome, consider promoting him. But if he's not, he's just doing alright, leave him where he is.

Yeah, he had a 2.57 ERA in 108.2 innings at A. I agree, it's likely that someone misheard or is misremembering this mechanic. I've been playing a while and I've also never heard of it.

[OutS|der]

#1 is true in a sense. A prospect shouldn't spend too much time stuck at a level, ideally a year or less at a level. Anything more then that and they tend to stagnate.

Even with scouting at 100% displayed ratings are only a guide. Jumping from Single A to Triple is common for top performing prospects but I'd never jump anyone that much unless they put up 3+ WAR in Single A if not better, otherwise they can spend some time in Double A and move up only when they show they can perform.

[NoOne]

I regulary "rush" playrs. Age does matter, but if they are developing fast and still performing okay (I have a low bar for okay - basically not falling on their face stats-wise), they usually keep doing fine.

1. Being at the same level for too long harms morale which hurts development.

I think the semantics are off a bit here. If they are over-rated or under-rated, I'd agree that it's a potentially negative effect or an opportunity cost lingering where they do not belong. I'd wager there's a soft-cap effect but i've seen players stuck in A ball nearly fully develop, too, but i wouldn't advise that strategy, lol..

Coincidentally, the players that stop developing tend to linger in one spot and may create a false perception of cause and effect, here. A lot of players fail to develop and it's not because they were in one league for too long... because tehy failed to develop they stayed in one leage because they never earned a promotion... cuase and effect... Ratings are a cause to an effect, not the other way around.

2. Prospects get potential dev boosts each individual level that they're promoted.

Again, sorta true. Relative to probability of an improvement occurring, a player can develop either higher or more quickly at higher levels. Whichever it may be it makes it important to put them where they belong and where they don't fall on their face performance-wise. MLB has the best development potential for a player. You can definitely find words to that effect in the forums of previous versions made by markus or lukas or someone else near the top of their hierarchy.

There could be any number of other factors that influence the 'development rate' of the player. Age and level seem to matter, but some can do fine as a 19 year old in the MLB -- usually it takes a year to be mlb-ready ratings-wise even for the ones that hit the 'lottery' with the RNG and skyrocket in ratings quickly. I wouldn't doubt someone has an example of an 18 year old making it the first season or a international amatuer getting to ML level at 18.

It's worth it to keep promoting players whose ratings and stats are good enough to do so.. doesn't have to be crazy-good stats, either. due to small samples sizes anything but utter and total failure is fine.

I'm a big fan of "rushing" players and have simmed a crazy number of seasons even if not with recent versions it's still working in similar ways. Probably even faster with dev lab addition. Anytime you can, it is worth it to get players mlb-ready ASAP. It helps so much financially and avoiding bad contracts /bad ages etc.. it's a domino effect of benefits to get players to the MLB at younger ages. You can't force a square peg through a round hole, but when the oportunity arises, take it. So, it's not really rushing so much as letting it happen when it happens.

Sometimes you promote that 18-19 year old and they absolutely fall on their faces. 3k a game, no power, no walks, bla blah blah. Ratings look fine, but being too young for a level seems to have a major effect for some but not all. You demote them for a month or 2 and try again. Rinse and repeat anytime they hit a speedbump. The 2nd attempt usually goes well enough. Again the bar for 'okay' is very low. I don't want to be setting MiL statistical records. That's waiting too long to promot high-potential players if they do.

Stats have very little effect on ratings changes, but there may be some nuance to that. I always fear extremely bad performance. The outier kind of bad. It's served me well. So, i never worry about under-performance impacting development, only outlier bad results.

MiL stats don't matter. Good development is all that matters. So if ratings are skyrocketing and they are hitting for an ops+ of 70, oh well, so be it. They are where they should be due to ratings sky-rocketing.

Probably not going to put up with shoddy numbers at the ML level where it matters, but in the MiL stats are nothing... less than nothing but a tool to judge utter and total failure performance levels and to avoid it. So, slight underpermance hurting a team is worth it in the MiL. It improves your ML team in the future.

Obviously, I'm not putting in that kind of effort to get a future bench player to the mlb, i don't care how old they are as i'll always have plenty of league-minimum options of equal or greater ability to replace them (part of my strategy despite low priority). Any player of real value that can contribute everyday to a playoff caliber team, i'm hand-tailoring their promotions as best i can to develop them ASAP. promoting as soon as they don't fall on their face is defnitely part of that strategy.

[panda234]

Originally Posted by NoOne

MiL stats don't matter. Good development is all that matters.

You’re referring to the individual ratings like contact/stuff, not stars? I’m surprised when you say stats don’t matter, or are you saying that the stats follow the ratings?

I remember way back when you had a great guide for minor league management. Is that still relevant?