College Players Don't Develop

[mrpoopistan]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

I don't think pushing rookie development to be slower is the solution here.

Having simmed a megaton of seasons this weekend and into Monday . . . it's a little weird. The time in DSL benefits those players vs drafted guys, even high schoolers. Simming out 20 years with a lot of different settings, the one consistent occurrence is that the percentage of guys from the DR in MLB goes up anywhere from 50 to 100%.


The dev and aging curves are a big problem for every player, tho. The best I've been able to do is to get the league to converge at 22 as the lowest consistent age of arrival for the youngest cohort of the best players. Even then, the game still produces too many Dominican players after 20 years. (The number starts around 10%, and I've seen it rocket as high as 19% in 20 years.) I plan to do my next sim with just limiting scouting discoveries to see if that helps.


High schoolers also tend to have an advantage against college players. However, that dipped a bit when I added a college feeder. It dipped a bit more when I set the feeder's min generated player age to 18.


Another weird trick that affected more than I thought was lowering the reputations of the minor leagues. This seems to affect whether the CPU thinks a player belongs in those leagues. The last sim I did had the natural biggest gap from IRL, which is between high-A and AA. My next sim I plan to add bigger gaps at the low end. The downside is that the CPU is MUCH more likely to move players up and down and to skip levels entirely with these settings.

So . . . yeah. I'd add a lot of this mess appeared a few versions back when MLB abolished short-season A ball. I don't think the development engine ever caught up to a world where a guy like Konnor Griffin would start in middle-A ball and be in high-A by this point IRL. If you sim in OOTP, Griffin never makes it to high-A like he actually is right now.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

It's a combination of things, including ratings, that by now are pretty well established (at least in my mind), and this goes back to why you can't solve the player development path problem the way you guys tried to.

The problems/discussion:

1) The player ratings development/aging curve looks good in general for players who are in an MLB organization. Matt also said at one point that there is enough variance too.

2) Player ratings are a step too low come draft time. This applies to both college players and high schoolers. Not sure if they are created too low, if they fail to develop at a good rate before they get to an MLB org, or both (I would say probably both).

3) Because the AI signs way too many old players, a lot of the "prospects" don't get a normal path to the majors (they start too low and are forced to repeat low levels), and the ones without very high potential don't even get enough playing time.

4) Points 2 and 3 would hurt college players more than high schoolers.

5) The ad-hoc solution of having potential influence results helps only a subset of players, those with very high potential, and it could also contribute to the gap between high schoolers and college guys.

What needs to improve

1) Players should enter the league with slightly better ratings.

2) The ratings of players who don't play enough need to decay, especially once they get to age 25-26.

We can quibble on how aggressively, what the playing time threshold should be, etc., but players who root in free agency or barely get a handful of at bats should not hold on to their ratings for years like they do. Some rare players can pull a DeGrom, but the majority don't.

The above would help the AI stop hoarding older players who block the path of the younger guys. Currently, the AI will hold on to a 35 OVR player forever, blocking the path of a 22-23 year old with a 30 OVR unless he has very high potential.

3) The AI still needs to stop prioritizing ability over potential when it picks players for the minor leagues. Not just lineups, but in general.

4) The AI needs to stop signing players for the minors.

The AI should try to sign players only if there are openings.

In real baseball, teams are not constantly signing and releasing minor league players. They sign free agents for the minors when they have open roster spots due to injuries, and release players when the draft approaches. Even undrafted players tend to sign right around the draft, and you don't see many of those signings afterwards.

Thank you for taking the time to organize your thoughts into clear and concise individual major topics. This not only communicates more efficiently, but also creates an edifice for more productive replies and ongoing discussion. A model more would do well to imitate.

[Irrelevant Dude]

As a frequent OOTP player in the early days turned serial lurker in recent years, threads like this one make me want to stay far away from any current version of the game. I keep telling myself "this will be the year I jump back in," but it really sounds like the entire development engine is broken. I hope player development gets proper attention for next year's release, if not before.

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by mrpoopistan

Having simmed a megaton of seasons this weekend and into Monday . . . it's a little weird. The time in DSL benefits those players vs drafted guys, even high schoolers.

This is why I made the following changes in the leagues that I play:

-DSL is open to all players, not just foreigners/internationals
-DSL has an age cap of 19; no service cap
-Rookie ball has an age cap of 22; no service cap

DSL players still generally end up better than drafted players, but it equals the playing field a bit.

I'm starting to wonder if there's just an issue with players coming out of the draft, in general. My legendary scout at amateurs with a ton of $$$ invested in the amateur draft does a much better job of finding 5 star players in the international draft than he does at the amateur draft. 5 star draftees usually fall to 4 stars after 1 season, 3.5 after 2 seasons.

I was wondering if this is because of the new "not playing" hiding ratings. Because most draftees aren't drafted until about 3 years after they're generated. If the game sees them as "not playing" the whole time, and potential rating changes are hidden over those 3 years, it could potentially be the issue.

Whereas 5 star international players, they get signed the year they are created, and in my system they go immediately into DSL.

If I'm right, it's kind of a killer to amateur scouting. And again, another reason for the game to see guys playing at high school / college as "playing" a full season.
(ie: total rethink of playing time for players U20; maybe playing 50 games should give "full development"; whereas playing in high school/college or at the international complex gives something similar)

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by mrpoopistan

High schoolers also tend to have an advantage against college players. However, that dipped a bit when I added a college feeder. It dipped a bit more when I set the feeder's min generated player age to 18.

I might need to look more into feeders. The issue with that - injuries. Maybe not as bad in previous versions, but minor injuries can still add up to a guy becoming fragile or worse. How do you deal with that?

I'm already having injury issues with the way I did it - as putting 16 year olds immediately into games gives them an extra 2 seasons of injuries to add up. I basically am always sending players to strength and conditioning to mitigate.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

I might need to look more into feeders. The issue with that - injuries. Maybe not as bad in previous versions, but minor injuries can still add up to a guy becoming fragile or worse. How do you deal with that?

I'm already having injury issues with the way I did it - as putting 16 year olds immediately into games gives them an extra 2 seasons of injuries to add up. I basically am always sending players to strength and conditioning to mitigate.

We need the option to set injury rates per league. So you can have say rookie ball have none while AAA is normal.

We also need the ability to edit a players injury history and take out injuries if we want to.

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

We need the option to set injury rates per league. So you can have say rookie ball have none while AAA is normal.

We also need the ability to edit a players injury history and take out injuries if we want to.

Maybe, I'm not opposed to this.

Taking out the injury history does not do anything, though. The impact of the injury is still there. The hit to his injury rating happens after he recovers. You could go into commish mode and edit the guy's injury rating. I don't think this is ideal.

It would be optimal instead if development just worked when guys are still waiting to be drafted / at the international complex. Furthermore, if they get full development in their teenage years by playing a season of rookie ball (ie: 40-50 games).

Less games in the system = less injuries.

[rwd59]

Some good thoughts and ideas in this thread. But, haven't the developers basically said they think development is not really an issue and is working as intended with only some possible minor tweaks needed?

[thenewchuckd]

I've only tried it on a few seasons... However, now using feeder leagues it appears my assumptions are true. Scouting amateurs now more closely aligns with scouting internationals.

So it does appear that there is an issue with draft scouting, when players are "not playing" in feeder leagues. I'm not sure if this is intended (I hope not) or simply a feature introduced in 2026 (ie: due to the change that they made where scouts do not catch up until players "play")

I am enjoying the feeder league experience a lot more. It pumps out some meaningful college players. It does take a bit of playing around to get the structure right, so the number of players available in the draft is where I want it. I am still worried about injuries & it would be nice to have injury settings for specific leagues.

Again, small numbers on my side, and perhaps confirmation bias.

As an aside, I'm going to mention again that I'd like more risky prospects (with risks tamping down as players move from teenage years to their 20s). Right now it seems a bit too easy to pick the best international players on the default settings.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by rwd59

Some good thoughts and ideas in this thread. But, haven't the developers basically said they think development is not really an issue and is working as intended with only some possible minor tweaks needed?

Well it's possible that the development engine itself is in fact working fine (as I think was mentioned, a lot of prospects already in the minors at the start of a save seem to develop appropriately) but draftees (esp college draftees) just aren't coming in with high enough current ratings to allow them to develop in a realistic timeline.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by ChrisG

Well it's possible that the development engine itself is in fact working fine (as I think was mentioned, a lot of prospects already in the minors at the start of a save seem to develop appropriately) but draftees (esp college draftees) just aren't coming in with high enough current ratings to allow them to develop in a realistic timeline.

Believe me, I agree with you. I have been in the something is off with this version as far as development is concerned since the game first came out this year.

[noooooo4499]

I wonder if this is related to the potential affecting performance in minors change. If only potential matters in the minors, then what incentive is there to even play college players? High school players on average have higher potential but lower overall than college players, but overall doesn't matter in the minors anymore.

[ajbar]

From my looks, it really seems aging curves mean a lot and the College kids starting at 23/24 are so far behind the curve they hit the "Dev Cap". Basically toast at 24 if your not already good enough to be a regular in the majors.

That matches real life majority of the time but, 99% of college kids seem to not be hitting this.

I would imagine since they are drafted at 22/23/24 and lose the majority of the draft year (starting full season at 23/24/25) the game has already given up on them based on aging curves.

TLDR: College kids either need higher starting levels (Probably easiest fix) when drafted or expedited development times. I would assume the best college kids should be 35/40's current rating and be in High A the year following the draft and on target to be in the majors 1.5-2 years after the draft.

I also seem to be having "stud" Pitching Starting and Reliving prospects stalling at AAA and Double AA at a higher level then ootp 25. They hit 40 overall and just stop progressing. The prospects are High ranked / Elite stats in Potential / edit has them being elite / no injury issue to reflect , they just don't get better and flame out at 26. This might be tied to the college issue since I have not been paying attention to where they came from persay.

[OutS|der]

Has anyone checked if feeder leagues helps?

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by ajbar

TLDR: College kids either need higher starting levels (Probably easiest fix) when drafted or expedited development times. I would assume the best college kids should be 35/40's current rating and be in High A the year following the draft and on target to be in the majors 1.5-2 years after the draft.

Yep...I also don't think this would necessarily create an unrealistic number of successes either (which I think would maybe be the fear in cranking up the starting ratings?). Because they could always stall out at 35/40 right?


And there should be always be a few guys who end up ready within ~0.5-1 year. Look at Skenes, Neto, Wyatt Langford, Nick Kurtz, Cam Smith, etc.

[BarneyRubble]

My AAA teams have no roster limitations (other than size) and they shouldn't. That leaves 10 openings in AAA, the rest are on the 40 man. It's no thing that half of them are veterans with minor league contracts (with and/or without an option). It makes a good testing ground for those minor leaguers that do make it to AAA before they reach minor league FA eligibility. Most don't. I set AA to 6 pro years limit. I'll consider constructing an independent league if the number of them gets out of hand. The AI can only react to what's available. This includes minor league roster limits.

I have had newly drafted college players play in AAA. I haven't noticed (key word) college players not developing.