Do feeder leagues, with more games, produce better prospects?

Cadieux39 · 04-28-2017, 10:18 AM

Hi everyone, quick question.

Do feeder leagues, with more games, produce better prospects?

I run a fictional league, and I'm 17 seasons in. 20 teams... 2 minor leagues, over 60 feeder teams in H.S. and College.

Those feeder leagues play something like 50 games a year, where as i have my minor leagues set to play 100 and my major league plays 124 games.

So I'm wondering if one of my feeder leagues were to play 70 or 100 games, as opposed to 50. If that feeder league would produce better prospects. Do players evolve based on total playing time?

One of the issues I'm looking to solve in my game is the following. Every year there are many strong prospect fielders, and very few starting pitcher prospects.

For the 20 or so 4(star) or better quality fielders, there is 1-3 starting pitchers 4(star) or better.

For the 20 or so 3(star) fielder prospects, there is maybe 3-5 Starting pitchers...

In other words there is only about 4-7 quality pitchers 3(star) or better every year in the draft pool. When you look at trading, every team in my league has a weakness at pitching.

If anyone has any creative solutions to how i can boost the quality of the pitchers from my feeder league let me know.

I have also noticed that the number of pitchers who come out of the feeder leagues and are set as relievers greatly outweighs the number of Starters. Not sure why.

andyhdz · 04-28-2017, 11:27 AM

I know for sure it's not an issue of scheduling more games to increase development. If that were the case than you would schedule a 365 game minor league season. It's more of an issue with being on the active roster and time. Someone even mentioned you might even get more development riding the bench in the majors than starting in the minors.

NoOne · 04-28-2017, 09:18 PM

more chances for TCR (a wash, but has to equate to more volatility, nonetheless something that hsuld be considered and understood), more chances for pos/neg development...

only because it means more days of a regular season, it might help development... but maybe just as likely to hurt more, too. maybe in the end it's a wash? maybe it's beneficial upto a point then a negative impact is more likely.

my money is on that it's a wash, for the most part... ignoring any excessively "creative" setups.

like andy said, it's all about active roster time... you wouldn't need more games, just a longer schedule with more days off, plus more games if you prefer.

but offseason / spring training / regular season are all different animals, too. so, changing the ratio of each may have an impact, and it may not. they could easily keep it all in scale... i.e. # of days in offseason may influence the chances of pos/neg changes to occur on any give day or whenever that process is applied -> shorter offseason more likely for those things to happen so that it equates to teh same as if it's a "normal" offseason length.

you'd have to try and observe.

one thing about pitcher ratings, if using overall for the basic glance to assess depth. if you have ratings relative to ALL as opposed to Position, the reliavers look way worse than they should, as of right now. (i expect that to chance, but..)

if that's not the case, you could try bumping player creation modifiers... i'd be very careful, if doing this.... just imagine bumping somethign up shifts that distribution curve to the right... so you may get peak levels higher than you want, in some cases.

it may not be the best way to test this, but use some similarly sized league or a backup.... delete all players... change PCM, then FIll the leauge with players... list all MLB players and sort the associated ratings with the PCM you just changed... re-fill a few times noting Max value you see. make sure it's not insane.

obviously, take a peak at a "fill" with 1.000 PCMs to get a baseline... Fill is not the same as your feeders will provide, but it should be the same range min/max.

marc5477 · 04-28-2017, 09:49 PM

In my experience I dont think playing has a lot of impact on development aside from perhaps attitude adjustments (happy/sad adjustments). I think stats simply reflect player development, not the other way around.

I actually experimented with this a few years ago on v15. You can pretty much bench all your big prospects and they will still develop near normally towards their stats in their editor properties. It did not seem to matter if they played or not. That said, I think I remember reading that when a player is happy, their stats get a boost. I am not sure if this makes a difference in the long run however.

04-28-2017, 10:18 AM	#1
Cadieux39 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Canada Posts: 65	Do feeder leagues, with more games, produce better prospects? Hi everyone, quick question. Do feeder leagues, with more games, produce better prospects? I run a fictional league, and I'm 17 seasons in. 20 teams... 2 minor leagues, over 60 feeder teams in H.S. and College. Those feeder leagues play something like 50 games a year, where as i have my minor leagues set to play 100 and my major league plays 124 games. So I'm wondering if one of my feeder leagues were to play 70 or 100 games, as opposed to 50. If that feeder league would produce better prospects. Do players evolve based on total playing time? One of the issues I'm looking to solve in my game is the following. Every year there are many strong prospect fielders, and very few starting pitcher prospects. For the 20 or so 4(star) or better quality fielders, there is 1-3 starting pitchers 4(star) or better. For the 20 or so 3(star) fielder prospects, there is maybe 3-5 Starting pitchers... In other words there is only about 4-7 quality pitchers 3(star) or better every year in the draft pool. When you look at trading, every team in my league has a weakness at pitching. If anyone has any creative solutions to how i can boost the quality of the pitchers from my feeder league let me know. I have also noticed that the number of pitchers who come out of the feeder leagues and are set as relievers greatly outweighs the number of Starters. Not sure why.

04-28-2017, 11:27 AM	#2
andyhdz All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Fresno, CA by way of Texas Posts: 1,754	I know for sure it's not an issue of scheduling more games to increase development. If that were the case than you would schedule a 365 game minor league season. It's more of an issue with being on the active roster and time. Someone even mentioned you might even get more development riding the bench in the majors than starting in the minors. Last edited by andyhdz; 04-28-2017 at 11:38 AM.

04-28-2017, 09:18 PM	#3
NoOne Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,167	more chances for TCR (a wash, but has to equate to more volatility, nonetheless something that hsuld be considered and understood), more chances for pos/neg development... only because it means more days of a regular season, it might help development... but maybe just as likely to hurt more, too. maybe in the end it's a wash? maybe it's beneficial upto a point then a negative impact is more likely. my money is on that it's a wash, for the most part... ignoring any excessively "creative" setups. like andy said, it's all about active roster time... you wouldn't need more games, just a longer schedule with more days off, plus more games if you prefer. but offseason / spring training / regular season are all different animals, too. so, changing the ratio of each may have an impact, and it may not. they could easily keep it all in scale... i.e. # of days in offseason may influence the chances of pos/neg changes to occur on any give day or whenever that process is applied -> shorter offseason more likely for those things to happen so that it equates to teh same as if it's a "normal" offseason length. you'd have to try and observe. one thing about pitcher ratings, if using overall for the basic glance to assess depth. if you have ratings relative to ALL as opposed to Position, the reliavers look way worse than they should, as of right now. (i expect that to chance, but..) if that's not the case, you could try bumping player creation modifiers... i'd be very careful, if doing this.... just imagine bumping somethign up shifts that distribution curve to the right... so you may get peak levels higher than you want, in some cases. it may not be the best way to test this, but use some similarly sized league or a backup.... delete all players... change PCM, then FIll the leauge with players... list all MLB players and sort the associated ratings with the PCM you just changed... re-fill a few times noting Max value you see. make sure it's not insane. obviously, take a peak at a "fill" with 1.000 PCMs to get a baseline... Fill is not the same as your feeders will provide, but it should be the same range min/max. Last edited by NoOne; 04-28-2017 at 09:20 PM.

04-28-2017, 09:49 PM	#4
marc5477 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 146	In my experience I dont think playing has a lot of impact on development aside from perhaps attitude adjustments (happy/sad adjustments). I think stats simply reflect player development, not the other way around. I actually experimented with this a few years ago on v15. You can pretty much bench all your big prospects and they will still develop near normally towards their stats in their editor properties. It did not seem to matter if they played or not. That said, I think I remember reading that when a player is happy, their stats get a boost. I am not sure if this makes a difference in the long run however.