Sea of red minus signs

[Qeltar]

Just looking at the latest report from March 1 and it's just a sea of red ink, er, minus signs. There are plenty of pluses too but there are just way more minuses than I expected, given that I more than doubled my player development budget for this year. I also carefully hunted down managers and coaches with good development and relationship scores.

I didn't expect only plus signs, but I was hoping for a higher ratio.

Possible explanations:

1. It takes time for the new budget to take effect.
2. Some of this is due to spring training "rust" or other offseason effects.
3. It's normal for there to be a lot of red minuses even when you are doing everything right. (What's a typical ratio?)
4. Bad luck (but this seemed to happen with the last report too.)

"Just shut up and get back to work" is a valid response.

In addition to this, I've noticed a couple of veterans I invited to ST getting absolutely nailed. Okay fine, he's 37, but almost 20 minus signs during the off season? It seems excessive.

Do most of you folks change the aging factors or just accept that this is how it is?

Thanks.

[Bub13]

Not sure of the mechanics behind it, but the March 1 report has always been one of the "grin and bear it" reports during the year. There's another one too that I'm blanking on, but most of the rest are the usual mix of pluses and minuses.

[bigd51]

If it's the March 1st report, here's what I believe what's happening...

Sept. 1st is Roster Expansion. If you call anyone up from your MiL system to your main roster during this time, they stay on your main roster until Opening Day of the following season. Therefor, if you call people up to the main roster for roster expansion, the AI will call up players to fill out your MiL rosters to compensate. Everyone on your 40 man roster is automatically called up to the main roster for Spring Training, as well.

I'm guessing you're seeing a lot of those red arrows on your Short A/Single A/Advanced A teams. If so, it's because players were moved up from those to fill out your AA and AAA teams after you called up players for roster expansion and Spring Training... and to replace the players called up to AA and AAA from your Single A teams, the AI calls up guys from your rookie teams to fill out your Single A rosters. Therefor, most of these guys called up will be "overmatched" in Single A...

But... once you demote guys from your Spring Training roster back to your AA and AAA teams, the AI will demote players back to your rookie teams.

Bottom line... don't worry about red arrows until the AI fills out your MiL system after setting your 25 man roster for Opening Day. If you're still seeing a ton of red arrows after setting your 25 man roster on Opening Day, then you may have an issue of not enough MiL "fillers".

Oh, and "just shut up and get back to work"

[Qeltar]

Okay, it's April 19, and feeling impatient to see how my guys were doing, I asked for a full rescouting.

Results: 102 green + signs, 214 red - signs.

I have dedicated an outrageous amount of money to player development. More than quadrupled it from last year, even though I couldn't really afford it -- it's 25% of my entire annual budget.

I hunted for the best coaches I could find, ones that work well with young talent and have the best possible relationships with every team, up and down the farm system, money no object.

I watch players to try to only play them where they fit, give them playing time, and avoid them getting shellacked.

And still, it feels like everything I have spent countless hours working so hard for is going straight down the toilet.

Is this normal? Because there's nothing more discouraging than seeing a report like that, and it's not the first one.

If my best efforts still result in my players regressing twice as fast as they advance -- and this is nearly entirely a young franchise -- I don't know why I am bothering with this.

I was sure I read other people saying they get a ratio of 2 + to 1 -, not 2 - to 1 +. What am I doing wrong?

[Shoeless' Socks]

I get that I tend: curmudgeon, but it feels like a miracle when you 'develop' a player on '19. Player development is just... weak. It's a crap shoot. Even more than RL, IMO.

[Shoeless' Socks]

I think one of the problems is that the coaches which in miLB on '19 are almost all 'poor', etc. have TOO much effect on whether players develop. I get that it should have some effect, but it seems too much.

It's just VERY VERY hard to develop even replacement level MLB players. Too hard.

[Qeltar]

Thanks for that, I appreciate it.

I dunno. Is it just a manifestation of "most players don't work out or there'd be all-stars on every team at every position"?

Do I just suck?

Bad luck?

I dunno. I have put a lot of time and effort into this and it's seems like it doesn't even matter. The AI seems to have a lot less trouble with it than I do.

Edited, I'm being too negative about this. I do wish I knew why nearly every good-looking guy I draft or trade for ends up petering out though...

[malor]

If it is only April 19, most of your minor leagues have not even started their schedules yet. Why would you expect players to develop if they have not played a game yet. They are still rusty from not playing for 6+ months.

Wait a full season and see how it looks.

Also keep in mind, most players will be duds. If you get two players from a 40 round draft to make it to the majors, your doing very well.

[Qeltar]

I don't understand how the offseason / "rust" thing works though. Because I had some guys advancing in the winter and some regressing. Why would that happen when they aren't playing at all?

Here too some things are up and some are down, just seems like much more are down.

Most of my better prospects have been active for about a week and a half. I moved everyone who wouldn't be overmatched into A/A+/AA/AAA until I reshuffle after the amateur draft.

Even though this game often frustrates me, I just love it too much to stop playing. I guess I'm an addict. I'm going to stop spending so much time trade hunting and just play through a few weeks of the season. Maybe you're right and things will improve.

In fairness, I DID have a couple of players last year who developed nicely, including one who kind of developed out of nowhere. Maybe it just is what you said... most guys are going to be duds.

Thanks for putting up with my whining!

[Hemi425HP]

There are more than 1000 players drafted every year. Somewhere between 230-250 players debut in the Majors each year, many of whom are there for a "cup of coffee." Meaning 80+% of your MiLB system is not going to develop into MLB players. Spending big is only going to push the dial by a couple of percent. Worthwhile for teams with deep pockets but probably not for low budget teams.

[Qeltar]

Is that what others have experienced as well?

I thought as a rebuilding team I should spend as much on development as possible.

If spending $28m (this year) yields almost no appreciable difference from spending $6m (last year) then that's pretty disappointing. It shouldn't create miracles, but if I am investing a lot in this aspect of things I'd hope for a real tangible benefit.

It also seemed to be more like what a rebuilding team should do. But maybe I need to cut back and spend more on FAs or something.

[Qeltar]

Waited until the end of April.

For just my MLB guys: 5 pluses and 25 minuses. These players have been active for 2 months including ST.

Virtually everyone at AAA also got slaughtered and several of those were in ST.

It's not rust. I guess it's just bad luck.

The value of my team has just been seriously diminished, unfortunately. Going to be nearly impossible to trade for anything now. Going to have to regroup I guess.

[malor]

I assume you mean the red arrows on the monthly development reports. If yes, just think of them as estimates. You scout is making evaluations constantly. Behind the scenes, OOTP is doing it's random development calculations. Some months, you win, some months you lose. Over time, the more you spend and the better coaches you have, the more likely the better players will emerge and be promoted through the minors and eventually make the majors. This is not a one-year process, it is a 3-5 year journey for a few players, with most failing and topping off to be minor league roster fillers for the best of the rest. The worst should be cut each year to make room for a new year of draftees, international complex promotions and maybe a few free agent signees you think may have a chance or fill a need for your organization.

If you sweat each and every up/down for each player, your going to have one continuous headache. Just place your players at the minor league level that best matches their current scouted potential, stats, age, pro-experience and let them play a few months. Check the stats once a month for your minor league teams, move the players that are crushing their level up, move those that are really struggling down. The others stay put to fill out the rosters. At some point, after doing this enough times, you will be able to spot the better players sooner and promote them sooner.

While it may be possible, I don't think you will ever know right away you have a future star. The game simply does not allow you to know positively how a player will develop unless you cheat and use the editor. Even than, the randomness of the development engine may change that. I've had many 1st round busts and many more other players in the later rounds develop to at least last for a few years in the majors as a bench player. All the rest of the draft classes last about 3 years and are released.

This is the life of a baseball player and the GM that manages the organization. It is what makes OOTP the best baseball simulation that is available.

I hope this helps. The only thing you are doing wrong is looking to closely at numbers that really don't mean much until you have enough history to see the developing patterns.

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by Qeltar

Is that what others have experienced as well?

I thought as a rebuilding team I should spend as much on development as possible.

If spending $28m (this year) yields almost no appreciable difference from spending $6m (last year) then that's pretty disappointing. It shouldn't create miracles, but if I am investing a lot in this aspect of things I'd hope for a real tangible benefit.

It also seemed to be more like what a rebuilding team should do. But maybe I need to cut back and spend more on FAs or something.

I find myself thinking about a few teams I pay some attention to who are in the midst of rebuilding this year (IRL, I mean): the Detroit Tigers and the Chicago White Sox. And what I see both of those teams doing at present is stockpiling as many young prospects as possible at multiple levels of their organization, pushing some youngsters into major league service (perhaps even a bit prematurely) while also holding onto a few veterans (whether out of choice or lack thereof). But it seems to me that this stockpiling of young talent is exactly because of the knowledge that likely just a small handful of them end of having basic major league talent, and at best 1-2 are legitimate major league starters (and if they are really lucky and chose well, maybe even stars). And even then, these kinds of results often don't become clear until about 3 years into a rebuild (again, IRL, I mean.)
So, none of this seems out of line with reality to me. As far as OOTP gaming strategies go, well, I am not one of the more experienced here, but in my short time playing the game I have found things like minor league coaching and development budgets to be important, but only as a small part of the much larger package. I tend to think that a balanced approach is best. And with a rebuilding team that has a small budget, I wouldn't pour too much of my money into development. I wouldn't ignore it completely either; wouldn't starve it of resources. Each situation requires different calculations. But also measured expectations. And the very best prospects are likely to flourish in spite of less than stellar minor league coaching or an organization not capable of pouring vast sums of money into development.

I think an approach emphasizing developing young talent is a sound one for a rebuilding team. But again, with cautious optimism regarding their development. And once you see signs of that paying off, I would advise some modest FA spending as well. And judicious trading. And best case scenario, you end up with more young talent than you need and you can parlay some of that into advantageous trades as well.

[Mat]

Originally Posted by malor

I assume you mean the red arrows on the monthly development reports. If yes, just think of them as estimates. You scout is making evaluations constantly. Behind the scenes, OOTP is doing it's random development calculations. Some months, you win, some months you lose. Over time, the more you spend and the better coaches you have, the more likely the better players will emerge and be promoted through the minors and eventually make the majors. This is not a one-year process, it is a 3-5 year journey for a few players, with most failing and topping off to be minor league roster fillers for the best of the rest. The worst should be cut each year to make room for a new year of draftees, international complex promotions and maybe a few free agent signees you think may have a chance or fill a need for your organization.

I can only re-iterate what malor has typed.

Read his post, and then again!

[Qeltar]

Thanks so much for the helpful replies. Really appreciate them.

Yesterday was kind of a bad day in general and then I saw that report and I was like "even my fake life isn't going well right now!" So I guess I overreacted a bit. This is a great community.

Originally Posted by malor

The only thing you are doing wrong is looking to closely at numbers that really don't mean much until you have enough history to see the developing patterns.

So basically... I am acting like someone trying to lose weight who steps on the scale every morning and reacts to the number. Which is why they tell people not to weigh themselves daily.

Alright, I will try to regain some perspective here and keep an eye on the big picture.

Originally Posted by BirdWatcher

I find myself thinking about a few teams I pay some attention to who are in the midst of rebuilding this year (IRL, I mean): the Detroit Tigers and the Chicago White Sox. And what I see both of those teams doing at present is stockpiling as many young prospects as possible at multiple levels of their organization, pushing some youngsters into major league service (perhaps even a bit prematurely) while also holding onto a few veterans (whether out of choice or lack thereof). But it seems to me that this stockpiling of young talent is exactly because of the knowledge that likely just a small handful of them end of having basic major league talent, and at best 1-2 are legitimate major league starters (and if they are really lucky and chose well, maybe even stars). And even then, these kinds of results often don't become clear until about 3 years into a rebuild (again, IRL, I mean.)

This all makes sense and is in fact what I'm trying to do. The stockpiling is in fact going well. This is probably best reflected in my AAA and AA teams.

Last year my AAA team went 47-91. This year they have started out 17-2. Obviously that's a streak and they'll cool off, but the talent level is completely different.

AA last year was 67-73. So far this year 12-7.

The thing is that I have mostly "average to above average" talent considered in the MLB context and it is difficult to "combine" guys through trades because the AI also knows that three 2* guys are not worth one 4* guy.

I think the crux of the problem is that I get too attached to players I draft and trade for, and when they don't pan out it's like my kid brought home a D from school or something. I also am afraid to trade away anyone decent because of the very issue being discussed here, not knowing which will be the hidden gem. I already gave away a top 10 prospect last year.

I just need to be more accepting of the "90% flame out" laws of baseball and keep looking for those diamonds in the rough.

PS What's a reasonable spend on development? I think my 28m (on a 112m budget) was probably overkill. OTOH, if spending less means the reports get even worse than they are now.. lol.

[Qeltar]

Another thought occurred to me -- I also increased my scouting budget this year. Maybe I am seeing adjustments due to many of these guys having been incorrectly overrated in the past. Of course there's no way to separate out legitimate changes in players from scouting error.

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by Hemi425HP

There are more than 1000 players drafted every year. Somewhere between 230-250 players debut in the Majors each year, many of whom are there for a "cup of coffee." Meaning 80+% of your MiLB system is not going to develop into MLB players. Spending big is only going to push the dial by a couple of percent. Worthwhile for teams with deep pockets but probably not for low budget teams.

This doesn't include all the international/amateur FA signings; I recall a reputable study (Beyond the Box Score?) concluding the general average chance was about 10% over all players. And that or another study concluded first round picks have a much higher chance because their team doesn't want to give up on them and other teams will more often take a chance on them, so the real average for non 1st rounders is likely well below 10% to reach the majors for a game.

Anyway, here again you can tailor your game. I turn down the Talent Change Randomness mod because I think this feature is way too random (especially given the ferocious injury engine). Also, you can get these reports less often, so you don't obsess about it.

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by Qeltar

Thanks so much for the helpful replies. Really appreciate them.



PS What's a reasonable spend on development? I think my 28m (on a 112m budget) was probably overkill. OTOH, if spending less means the reports get even worse than they are now.. lol.

I wish I had a good answer for this question. I tend to be a more intuitive, not always fully rational, person. So I play these things by ear. There are so many factors to consider that I really just think one makes a best guess after factoring in other budgetary concerns. And that trial and error is a great teacher in this game (as in life.) My sense is, all other things being equal and if you have the budgetary room, it would be good to spend above the league average for sure. But how much above is an open question. My sense is that large changes in the development budget might only lead to small rewards. But small rewards can be important too- especially if we are talking about 1-2 players who develop to be key members of your big league club, even if only on the bench or back-end of rotation or middle relief, who otherwise might not have made it.

My overall advice is similar to what so many have said here: Try, Fail, Learn, Do Better, Rinse, Repeat.

[malor]

Originally Posted by Qeltar

Another thought occurred to me -- I also increased my scouting budget this year. Maybe I am seeing adjustments due to many of these guys having been incorrectly overrated in the past. Of course there's no way to separate out legitimate changes in players from scouting error.

This is what you are seeing. Somewhere in the forums, some time ago it was stated that Development Budget is a long term investment, the more your invest over the long term, the more return you will see. That will not generate 10 extras players a year that are major league ready, probably only one or two more.

If you draft well and trade vets for good prospects, eventually your organization will be strong again and more players make your major league team. Of course, you can go another route, gut the development budget and instead spend the money on FA and build your team that way. Each person on this forum plays differently so there is no right or wrong, just the fun you have getting there and seeing success or learning from failures.


As someone above said, the monthly scouting reports can be generate monthly. I only look at the results when I need to view a players scouting results to evaluate trades or possible promotion. As I said above, the development engine is a long term dynamic, month to month changes are mostly just fog of war. Over a period of time, you will start see the graph line numbers start to point up or down consistently. At that point, you have enough info to decide if a player is going to be your next star.


Something that has also not been mentioned is your scout type. Look in the manual for the five(?) types of scouts available. Hire the one that matches your GM/Manager style of play and continue to hire the same type in the future. Changes scout types will cause all of the previous scouting to go crazy, because one scouts like is anothers dislike. That does not mean a player is bad, just that your scout does not like him. I like to watch the OSA scouts numbers when reviewing players for trades. They stay more neutral and tend to match the AI style. Your highly rated star may be junk to them and their junk may be your star. You can pick up a lot a young FA throughout the year this way as teams release players and use them as the extra player in a trade. The AI will love them and you only signed them to fill up your minors and provide another body during the trade.

When players are Rule 5 draft ready at the end of the year, if you have no plans to use them at your major league level, start trading them for younger talent that has a few more years until they are Rule 5 ready. Churn is good. You never know what you may find out there. Even your older junk for their younger junk keeps your organization fresh and you will lose less players to the Rule 5 draft without receiving any value back.


Another thing when rebuilding. Don't be afraid to trade your promising young start for 2-3 other promising young stars if the deal is right. If your organization is getting stronger that is the goal.

In the minors, I don't really care whether my teams win or lose. I care whether the next major leaguer is getting ready to move up and make his debut. Winning does help, but one star on a team of scrubs still needs to be managed well by the GM to make the majors.


I'm glad you are taking some of our advice. I don't want to change your style of play. I'm just letting you know how I do things based on what I've learned through 3 versions and 50+ season in various leagues. I normally play the Cubs, so money is not an option. But a few times while waiting for a new version to release, I simmed five seasons and took over the worst team for a few seasons. I cut the DEV budget, scouting and other things to just be able to field a team. As my record improved, so did finances and thus, those budget items were increased. Again, winning is a long-term adventure.