Out Of Park 15-- too easy? or am I doing things that I shouldn't be doing

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

On Very Hard?

As far as very hard...yes, always use it. It's better to give the AI bonues than to take advantage of it.

[gigispeed1332]

Hmm some interesting thoughts, well either way I feel like a player that can win back to back cy youngs and went 20-4 in AAA with a 1.7 era or a guy who hit 45 homers 130 rbi and batted .300 should not be available in the Rule 5 draft, both were 5 star guys/5 star potential.

I just feel like there has to be a way to fix this through the settings and I did not see a definite answer regarding that, grr, making the minor league rosters hold more players won't affect players who don't make the majors and get drafted in the rule 5 draft (atleast I don't see how it would). I also should note I am playing with the ratings being affected by in game stats not historical stats, that would be the only way to play a historical franchise! Must change history!

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Who was the original guy?

M Dei.

[jaysdailydose]

Honorable Pawn:

The only thing is, I think Markus has accounted for a lot of the permutations behind putting in a "Favor" setting at all.

It's definitely a "to each his own" setting, though. I just feels it ups the difficulty and I have a much harder time trading for youth once I slide it to at least "Favor Prospects."

I would be receptive to more data, but its going to be hard to put together significant data because it takes significant amounts of gameplay because these situations are going to be contextual to the flow of each individual season.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

M Dei.

He told me that somebody else came up with it!

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

He told me that somebody else came up with it!

That very may well be, but that's the first poster I got it off of, and I've searched back a long damn way for stats only info in the archives.

It's honestly amazing to see how far this game has developed over the years. I don't remember what happened to him why we never see him around anymore, though, I'll admit.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

That very may well be, but that's the first poster I got it off of, and I've searched back a long damn way for stats only info in the archives.

It's honestly amazing to see how far this game has developed over the years. I don't remember what happened to him why we never see him around anymore, though, I'll admit.

He got really angry at the mods here and left. I'll ask him who the original guy was tomorrow.

[Hooray Saturday]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

I use the 20-80 but I have 0/67/22/11 as my evaluation settings, and evaluate across the entire league instead of by positions.

what settings would you recommend in the inaugural year of a fictional league? I'm in mid-May. currently I've been using 35/25/25/15. But there's no previous year stats or 2 years ago stats. If I can see the ratings, shouldn't I let the AI look at the ratings? At least in the first year when there's no real statistical basis to evaluate on yet?

I don't want highly rated players who are slumping after one month to be benched or anything like that.

what would you guys suggest?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by gigispeed1332

Hmm some interesting thoughts, well either way I feel like a player that can win back to back cy youngs and went 20-4 in AAA with a 1.7 era or a guy who hit 45 homers 130 rbi and batted .300 should not be available in the Rule 5 draft, both were 5 star guys/5 star potential.

I just feel like there has to be a way to fix this through the settings and I did not see a definite answer regarding that, grr, making the minor league rosters hold more players won't affect players who don't make the majors and get drafted in the rule 5 draft (atleast I don't see how it would). I also should note I am playing with the ratings being affected by in game stats not historical stats, that would be the only way to play a historical franchise! Must change history!

You're right, they shouldn't be and in my experience they aren't. I've never seen any guys like that in the rule 5 draft in any of my games. So that leads me to wonder if there isn't something with your settings that's creating this issue? Did you change the 40 man roster size or something else like that?

[Roy Tucker]

I have an old school 8 team league (2 leagues total, 16 teams) set up with no wild cards. It is first place or nothing for a chance to go to the World Series. Just won 96 games and finished in third place and finished 14 games out of first.

I also play with injuries and a salary cap to add to the challenge.

[MMastro92]

This question is mainly directed at wolf and jaysdailydose. I want to try and change the evaluation settings so I changed over to that 0/67/22/11 that was recommended. In terms of the global settings, which boxes do you check? The one that says "overall ratings based on AI evaluation, not pure ratings", or the one that says "overall ratings based on all players, not positions". Thanks for the help, this is a good informative thread for increasing challenge.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by MMastro92

This question is mainly directed at wolf and jaysdailydose. I want to try and change the evaluation settings so I changed over to that 0/67/22/11 that was recommended. In terms of the global settings, which boxes do you check? The one that says "overall ratings based on AI evaluation, not pure ratings", or the one that says "overall ratings based on all players, not positions". Thanks for the help, this is a good informative thread for increasing challenge.

Both.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I have an old school 8 team league (2 leagues total, 16 teams) set up with no wild cards. It is first place or nothing for a chance to go to the World Series. Just won 96 games and finished in third place and finished 14 games out of first.

I also play with injuries and a salary cap to add to the challenge.

I'm doing the same kind of thing. fictional alternative MLB. 60 years history. I took over the worst team. 4 2nd and 3rd place finishes in history and the rest is 5th or lower. No championships or trips to the world series. Overbudget. Small market. Disloyal fans. No FA so all I have is trades and draft to build with. I'm hoping to build a contender within the next 5 years, or by 1968 so that when I expand the league we can start a "new chapter" in Detroit(my team).

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by Hooray Saturday

what settings would you recommend in the inaugural year of a fictional league? I'm in mid-May. currently I've been using 35/25/25/15. But there's no previous year stats or 2 years ago stats. If I can see the ratings, shouldn't I let the AI look at the ratings? At least in the first year when there's no real statistical basis to evaluate on yet?

I don't want highly rated players who are slumping after one month to be benched or anything like that.

what would you guys suggest?

0-67-22-11.

When you let scouts see the ratings behind the curtain, they become psychic. I do NOT use ratings in any evaluation category any longer, and never will again.

As far as not having stats -- I use feeders. Start the league 3-5 years before you want to play. Do your inaugural draft in the preseason of when you want to start. DON'T delete the history YET. Voila, you have 3-5 years of stats, and after your draft, you can delete and go from there.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by MMastro92

This question is mainly directed at wolf and jaysdailydose. I want to try and change the evaluation settings so I changed over to that 0/67/22/11 that was recommended. In terms of the global settings, which boxes do you check? The one that says "overall ratings based on AI evaluation, not pure ratings", or the one that says "overall ratings based on all players, not positions". Thanks for the help, this is a good informative thread for increasing challenge.

BOTH. I rate by all players, and overall ratings are based on evaluation, not pure ratings.

I've also found that rating by all players tends to help with all of the Rule 5 problems people seem to indicate.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

Both.

Thank you for responding, Matt -- I was a little late getting moving this morning, and do appreciate it.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

0-67-22-11.

When you let scouts see the ratings behind the curtain, they become psychic. I do NOT use ratings in any evaluation category any longer, and never will again.

0/44/33/23.

I don't like the idea of more 50% of the scouts opinions of a guy simply being based on his current year.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

Thank you for responding, Matt -- I was a little late getting moving this morning, and do appreciate it.

No worries. I try to help where I can. Plus my job is boring.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by megamanmatt

0/44/33/23.

I don't like the idea of more 50% of the scouts opinions of a guy simply being based on his current year.

I've used all combinations of numbers, the key is to not have anything on ratings, for me.

After that, you can choose how to rate the 3 years you have anyway you like.

I just don't like scouts being overly enthralled with what a guy did 2 seasons ago...

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

I've used all combinations of numbers, the key is to not have anything on ratings, for me.

After that, you can choose how to rate the 3 years you have anyway you like.

I just don't like scouts being overly enthralled with what a guy did 2 seasons ago...

I try to keep it so any combination of two years of scouting will be valued more than any one year alone, if that makes sense.

That said I have no real problem using ratings a bit as well, and have gone as high as 10% with them. I justify it because players are not totally scouted by statistics in reality. There are plenty of visual things scouts notice as well, such as how well a player physically swings the bat. Larger, more muscular guys are more likely to have more power. Stuff like that. Since we can't "watch" our players I consider ratings to be more of an evaluation on those terms. Still hardly ever have the AI eval on them though.