Best Settings for current MLB

[itsmb8]

Does anyone have any full recommendations for a current MLB league with all leagues added? I mean all global settings, financials, PCMs, the whole 9 yards. I can add what I was going to use if anyone is wondering.

[22tbrads22]

Ive ran 3 25 plus year sims on this years game and honestly the base settings for financials are very good in this years game. about 7-10 years in I started messing with some league rules like expansion, and I set up the playoffs to be more like the NFL where your seeded based on AL and NL not on divisions.

[22tbrads22]

as for global settings I prefer to have stars and the 20-80 scale bc I believe it makes it much more difficult to tell what players are better when you only have the 20-80 scale compared to the 1-100 etc.

[Romagoth]

I also prefer the 20-80 scale but don't use stars at all. Additionally, I change some of the financials; for example:

• Inflation is set to 0%-2%
• National Media Contract based upon market size
• Change names of some of the awards (i.e., Gold Glove, Silver Slugger, Rolaids Relief Man, etc.)
• Change the date of Rule 5 and Amateur Draft to be closer to the real dates

There's probably some other minor changes I make, but can't remember them at the moment.

[itsmb8]

Any opinions on non mlb PCMs and things like aging, development, tcr? I was gonna use a .310/1.3/200 sort of like what Spanish lefty suggests, but don't wanna just jump right in.

[jabail]

I've got a similar question. With the defaults settings and modifiers, I'm getting ERAs that are too high. Mostly in the AL. Instead of it being between 4.20 and 4.40, it's usually in the 4.70s. Best I can tell, the league is hitting too many homeruns. The modifiers are based on 2016 totals, but the total homeruns hit is way higher than the number in the modifiers. Anyone else having this issue, and what can I do about it? I don't have the data in front of me but I've done several sims and compared all kinds of numbers to real life 2016 and 2017

[itsmb8]

Originally Posted by jabail

I've got a similar question. With the defaults settings and modifiers, I'm getting ERAs that are too high. Mostly in the AL. Instead of it being between 4.20 and 4.40, it's usually in the 4.70s. Best I can tell, the league is hitting too many homeruns. The modifiers are based on 2016 totals, but the total homeruns hit is way higher than the number in the modifiers. Anyone else having this issue, and what can I do about it? I don't have the data in front of me but I've done several sims and compared all kinds of numbers to real life 2016 and 2017

One thing that might be good to try, is maybe input the league stat totals from the season just played IRL and autocalc? That way the stat modifiers are based off 2017 IRL and it becomes essentially a replay the first season.

[jabail]

Originally Posted by itsmb8

One thing that might be good to try, is maybe input the league stat totals from the season just played IRL and autocalc? That way the stat modifiers are based off 2017 IRL and it becomes essentially a replay the first season.

Yeah I thought about that. What I ended up trying to do was fiddle with the modifier number and came up with 1.24 And that got pretty close, but I'll try your suggestion too. As for your question, if you haven't seen it all ready, the settings thread has some suggestions in it.
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=275395

It's an annual thread so you can search for the older versions threads too, and see if there's anything you'd want to try. Default settings are pretty good though, compared to recent years.

[itsmb8]

Originally Posted by jabail

Yeah I thought about that. What I ended up trying to do was fiddle with the modifier number and came up with 1.24 And that got pretty close, but I'll try your suggestion too. As for your question, if you haven't seen it all ready, the settings thread has some suggestions in it.
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=275395

It's an annual thread so you can search for the older versions threads too, and see if there's anything you'd want to try. Default settings are pretty good though, compared to recent years.

Yeah, Ive definitely looked at that thread quite a bit. Ive just seen so many different suggestions that I end up changing so many settings and get really far off from default..

I guess my best bet would just be to test it and see.

[itsmb8]

Here are all the settings I have questions on and would like advice/recommendations on:

Global Settings
Scouting Reports: B-Monthly?
Accuracy: Very Low?
The three player rating boxes: which ones?

Global Player Settings
Injuries: High?
Injury Ratings: Shown/Hidden?
All Personality Boxes?
Aging/Development: .310/1.2?
TCR: 150/200?
Stat Splits: Keep all?

AI Settings
All of them?

MLB Settings
Draft Rounds? (Im using indep. leagues as well)
Trade Frequency?
Specific Financial Adjustments? I have 1-3 inflation
Any evolution settings? Might turn on for expansion after 2018.

I have on only international amateur and scouting discoveries (international leagues on)

Using PSUColonel MiLB roster limits

International/Indep. League Settings
Traditional of Sabermetric PCM adjustments?
Financial or other setting adjustments?


That all should be it. Im leaving the WBC and AFL settings on default.

[NoOne]

all personal opinions, except # of draft rounds should be relative to duplicate layers of MiL system (# of R leagues, for example, not # of teams) and the rules restricting who is eligible at each level. provid emore than enough is better than providing just enough.

try to implement things one at a time when you deviate from default. the more related things are the better off you are changing 1 at a time.

aging/development is accurate at default... group-think in forums says differently. i trust their research over some 'feelings' any day of the week and twice on sunday. if you want them in the mlb at a younger age, you increase development etc.. fit settings to wants.

scouting -- info is power, more info means better decisions.. .applies to frequency and accuracy settings.

whether you want ratings relative to mlb or position is a bit of opinion. what's not opinion is that making things relative clouds the picture and the ratigns mean somethign slightly differetn every time you look at them -- objectively more difficult for you to learn / predict etc based on that info. (small differences, but still differences)

there are benefits too making ratings relative... learning curve probably isn't as steep for mil promotions, for example, but still not as precise nor as good as you can get with a good memory and experience while using more consistent/precise info.

RP look alot better with relative to position... this is the one thing i do use, now... only because they changed how it worked in last couple years, lol. begrudgingly, i might add! wihtout it, there's a very few well-rated rp and the rest are 30-50 or lower out of 80. not much inbetween.

when it comes to alot of these settings, thnk about how it affects teh AI and the game world more than how it affects you. you will adapt much more easily than the ai.

increasing inaccuracy, for example, will spread success out more. it's making "luck" a larger portion of the equation for success. this is somethign that affects you the same as the AI. (it probably hurts the ai more than you when you lower accuracy, but maybe you want to see talent later in the draft... i find "low" works well.. very low was just too much randomness in the draft for me to have fun.

TCR - 100% opinion, but it's going to have correlated outcomes, nonetheless.

Traditional / sabermetric -- will affect coaching sliders and lineup choices. with lineup choices, i think the biggest differnce is who bats 2nd... although other differences do exist.

finance tip that may work well -- resulting contracts are all about supply and demand... not just of players but of cash supply too. a salary cap, even if slightly above what any team can afford, may help rein in exorbitant salaries. i think the AI more tightly controls % of Hard Cap per player than if none exists.

e.g. i hav ebeen using ~250M, which only 4 teams can reach in my league, and rarely come near. ~30M is about is high as a yearly salary goes. in past i had very similar finance settings and 35-40 was a typical high-water mark. the only difference being a hard cap, now ... and it doesn't affect team's max spending at all. Anyway, this may be a very easy way to control a poorly setup financial enviroment... otherwise, stick to default settings if oyu don't like economics *Always use a max cash on hand cap.. defualt 10M works fine or extensions will get out of hand expensive.

bottom line:
don't let what a feeling about a setting trump what actually happens in game. another reason to try to change 1 or few things at a time...more clearly see what results from that change.

if you get frustrated by it, try to arbitrarily pick out a set and stick iwth it... after a while look back on it and plan out 1-2 changes for next game world... don't bite off too much, don't overthink it... it's mostly opinion, so find somethign you like.

[itsmb8]

Originally Posted by NoOne

all personal opinions, except # of draft rounds should be relative to duplicate layers of MiL system (# of R leagues, for example, not # of teams) and the rules restricting who is eligible at each level. provid emore than enough is better than providing just enough.

try to implement things one at a time when you deviate from default. the more related things are the better off you are changing 1 at a time.

aging/development is accurate at default... group-think in forums says differently. i trust their research over some 'feelings' any day of the week and twice on sunday. if you want them in the mlb at a younger age, you increase development etc.. fit settings to wants.

scouting -- info is power, more info means better decisions.. .applies to frequency and accuracy settings.

whether you want ratings relative to mlb or position is a bit of opinion. what's not opinion is that making things relative clouds the picture and the ratigns mean somethign slightly differetn every time you look at them -- objectively more difficult for you to learn / predict etc based on that info. (small differences, but still differences)

there are benefits too making ratings relative... learning curve probably isn't as steep for mil promotions, for example, but still not as precise nor as good as you can get with a good memory and experience while using more consistent/precise info.

RP look alot better with relative to position... this is the one thing i do use, now... only because they changed how it worked in last couple years, lol. begrudgingly, i might add! wihtout it, there's a very few well-rated rp and the rest are 30-50 or lower out of 80. not much inbetween.

when it comes to alot of these settings, thnk about how it affects teh AI and the game world more than how it affects you. you will adapt much more easily than the ai.

increasing inaccuracy, for example, will spread success out more. it's making "luck" a larger portion of the equation for success. this is somethign that affects you the same as the AI. (it probably hurts the ai more than you when you lower accuracy, but maybe you want to see talent later in the draft... i find "low" works well.. very low was just too much randomness in the draft for me to have fun.

TCR - 100% opinion, but it's going to have correlated outcomes, nonetheless.

Traditional / sabermetric -- will affect coaching sliders and lineup choices. with lineup choices, i think the biggest differnce is who bats 2nd... although other differences do exist.

finance tip that may work well -- resulting contracts are all about supply and demand... not just of players but of cash supply too. a salary cap, even if slightly above what any team can afford, may help rein in exorbitant salaries. i think the AI more tightly controls % of Hard Cap per player than if none exists.

e.g. i hav ebeen using ~250M, which only 4 teams can reach in my league, and rarely come near. ~30M is about is high as a yearly salary goes. in past i had very similar finance settings and 35-40 was a typical high-water mark. the only difference being a hard cap, now ... and it doesn't affect team's max spending at all. Anyway, this may be a very easy way to control a poorly setup financial enviroment... otherwise, stick to default settings if oyu don't like economics *Always use a max cash on hand cap.. defualt 10M works fine or extensions will get out of hand expensive.

bottom line:
don't let what a feeling about a setting trump what actually happens in game. another reason to try to change 1 or few things at a time...more clearly see what results from that change.

if you get frustrated by it, try to arbitrarily pick out a set and stick iwth it... after a while look back on it and plan out 1-2 changes for next game world... don't bite off too much, don't overthink it... it's mostly opinion, so find somethign you like.

Always appreciate your knowledge, NoOne, and thanks for sharing that info. I think ill stick to defaults with minor changes that I know should work well.

EDIT: One more thing, when editing PCMs for independents and international leagues, should i change the traditional or sabermetric PCMs?

[NoOne]

fast: stick to traditional for that type of change... sabermetric pcm's affect different things

sabermetric affects when you use "fill league" or fill-team-like functions with fictional players etc etc. players created specifically for that level and not draftees or international amatuers etc. you are inserting them 'upstream' instead of at creation, so they try to match level's ability as defined by the sabermetric values relative to MLB values...

(in this case relative to "1.000" makes for easy math too. pcm of .500 at that level and players will be ~1/2 quality of MLB, that doesn't preclude good mlb players, but probably makes them extremely rare or virtually unlikely at some point)

i think the sabermetric PCM affects development - as far as optimal placement for development relative to current ability divided by potential ability? check manual... if nothign specific that's a forum thought, but still possible. it is a guess as the the specifics, nonetheless.

PCM's i'd leave alone unless you want to make that league ~equivalent to something else etc etc.. if it's just a whim, leave them is what i mean.

MLB pcm controlls all affiliated ones... controls all the fictioanlyl created players each year for that league's draft/amatuer FA etc if settings have those other things on. so, don't change any mil stuff PCMs. shouldnt' have any effect or worse a negative one.

the independent league pcm are different animal -- no affiliation. if you want better players from there, increase PCM. just personal preferences here.

Relative to "1" league PCMs will change what you see, but not necessarily league-wide stats -- unless you leave LTM untouched etc. if you click "auto-calc" LTM, the new "average" will simply shift one way or another due to your new PCM... and the stats willbe re-callibrated.

in the case of a seperate league from your mlb, like the Independent league, it will help provide better rated players that can be viable for other leagues. but, if the stats in that league should remain tied to LTM if auto-calced.

at some point distribution will likely get a little whonky if you increase it too much or reduce it too much... if everyone is 80/80 accross the board, that's no different than all players being "20" and callibrating LTM... same results will occur because all are equal ability... jsut at a different #. players will differ, but %'s of various results are the same.

e..g increase pcm increase average for that rating in that league... if LTM/LT remain unchanged, it will cause a shift in statistics... if you auto-calc, it's jsut more asthetic in nature *not all asthetic* .. "60" is now the new "50" etc... if it affects distribution in an odd way, it will cause different results for individuals, but LTs will stil be the baseline for the league.