Minor League Hitting/Pitching Size + 6 Man Rotations?

[001beardown]

I typically keep my minor leagues at ~20 batters (no more than 3/position and all in the depth chart) and 14-15 pitchers with a 6 man rotation.

Goal is to get as many players action as possible and then tinker with it. If a player with low potential does poorly, I drop him and find someone else off the wire. Does anyone know if this is detrimental to keep 35 man rosters and to keep dropping/picking new players up and six man rotations or is it okay?

Appreciate the help!

[Hrycaj]

Originally Posted by 001beardown

I typically keep my minor leagues at ~20 batters (no more than 3/position and all in the depth chart) and 14-15 pitchers with a 6 man rotation.

Goal is to get as many players action as possible and then tinker with it. If a player with low potential does poorly, I drop him and find someone else off the wire. Does anyone know if this is detrimental to keep 35 man rosters and to keep dropping/picking new players up and six man rotations or is it okay?

Appreciate the help!

Other than you may be dumping guys early based on a small sample size I don’t think it really hurts anything. You say these players have low potential anyway so the odds you are cutting the next superstar because of a small sample size still probably works in your favor. 6 man rotations are great for 35 man rosters. I also use the pitch count option, I think I have mine set at 70 pitches for all starters at my lowest level. I don’t have any real evidence but I think it helps reduce injuries and it makes the ai use more of your arms. I also “force start as starting pitcher” all pitchers that I think can be starters. It’s a bit tedious to set at first but it really makes the ai slot the best guys in the rotation. Something they will not do if force start is not employed. I learned a lot of these tricks from other players in an online league I’m in. They seem to have helped with me developing pitchers. Hope this helps.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by 001beardown

Goal is to get as many players action as possible

This is absolutely the goal

With the caveat that you do want to try and identify a few key players and make sure they are getting sufficient playing time. But you want other players getting playing time too because sometimes they can surprise you.

I go through every week, and re-do my minor league lineups to start players at different positions and ensure everybody is getting playing time. It's a bit tedious, but it seems to work.

Hrycaj gave some good advice about the pitchers. I don't use 6 man rotations, but, maybe I should. I limit starters' innings by giving them pitch counts and moving them in and out of the rotation. I also target starters and avoid relievers especially in the low minors.

[Bobbyraz49]

Well....I'm in year 4 of my LAA team. I drafted a kid out of high school and he's been climbing the ladder. Fun to watch the progression. He MAY be my 1st. rookie of the year. I moved Trout to LF because I have Jo Adell in RF. During the exhibition season I kept moving Trout to LF. He started the season in left with a DEF rating of 30. He is now has a rating of 60 DEF in left. It's the first time that I have moved a star player to a different position. This sim is to good to be true. And these forums are the best around.

[ALB123]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I go through every week, and re-do my minor league lineups to start players at different positions and ensure everybody is getting playing time. It's a bit tedious, but it seems to work.

Hrycaj gave some good advice about the pitchers. I don't use 6 man rotations, but, maybe I should. I limit starters' innings by giving them pitch counts and moving them in and out of the rotation. I also target starters and avoid relievers especially in the low minors.

I do the same thing with my minor league teams. It is super tedious sometimes, but to me, it is well worth it.

One thing I need to get better at is sharing more innings among positional players who happen to have a really good/potentially great player playing at the same position as two average players in Rookie or Short-Season Class A leagues. Of course, I am most interested in developing the kid with a 3.5+ Star potential rating at 3B over the two other 2.0 & 2.5-Star POT third basemen, but I often neglect the 2.0 & 2.5 Star guys. Two years later when Mr. 3.5+ Star 3B is long gone and already backing up 3B in Double-A those other two 3B are in Class A or Class A+ and they barely make the grade...most likely because I crippled their development early on.

I have that conversation with myself every single season. Then, when I am rotating my players every 7 days or so, I convince myself to keep the 3+ or 3.5+ Star kid in the lineup for one more rotation. "Oh, he's only batting .210... I gotta keep him playing so he doesn't cool down too much." or "I need to give him more innings. He was just dropped from 3.5 Stars to 3.0 Stars!" I come up with some wild rationalizations.

Originally Posted by Bobbyraz49

Well....I'm in year 4 of my LAA team. I drafted a kid out of high school and he's been climbing the ladder. Fun to watch the progression. He MAY be my 1st. rookie of the year. I moved Trout to LF because I have Jo Adell in RF. During the exhibition season I kept moving Trout to LF. He started the season in left with a DEF rating of 30. He is now has a rating of 60 DEF in left. It's the first time that I have moved a star player to a different position. This sim is to good to be true. And these forums are the best around.

Great job!! In my opinion, you are doing a very wise thing by playing Trout in LF. There are many people in this forum who would say the same. Don't be afraid to play him in LF during the regular season. Especially if you have a decent enough replacement to play CF. If you have an outfielder who can only play one of the OF positions, you are doing your club a big disservice, in my opinion. It's easier to build up a good LF rating than a good CF rating in my experience. I have two excellent outfielders on my squad. They're both natural CF. Bernie Williams and Barry Bonds. Both have ratings of 85 for LF and 70 for CF. I rotate them every now and then.

[Hrycaj]

Originally Posted by ALB123

I do the same thing with my minor league teams. It is super tedious sometimes, but to me, it is well worth it.

One thing I need to get better at is sharing more innings among positional players who happen to have a really good/potentially great player playing at the same position as two average players in Rookie or Short-Season Class A leagues. Of course, I am most interested in developing the kid with a 3.5+ Star potential rating at 3B over the two other 2.0 & 2.5-Star POT third basemen, but I often neglect the 2.0 & 2.5 Star guys. Two years later when Mr. 3.5+ Star 3B is long gone and already backing up 3B in Double-A those other two 3B are in Class A or Class A+ and they barely make the grade...most likely because I crippled their development early on.

I have that conversation with myself every single season. Then, when I am rotating my players every 7 days or so, I convince myself to keep the 3+ or 3.5+ Star kid in the lineup for one more rotation. "Oh, he's only batting .210... I gotta keep him playing so he doesn't cool down too much." or "I need to give him more innings. He was just dropped from 3.5 Stars to 3.0 Stars!" I come up with some wild rationalizations.




Great job!! In my opinion, you are doing a very wise thing by playing Trout in LF. There are many people in this forum who would say the same. Don't be afraid to play him in LF during the regular season. Especially if you have a decent enough replacement to play CF. If you have an outfielder who can only play one of the OF positions, you are doing your club a big disservice, in my opinion. It's easier to build up a good LF rating than a good CF rating in my experience. I have two excellent outfielders on my squad. They're both natural CF. Bernie Williams and Barry Bonds. Both have ratings of 85 for LF and 70 for CF. I rotate them every now and then.

I was thinking about this yesterday so I’ll ask you and if CBiesbol wants to chime in as well that would be great. When you rotate positions with your players to get them that training have you ever found them unwilling to make that move? Most of my solo games are in Commish mode where I just watch things play out. However, I do have one save where I play out every game. I can’t remember in that save if a player was upset about being moved from say CF to LF or a pitcher from a starter to a reliever. Then I wonder if that should be part of the game if it isn’t. Maybe something connected to a players work ethic and attitude where some players are unwilling to learn a new position or if they are forced to they become clubhouse problems or demand trades or refuse to sign extensions and such.

[CBeisbol]

I have never noticed that, no

I, kinda, agree that players should be more, and, less willing to do it.

But there should also be a mechanism to explain why you want them to do it.

I suppose all that could be "wrapped" into the player personalities and manager ratings.

[ALB123]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

I was thinking about this yesterday so I’ll ask you and if CBiesbol wants to chime in as well that would be great. When you rotate positions with your players to get them that training have you ever found them unwilling to make that move? Most of my solo games are in Commish mode where I just watch things play out. However, I do have one save where I play out every game. I can’t remember in that save if a player was upset about being moved from say CF to LF or a pitcher from a starter to a reliever. Then I wonder if that should be part of the game if it isn’t. Maybe something connected to a players work ethic and attitude where some players are unwilling to learn a new position or if they are forced to they become clubhouse problems or demand trades or refuse to sign extensions and such.

I've never seen this occur in my organization. As stated, it would be a great addition if it were possible. It would have to depend on player's experience, playing level, personality, etc. For instance, if you tell a 19 year old kid in Rookie ball you'd rather see him at 2B than 3B and he gives attitude or whatever, odds are he won't be around much longer. I know that I wouldn't put up with that nonsense, if moving him soured him and caused him to become negative.

What would probably be a good compromise, is if personality traits were tied to having a player play out of position (unrated pos.). Like, players with Intelligence, good work ethic...maybe even high Morale, those players would pick up the new position happily and quicker than a player with a poor work ethic and other negative traits. He'll still learn the position and his rating will improve, it will just be slower than the first guy who has good work ethics & good team loyalty, or whatever combination of traits makes the most sense.

If you do ever try to make some of your existing players learn a second or a third position, let us know how the process was for you. Did it take all season or whatever. I'm interested in seeing how things like this workout for other ootp'ers.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by ALB123

I've never seen this occur in my organization. As stated, it would be a great addition if it were possible. It would have to depend on player's experience, playing level, personality, etc. For instance, if you tell a 19 year old kid in Rookie ball you'd rather see him at 2B than 3B and he gives attitude or whatever, odds are he won't be around much longer. I know that I wouldn't put up with that nonsense, if moving him soured him and caused him to become negative.

This is where /why I'd like to see interaction between players and management
"Player A indicates they would rather not move it 2B
How do you respond?
A) I said so, rook!
B) we feel this is your best chance to reach the majors
C) what are your concerns about moving to 2B?"
User chooses A
Team morale crashes lowering performance and player development.

What would probably be a good compromise, is if personality traits were tied to having a player play out of position (unrated pos.). Like, players with Intelligence, good work ethic...maybe even high Morale, those players would pick up the new position happily and quicker than a player with a poor work ethic and other negative traits. He'll still learn the position and his rating will improve, it will just be slower than the first guy who has good work ethics & good team loyalty, or whatever combination of traits makes the most sense.

If you do ever try to make some of your existing players learn a second or a third position, let us know how the process was for you. Did it take all season or whatever. I'm interested in seeing how things like this workout for other ootp'ers.

I believe that is the case

What the manual says

Work Ethic How strong the player's work ethic is. Players with a strong work ethic can have a positive effect on other players in the clubhouse, and can influence player development. They are also somewhat less prone to slumps. Players with poor work ethic are also more prone to drug suspensions.

It seems some players learn positions faster than others.
Note: I haven't collected data to say this is 100% true, but I would be absolutely shocked to find out otherwise

[gaseous clay]

I just started using a 4 man rotation in rookie & A ball with the mind that it gets the starters I most want to develop more starts. (Set all to a pitch count to keep them from wearing out.)

I'm also using stoppers at every level. Just about any decent reliever with any stamina & hold ability gets to be a stopper. They get LOTS of innings as stoppers.