Minor Leagues

Hi. I'm excited to get into this kind of forum. I have a bunch of questions about the minor leagues and the rest of the game that I'm thinking can only be answered by experience (or by asking the experienced), but I'll stick to just one question for now, but, if it's true, then many questions follow:

Does the way I promote players from A through AAA actually affect their rating progression or regression?

If so, how do people think it should work. Do you play anyone over a rating of 80 into AAA; do you do it more by their age; or by their performance (like, two great years in AA gets the guy the nod to AAA)?

(For example, the computer often puts terrible rookie draft picks [44/78] in AAA. I change this and manually put them into R ball, or at least A ball)

Also, can you have too many pitchers in your minors? My main gripe is that too many of my pitchers that were once 86/96 (or the like) in the minors, fell to 77/85 over the last two years. Is it because they were good enough to be in the majors and since I didn't promote them, they got worse? Or would they have gotten worse anyway because of a mostly pre-determined ratings arch. If it's because they wanted promoted and I didn't let them, then I'm angry because players' skills would not decrease this much just because they wish they were in the show. (another example, i got two great prospects from the A's and they both fell drastically, like from 69/96 to 44/81 in one year). If there's nothing I can do about this, then I'll stop fretting, know it's all up to chance, and just enjoy the game. If not, help!! please.

I've looked, but admittedly not very closely, yet, for threads on things like this. I would be extremely appreciative if this has already been discussed, if anyone could direct me to that thread.

thanks

Yeah, you do control how well your players progress in the minors. What is your funding for your Farm System and Scouting? The more you put for your Farm System, the better the odds your prospects will reach their peak. However, you want to have a good amount in your scouting too. Because the trade you had with the A's, where you thought you were getting 61/96 prospects, if you happened to have low scouting budget, you may have been misled about his potential. I don't think leaving a player in the minors for a year longer than they should hurts their ratings too much but I have noticed a point or two drop from their potential peak. I'm sure the more experienced guys on these forums will give a better explanation but thats what I have gathered in my years of playing Mogul.

hey, thanks for the comment. yeah, i meant to put that i make sure to be first in the league for scouting and go above and beyond the rest of league in farm system. the help section told me that there's no sense to go above other teams in scouting because it said that i'd already be getting the best scouts. (this reminds me of a post i just read where people were wondering about how long scouting would take to improve in real life when money was pumped in. anyway, it must be you just get the better scouts and not more scouts because the game tells us that you can't get better than just better than the other teams.) but, in farm system, i like to think that more money = better ratings - even though now i think i might be wrong.

anyway, i'll forget those A's guys as anomalies in my mind. but two other guys who i've had progress well for a couple years just went way down this year. they're both in their fifth year in the minors and beginning their second in AAA. are they mad because there are lower ranked pitchers in the majors do you think? they were the 86/96 that went to 81 and 77 (something like this).

Also, i noticed that in my offensive minors, if i have two or more say, first basemen, that they take each others at bats and so get less each over the year. first, does their production really matter? second, why can 5 relievers in AA each pick up 20 saves? then, does having too many pitchers in AAA matter or not, since they still rack up innings and appearances?

I don't think having more than one player at a position in the minors matters much, though. If it was happening with just one of your guys I would say maybe he just peaked early, but seeing that you have a few guys that are dropping a lot in a short time, I am at a loss. I do know that out of all my position players, a very few of them ever turn out to be rated exactly what their peak is. Those that do turn out to be as good as their "predicted", don't usually get the call up from me until they are 27 or 28. I don't do it intentionally but a lot of the time, my line up is decent enough that I don't need to call up any of my position players until they are at peak. Sorry, I know that doesn't help. However, as I type this I am playing a game with the Orioles. I drafted Benny Agbayani and he was at 81 predicted peak. I kept him in AA for three years and AAA for three years and now his peak is 92. At one point it had dropped to 76 and I contemplated trading him. So my suggestion would be to just let them hang in there and eventually they will reach their peaks. Sorry if this doesn't help, I do notice I tend to ramble.:D

ah, no, you help very much.

i think maybe i just got too worried too quickly. i finally have a good team and i hope to keep it that way by the minors. but if they were going to drop at young ages just because i didn't get them into the majors, i was going to trade my good prospects for a bunch of even younger ones. and i almost did last night. instead, i'll just give it a few more years and see if i'm just not overreacting.

i liked what you said here: "Those that do turn out to be as good as their "predicted", don't usually get the call up from me until they are 27 or 28."

because the guys i'm talking about are just 23 or so and if you usually let them stay until 27 or so without problems, that's good enough for me. i just very recently got the game, if you hadn't noticed. and so far i'm addicted =)

Welcome then. I'm newer to the forums but have played this game for as long as I can remember. It's the most addicting game I've ever played. Be sure to download patch 9.45 if you have not already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6leopard6

Does the way I promote players from A through AAA actually affect their rating progression or regression?

---

It can. I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but Clay once posted a "breakdown" of ratings by level. It goes something like this, although I could be off a bit:

AAA - 70+
AA - 65-69
A - 60-64
R - below 60

Quote:

---

If so, how do people think it should work. Do you play anyone over a rating of 80 into AAA; do you do it more by their age; or by their performance (like, two great years in AA gets the guy the nod to AAA)?

---

I use a mix of age, rating, and performance. Once a guy hits 25-26, I usually want to make sure he's in AAA, regardless. Or off my team. :P

Quote:

---

For example, the computer often puts terrible rookie draft picks [44/78] in AAA. I change this and manually put them into R ball, or at least A ball.

---

Yeah, what you do is probably best.

Quote:

---

Also, can you have too many pitchers in your minors?

---

Well, there's a maximum of 11 pitchers per level, making a maximum of 44 pitchers total in the minors. However, the amount of pitchers you have has no effect on a player's development. For hitters, if you have two players at the same position and the same level, that could affect development.

Quote:

---

My main gripe is that too many of my pitchers that were once 86/96 (or the like) in the minors, fell to 77/85 over the last two years. Is it because they were good enough to be in the majors and since I didn't promote them, they got worse?

---

This is because the game has randomness in it. If you think about real life examples, it's entirely realistic too. Mark Buerhle and Mike Piazza were low draft picks. Guys have one great year in the majors, and flame out. Etc.

Quote:

---

Or would they have gotten worse anyway because of a mostly pre-determined ratings arch.

---

It's not pre-determined. You could've saved prior to the rating drop, and simmed it over tons of times. One time, he'd reach 96. Another, he'd drop to 77/85. Another time, he'd reach 90 and top out there. The list of possibilities is endless.

Quote:

---

If it's because they wanted promoted and I didn't let them, then I'm angry because players' skills would not decrease this much just because they wish they were in the show.

---

I can assure you that that is not the case here.

Quote:

---

(another example, i got two great prospects from the A's and they both fell drastically, like from 69/96 to 44/81 in one year). If there's nothing I can do about this, then I'll stop fretting, know it's all up to chance, and just enjoy the game. If not, help!! please.

---

Well, it is all up to chance. BUT, there is something you can do about it. In the League Editor, you can raise the Draft Predictability. Raising it to 100% makes it so every player always reaches his listed peak at draft day, barring injury.

Quote:

---

hey, thanks for the comment. yeah, i meant to put that i make sure to be first in the league for scouting and go above and beyond the rest of league in farm system. the help section told me that there's no sense to go above other teams in scouting because it said that i'd already be getting the best scouts. (this reminds me of a post i just read where people were wondering about how long scouting would take to improve in real life when money was pumped in. anyway, it must be you just get the better scouts and not more scouts because the game tells us that you can't get better than just better than the other teams.) but, in farm system, i like to think that more money = better ratings - even though now i think i might be wrong.

---

More money in scouting and the farm system doesn't always mean better. The only thing that matters is your ranking compared to the rest of the league. If you're in first place, you'll be getting the best scouts and the best farm development. It doesn't matter how much more you spend than the second place team. Spending $1 million more is the equivelent of spending $100 million more than the second place team.

Quote:

---

Also, i noticed that in my offensive minors, if i have two or more say, first basemen, that they take each others at bats and so get less each over the year. first, does their production really matter?

---

I touched on this above. If the players are in the same level, their development will be hurt.

Quote:

---

second, why can 5 relievers in AA each pick up 20 saves? then, does having too many pitchers in AAA matter or not, since they still rack up innings and appearances?

---

It doesn't matter for pitchers.

awesome. thankyou houston. i knew i'd love this forum. i was hoping it was just randomness. i especially appreciate your point about a pitcher having a great year and then flaming out. while i don't understand how his stats would decrease so much, i now understand that for the computer to simulate a guy doing great one year and then bad the next, his stats would have to decrease to make that scenario more possible.

Ratings DEFINE future long term stats average so a 68 OR will over time never be better stats wise than an 88 but can occasionally have a better season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6leopard6

awesome. thankyou houston. i knew i'd love this forum. i was hoping it was just randomness. i especially appreciate your point about a pitcher having a great year and then flaming out. while i don't understand how his stats would decrease so much, i now understand that for the computer to simulate a guy doing great one year and then bad the next, his stats would have to decrease to make that scenario more possible.

---

I think you mean "ratings" rather than "stats", but nonetheless I get your point. Take a look at Russ Ortiz for a guy who fits the "dropping off the face of the earth" mold. He always had control problems, but he started his career as a fairly middle-of-the-road starter, then posted 3 good years from 2001-2003. 2004 marked the begin of his decline, but he still posted a respectable season. 2005 was bad. He completely lost the ability to strike people out, and for the first time in his career, walked mroe batters than he struck out, not to mention giving up more than a hit per inning for the first time since his rookie year. And 2006, as you all know, was completely disastrous. 0-8...8.14 ERA...a WHIP of 2.00...

yeah, that makes sense.

however, earlier, i heard people talking about age. particularly a pitcher's age. and experience as well. almost invaribly, when i promote a young pitcher to the majors, he'll stink it up for a couple seasons even. this makes sense in real life, but how does the computer make it work when the pitcher's ratings are so good? i guess there's a stat thing that we don't see that marks a guy for being able to make the jump easier than other guys?

and also, sometimes scouts say, 'just give him a year' or 'he has a future but not yet' or 'i'd like to see him with a few more years under his belt'

do you guys generally take that to mean the player wouldn't have success if you brought him up to the majors? or are the comments more or less irrelevent when it comes to promoting and actually meant to just say, 'this guy will improve'?

subnote: i'm just finishing Dorian Gray. i had no idea it would be so entertaining!

the previous reply was only in response to frenchredsox.

yeah, houston, had i had a few more minutes i was going to mention oliver perez as that kind of guy. changing his windup and mechanics dropped his fastball from 99 to 91. so crazy things like that happen. and to make it more likely to happen, we get the decrease in RATINGS (hah, thanks).

and i forgot, but thanks for info on farm system spending. should save me some otherwise wasted money.

just a thought for next year maybe (unless i missed it), it would be nice to be able to tell individual players how much you want them to steal, instead of setting it as a team strategy. maybe it would be too much hassle for a minor thing, but i hate my 23 sb/19cs guys. -you've lost it old man, quit trying to take second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6leopard6

however, earlier, i heard people talking about age. particularly a pitcher's age. and experience as well. almost invaribly, when i promote a young pitcher to the majors, he'll stink it up for a couple seasons even. this makes sense in real life, but how does the computer make it work when the pitcher's ratings are so good? i guess there's a stat thing that we don't see that marks a guy for being able to make the jump easier than other guys?

---

That happens with every type of player, not just pitcher's. I assume the game uses a player's "experience" (a value you can set in the player editor) in conjuction with the player's ratings. Experience is just the number of years played. There's times when rookies do really well though, so it's not a give-in that a rookie will do bad.

Quote:

---

do you guys generally take that to mean the player wouldn't have success if you brought him up to the majors? or are the comments more or less irrelevent when it comes to promoting and actually meant to just say, 'this guy will improve'?

---

I haven't looked into that enough to comment. Interesting point though.

Quote:

---

just a thought for next year maybe (unless i missed it), it would be nice to be able to tell individual players how much you want them to steal, instead of setting it as a team strategy. maybe it would be too much hassle for a minor thing, but i hate my 23 sb/19cs guys. -you've lost it old man, quit trying to take second.

---

It's a commonly requested feature.

VERY well put.

http://www.sportsmogul.com/baseballcd/help/Lineup.htm

Look at last section

Code:

---

Overall Rating Minor League Level
70 or higher        AAA
63 - 69        AA
57 - 62        A
Below 57        R

---

I usually go
75+ in AAA
70-75 AA
60-70 A
59- R
but I can't give a reason why, except it 'feels' right. I do take in account how close their Overall is to their Predicted, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SirKodiak

http://www.sportsmogul.com/baseballcd/help/Lineup.htm

Look at last section

Code:

---

Overall Rating Minor League Level
70 or higher        AAA
63 - 69        AA
57 - 62        A
Below 57        R

---

I usually go
75+ in AAA
70-75 AA
60-70 A
59- R
but I can't give a reason why, except it 'feels' right. I do take in account how close their Overall is to their Predicted, though.

---

For AAA I like to juggle porspects between the two - MLB & AAA to "see" if they cut the "mustard"

Right, I agree that your idea 'feels' more right, Sir Kodiak. I even have some 80s in AA, but I think I'll change that. It's just that I like the players to have success. It makes me feel like they'll progress better if they hit 30hrs in AA instead of batting .250 in AAA. (And I generally juggled between the two as well, FrenchRedSox. It also felt right. But read below and see what you think.) (although you may have already read the farm system link).

Anyway, the links you sent me were extremely helpful. At one point I read the answer to my next question which the answer was that players develop better at the minor league level than on the bench. It seems obvious, but I didn't know if the game took that into account and so I didn't want to spend money on veterans. But now I will.

I copied this about the Farm System from the link you gave me:

"The money you put into your farm system increases both the number and quality of recruited minor leaguers. Extra money in your farm system is usually a good investment.

The number of new minor leaguers appearing each year at the AAA level is also affected by the number of players already being groomed at the AAA level. The more prospects using up resources at the AAA level, the fewer prospects that will be able move up from the lower minor leagues. A good rule of thumb is to keep no more than your best 12 minor league batters and 9 minor league pitchers within your system. Any more players than that can be traded or released."

I noticed that unlike in the scouting department section, it doesn't mention that being in first place in farm spending is enough (although it does say "usually a good investment"). I know someone mentioned that they felt it was. Do other people agree? This quote above makes me think more money will always help groom more and better minor leaguers.

Also, boy do I have more than 9 pitchers in my system. That could be a reason for some of my pitchers' decline? I know we've touched on this, but anyway, I easily have 20+ minor league pitchers. When I bought the game, it raved about how many minor leaguers I could keep and so I never thought it would be a liability.:)

more you spend the better the results - generally speaking - the numbers for line up is due to duplication factor 2SS at the same level cannot 'play' all the time.Its a guideline but pitching wise it is best not to have more than 5 players per level but also take into consideration (its nor gospel) what you quoted.

Quote:

---

the numbers for line up is due to duplication factor 2SS at the same level cannot 'play' all the time.

---

you need to prove this. I'm fairly certain that anything like this was removed.

Quote:

---

Its a guideline but pitching wise it is best not to have more than 5 players per level but also take into consideration (its nor gospel) what you quoted.

---

This I know for a fact was disproven, about a month ago. I'm sure that I could dig up the thread if you'd like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

you need to prove this. I'm fairly certain that anything like this was removed.


This I know for a fact was disproven, about a month ago. I'm sure that I could dig up the thread if you'd like.

---

The thread was with GM ... but that was 1 example not a certainty neither that it was consistent through out the game...

i replicated the test, and HGM wasn't the one that started the thread, he just verified what the OP posted. The point is proven to me, so can you prove us wrong?

non-pitchers was left as an open question though. the situation with pitchers being what it is, I don't see why position players would be any different. honestly, I think that I have the player development thing down pretty deacently now though, after doing those Anatomy of a Season and Anatomy of a Career threads. I don't see this aspect (more then x players at the same level at the same time) as being a problem. The game simply doesn't actually simulate minor league play. All that the game aparently does is generate appropriate stats based on the players ratings, on specific dates.

I prefer all my MLB guys to be 80 or higher, though I do have a few upper 70's occasionally. Prospects with a 75-80 overall, and higher peak values, will get a MLB test drive to see how they do. Typically around 73+ is AAA, 65-72 is AA, 60-65 is A, and below 60 is rookie ball for me. Sometimes I run out of room in rookie ball and have to bump up a couple of below 60 players to A or get rid of them. Age also plays into it. I'm a little more lenient for pitchers, but position players who are 23 or older and still in R or A ball need to hit the ball or hit the road pretty quick. Same for AA players 25 and older. AAA for me is usually a mixture of prospects and older players that I acquire for depth, so it's a mixed bag.

I believe Clay has said himself that the two position players at the same level effects development. I'm with Ohms on the pitcher thing though.

Also, "The money you put into your farm system increases both the number and quality of recruited minor leaguers. Extra money in your farm system is usually a good investment." is horribly outdated. The number of recruited minor leaguers now is always the same - 6 per year. Before the amateur draft was introduced, rookies were placed on teams at the beginning of the offseason, and your farm system spending increased the number of rookies you got, as well as the quality of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

i replicated the test, and HGM wasn't the one that started the thread, he just verified what the OP posted. The point is proven to me, so can you prove us wrong?

non-pitchers was left as an open question though. the situation with pitchers being what it is, I don't see why position players would be any different. .

---

reply:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I believe Clay has said himself that the two position players at the same level effects development. .

---

Pitching - I will bow to the consensus....

Quote:

---

I think that I have the player development thing down pretty deacently now though, after doing those Anatomy of a Season and Anatomy of a Career threads.

---

Hmmm, sounds like I need to read those. Got a link handy, ohms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beerchaser

Hmmm, sounds like I need to read those. Got a link handy, ohms?

---

You can use search but here :

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthr...hlight=anatomy

And the other thread:

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthr...hlight=anatomy

Thanks FRS, I was too lazy to look for it. :)

ah, that's disappointing that the computer doesn't take into account minor league stats. i thought it could have been simulated stats that don't effect development but i'd rather not know that it's a fact.

hmm, thanks for those links. i hope they'll answer all of my questions.

and houston, hah, i wondered what in the world that meant about recruiting or spawning new players. i just ignored it. thanks for the update

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6leopard6

ah, that's disappointing that the computer doesn't take into account minor league stats. i thought it could have been simulated stats that don't effect development but i'd rather not know that it's a fact.

hmm, thanks for those links. i hope they'll answer all of my questions.

and houston, hah, i wondered what in the world that meant about recruiting or spawning new players. i just ignored it. thanks for the update

---

The computer doesn't take into account major league stats either. Evaluation of players is based strictly on rating.

oh yeah. i guess it wouldn't. oh. huh. actually, that was another question i wanted to ask. if it really doesn't take stats into account, which makes sense from a programming point of view, then i'm amazed at the amount of times i see a lower rated player performing year in and year out better than a higher rated player. it seems to happen VERY often for pitchers and especially relievers. my 84 closer has done so so much better than the 89 i used to have and who was in his prime. and my defense hasn't really gotten any better. but i'll just accept what you guys are saying and believe that that kind of thing is just chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6leopard6

my 84 closer has done so so much better than the 89 i used to have and who was in his prime. and my defense hasn't really gotten any better. but i'll just accept what you guys are saying and believe that that kind of thing is just chance.

---

Apparently closers are different & there is a "secret" closer element (to reflect pressure handling ?) which are not shown numerically in OP

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthr...=closer+rating

This thread may be of interest to you. It's about this very thing - the computer taking stats into consideration.

ok, i'm more than halfway through reading all of that thread about the AI taking performance into consideration. i have to leave right now and so i can't read anymore, but i wanted to be sure i was understanding most of it, and i wanted to see if an idea i had has been commented on or not.

at this point in time for my enjoyment with the game, i can let the AI's bad decisions on who to play slide. what i care about is player development. i would like to see a player's performance, perhaps, not be a third rating, but in fact, work to change the player's overall rating. so if a poorly rated player gets a season's worth of lucky dice rolls, he'd be like finding a 'gem', because he'd go from a 74 minor leaguer to an 85 instantly for the following year - only because of his performance.

IRL example could be a freddy sanchez. projections would have had him at an 82 contact, perhaps - both AI and real life managers. now say that they had him peaking at an 85 - both AI BBM and real life mlb scouts, etc. then he leads the league in batting. mlb scouts would now rate him a 97 contact perhaps. i'd like to see the AI drastically change his rating as well - or if not drastically, somehwat. of course next year sanchez could have a bad year - being a one year wonder. but a full season at .345 is usally not a fluke.

and so if in the game, if an 82 contact does luckily hit .345, especially if it's a first or second full year of playing time, i'd like to see that guy get a large boost in numbers. and all of this subtely worked in on down the line into the minors.

hope to read and say a bunch more later.

peace

You mean like a range for each player? I think that would be cool. Like to have the range for A-Rod 84-94. When he is on a hot streak his overal could be 94, with 97 power and 91 contact, but lets say he goes on a hitless streak, maybe his ranking could drop down to 84, with a 85 power and 81 contact. I think that'd be kind of cool and realistic. But then again, what do I know?

Well, ratings are...how good the player is. If A-Rod goes on a 1 for 34 slump in real life, his "ratings" (scouting reports, etc.) don't suddenly drop to "he sucks."

right. I was thinking more if somehow a player hits 20 hrs one year with a 68 power rating, he'd get a boost in power rating.

And for A-Rod, if he constantly puts up worse numbers than he should, I was thinking his overall rating could decline to reflect that. But now I realize that might not work because if he isn't putting up his numbers it might just be because of who he plays with and so if he was traded, perhaps he would put up the expected numbers.

But, I still like the idea that if some player get lucky and does well with poor ratings, he should get a boost in ratings. But certainly not over 34 abs. I'm not talking hot and cold streaks. I'm talking long periods of time. 80 games, etc.

If your closer ends the year with a 7.00 ERA, his ratings should reflect this so that you, the manager, note his actual decrease in value, and that the AI becomes alerted to his newly decrease as well. And if your closer overachieves next year, with his newly decreased ratings, his ratings can change to reflect that, too.

It makes stats actually real, instead of just flukes that have no real bearing.

Hmm, would you pick up a FA player who just hit 30 homeruns even if his power rating was just 70?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6leopard6

Hmm, would you pick up a FA player who just hit 30 homeruns even if his power rating was just 70?

---

Depends. I would never sign any player just because he hit 30 home runs. I'd have to see his other ratings, and other stats.

Dont forget some high picks and hot prospects may turn out to be the dreaded AAAA type player. To good for the minors but not good enough to be an everyday major-leaguer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rshackelford

Dont forget some high picks and hot prospects may turn out to be the dreaded AAAA type player. To good for the minors but not good enough to be an everyday major-leaguer.

---

Better a 4A with a minor league contact than a 9million $ has been though...:)