Q about Ratings Improvement During ST Topic

ArlenWilliam
Posts: 2106 (0)
Hall of Famer
267 1 37
Prospect
My Cheyenne Marxofascistbane team in world: Boston Tea Party just went thru Spring Training.

I have good coaches all around and my young pitchers improved pretty nicely.

However, my fielders laid eggs -- virtually no improvement for batters with even 4 or 3 or 2 years' experience! Is this an aberration or are you seeing this too?

A Few of the Consistent Examples:

Dale Simon, 3 year player, 59 AB in ST

Benito Cordero, 3 year player, 56 AB in ST

Pep Carpenter, 4 year player, 41 AB in ST

Cesar Bournigal, 2 year player, 30 AB in ST

My big league coaches are in their 80's in their most relevant stats and collectively have decent patience. My minor league coaches are fine, too.

Are you finding this kind of thing happening?
4/5/2010 9:38 PM
ArlenWilliam
Posts: 2106 (0)
Hall of Famer
267 1 37
Prospect
Those players were promoted at the very beginning of ST. Is that factor going to show their bonus in the next round of development, or has it stunted them?

Okay, let's say the problem is that they are just not displaying their Opening Day stats.

Have you found players promoted at such a time taking 2-5 point jumps, when it eventually shows their first Regular Season ratings (+ 1, 2, or 3 points for ST + 1 or 2 for the early season)?

Or, do they lose out?
4/5/2010 9:42 PM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 278
Prospect
I have historically had similar questions regarding young players promoted (and traded) during ST.

When similar players (age/pro. exp.) are getting 2-3 points in most categories, they'll only see 1 point, if that.

However, I haven't seen them stuntent long term, so I believe it's a minor bump in the road.

At least in my (perhaps limited) experience.
4/5/2010 10:20 PM
new
Posts: 115 (0)
Hall of Famer
127 2 1 1 150
Prospect
It depends on who you ask. Some think there are hidden rating improvements that show up the next time the player recieves a bump. Others, like myself, believe you lost your development opportunity by promoting those guys before they got their opening day bump.

Most likely, they will improve at a slightly faster rate over the next couple of development cycles to make up for the lost opportunity in ST.

Finally, I believe Miket proved that playing time during ST has very little to do with ST development.
4/6/2010 7:46 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By new on 4/06/2010
I believe Miket proved that playing time during ST has very little to do with ST development.

Yea, that seems to be the one after I had a question.

+, if you want to drag real world into it, how much would you expect a player that's been a pro 2-4 years to learn in one spring training?

That's probably where you get into an idea I read from someone else (forget who, sorry) about maybe having the ability to target a specific area for a specific player during spring training. That in itself is real world; a stud young player that is weak in one specific area, and gets that attention during a spring.
4/6/2010 8:43 AM
ArlenWilliam
Posts: 2106 (0)
Hall of Famer
267 1 37
Prospect
The point is that WIS has promised us that...

1. ST playing time does make a difference
2. It is better to play a minor leaguer a lot in ST than to let him sit it out
3. This lack of ratings improvement due to promotion during ST is made up in the next ratings cycle

If any of these things are not true, they need to hear about it. It is a matter of truth in advertising -- or not.
4/6/2010 11:00 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
1. It does. It's rather insignificant but it does. May not be worth the risk of injury but that's a personal decision.

2. If you believe #1, it is better for his development. Unless he's injured.

3. It's been said many times that the improvement bumps are just "markers". That players actually improve(or decline) whether it's "marked" or not.

In short, ALL playing time makes a difference. ST is no different.
4/6/2010 11:15 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Also, for the record, the test I ran on ST playing time/rest was done about 2-3 years ago. It's possible that the engine changed but players who were active but not on the ST roster improved almost as much as those who got 30-35 AB. Inactive players, IIRC, did not improve during ST.
4/6/2010 11:18 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/06/2010 It's possible that the engine changed but players who were active but not on the ST roster improved almost as much as those who got 30-35 AB. Inactive players, IIRC, did not improve during ST.
And if I remember my reaction then (at least what it is now), in real life if you are in the minors and not invited to spring training, you're not sitting on a deck chair and sipping pina coladas; you're still with your minor league team.

Thus, it makes some sense.
4/6/2010 11:33 AM
bigal888
Posts: 390 (0)
Hall of Famer
116 4 3 1 15 77
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 4/06/20101.  It does.  It's rather insignificant but it does.  May not be worth the risk of injury but that's a personal decision.2.  If you believe #1, it is better for his development.   Unless he's injured.3.  It's been said many times that the improvement bumps are just "markers".   That players actually improve(or decline) whether it's "marked" or not.  In short, ALL playing time makes a difference.  ST is no different.

I've never realized 3 was true but it makes perfect sense. I've always thought it was stupid that I had to try and guess when to promote a guy to get the bump.

A somewhat related item that I've verified directly with Admin - ratings can also improve fractions of a point, but it will only display whole numbers. i.e. from 75.1 to 75.4 only showing 75 in both instances.

There are fractions of a point hidden within every rating.
4/6/2010 11:39 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
bah, no issue.

Realizing that it's OVR thus not bang on, if I go to my prospect development report, view my whole franchise and sort from top to bottom on "difference", I'm seeing players in their low 20's improving the most, players in their mid 20's staying static, and older players/inactive players taking negatives.

Non issue. I hereby deem this a non-issue.
4/6/2010 11:41 AM
torrone
Posts: 494 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 4 28 191
Prospect
Well, I guess that settles it then.
4/6/2010 12:13 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By bigal888 on 4/06/2010
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 4/06/2010
1. It does. It's rather insignificant but it does. May not be worth the risk of injury but that's a personal decision.

2. If you believe #1, it is better for his development. Unless he's injured.

3. It's been said many times that the improvement bumps are just "markers". That players actually improve(or decline) whether it's "marked" or not.

In short, ALL playing time makes a difference. ST is no different.

I've never realized 3 was true but it makes perfect sense. I've always thought it was stupid that I had to try and guess when to promote a guy to get the bump.

A somewhat related item that I've verified directly with Admin - ratings can also improve fractions of a point, but it will only display whole numbers. i.e. from 75.1 to 75.4 only showing 75 in both instances.

There are fractions of a point hidden within every rating.


I think my little "test" sort of proves it's true. 30 AB = greater improvement than active but not playing. I think that's true at all times. But, because 75.4 could improve to 75.5, and show as 76 while not playing, it might show the same as the guy who went from 75.1 to 75.6 while getting his 30 AB.
4/6/2010 12:13 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Alright kiddies, one more thought. It's small sample size, but I've noticed it in passing with other teams, so I've generated some data and you can test it out on your own. The patience, temper and makeup numbers are averages.

Ovr differenceAvg agePatienceTemperMakeup
923.0054.5032.5073.50
823.0032.5023.0065.00
621.5060.0062.6757.67
522.0057.8947.5658.11
422.0057.6944.8560.54
323.4062.2031.0075.80
223.5428.3858.7760.38
124.8034.2054.3055.05
026.8838.0360.8260.97


The test is on the Whiny ******* in Happy Jack. OVR difference is comparing 86 games into current season with beginning of last season.

The 9 and 8 point differences only have 2 players in the sample size, so keep that in mind too.

Age is obvious. The younger you are, the more likely you are to develop.

I theorize that Makeup has a significant impact on how much you develop in short periods of time, and for how long. The 2nd highest average makeup got the largest development bump. The largest (3 OVR points) seems to overcome a higher average age to get a development bump anyway.

Of course there are other factors; promotion, demotion, playing time, inactive vs active etc etc. But I think it's still there.
4/6/2010 12:14 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So you think make-up is important in development?

Sincerely,

2007
4/6/2010 12:19 PM
1234 Next ▸
Q about Ratings Improvement During ST Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.