Discussion Forum

Forum >> Discussions >> Training Pops - spring training edition  

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function
#37196	07/16/2016 9:20:50 am		Ignore
afreespirit Joined: 09/17/2011 Posts: 305 Inactive	I used no training focus and had 19 players gain at least 1 SI. The best was a 27 yr old pitcher who gained 1 in all of the pitching skills.
#37198	07/16/2016 9:31:59 am		Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9600 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I accidently left focus on from last the last training session (I only use it when I see a lot of key players are behind on a specific skill), and I had relatively poor pops compared to past years. Really I think that is just random and dependent on what fractional position the last update left off at. In terms of overlap. If my estimation of manager skills from last year was correct (and I haven't gone back to verify it yet), there is almost no overlap between good and excellent. But as Seca said, if it is a very small impact, you aren't going to see it in a single update anyhow. Updated Saturday, July 16 2016 @ 9:32:40 am PDT
#37201	07/16/2016 11:24:29 am		Ignore
iladel90 Joined: 06/08/2016 Posts: 23 Inactive	I had 15 batter increase but only 7 pitchers.
#37202	07/16/2016 12:04:52 pm		Ignore
amalric7 Joined: 01/20/2016 Posts: 2237 New York Lancers V.4	Some interesting answers! I tend to go with Hitting as my Primary, because even with a strong-hitting lineup I had enough guys who had room to improve there. And even then the other skills seem to get enough. I would have thought "No Focus" would have given a better spread but I tend to get an even spread anyway. For instance, for this update just past:- 11 hitters, 14 SI gain (plus 2 fielding). Breakdown:- +3 hitting +4 bat control +3 plate discipline +4 power As far as pitching goes I've changed it a couple of times and currently its set to Off-Speed pitches. 6 pitchers, 11 SI gain (plus 3 fielding). +3 velocity +2 change of speed +2 movement +3 control +1 stamina Does this prove anything? Probably not! But it is an even spread, the sort I would have expected from 'No Focus'. I'd be curious to see breakdowns from teams who use that (without actually checking their teams training!).
#37203	07/16/2016 12:47:30 pm		Ignore
Benchwarmer Joined: 01/06/2015 Posts: 445 Inactive	@almaric, well when I said pops, I meant the number of players that had a pop, I did not specify how many pops each of those players had
#37204	07/16/2016 1:06:41 pm		Ignore
amalric7 Joined: 01/20/2016 Posts: 2237 New York Lancers V.4	Now that makes sense.
#37207	07/16/2016 2:22:31 pm		Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9600 Haverhill Halflings III.1	@amalric7 - its something like a 10% boost to that skills training over the other skills. So it would be negligible in a one week period. After 10 updates you should see a one pop difference, assuming all your players started at 0 in the sub and had equal skills which were all equally distant from their potential. So, really hard to see without very large sample sizes. Updated Saturday, July 16 2016 @ 2:23:02 pm PDT
#37225	07/17/2016 2:54:38 am		Ignore
Yuri84 Joined: 10/14/2014 Posts: 639 Apple Valley Raccoons IV.4	Only when Crow had his arm adjusted I noticed that his potential went up from 12 to 13.
#37425	07/22/2016 6:43:57 am		Ignore
amalric7 Joined: 01/20/2016 Posts: 2237 New York Lancers V.4	Well I went with "No Focus" this week, 22 SI pop. That's pretty much in-line with previous updates, so I'm not seeing any difference (breakdown was the same as when 'focused'). Might keep with it next week.
#37429	07/22/2016 7:33:42 am		Ignore
wuggla Joined: 05/10/2013 Posts: 1059 Colorado Springs Vultures VI.28	Johny Vitale "rookie" "gold glover" 100 SI Would love to see him gain 103 SI this year. If he pop's 3 more? 1 in fielding 1 in BC 1 in PD. I will be very happy with him.

| |

Reply