Potential Ratings Seem Completely Screwed Up For Pitchers

[Neags23]

This is a bit of an offshoot of this thread: I still don't understand overall ratings

I didn't want to threadjack that one, so...

There was a SP I was looking at, and his POT rating seemed absurdly high (scouts off). So, I played around with the AI evaluation with the following results:

Ratings, Current Year, Last Year, Two Years Ago

AI: 100, 0, 0, 0
OVR: 20
POT: 25

AI: 95, 3, 1, 1
OVR: 20
POT: 38

AI: 85, 9, 4, 2
OVR: 20
POT: 80!!!!

That doesn't make any sense, does it?

This guy's ERA last year was 4.40 vs. a 4.56 league average ERA, with 202 IP. The year before he had a 3.82 ERA over 101 IP vs. a 4.50 league average ERA a Statistically, he's nothing special. Why would a 10% weighting increase to stats all of a sudden give him a potential of 80? And then not even affect his OVR rating.

Plus, this goes off of the other thread mentioned above, but his actual ratings are identical to potential. So why on earth would he be a 20 OVR but 80 POT? Should stats have this much of an impact on POT rating? I really can't believe this is working as intended.

[ravinhood]

Yup working as intended because those numbers are PROSPECT a mathematical perhaps. I never use them as I find you get more out of information by just watching the player play and his actual abilities in action. I've had players with 5 stars that didn't play as well as 3 stars. Stars and numbers are just for part of your calculations they aren't meant to be be-all end all information for deciding if a player is good or bad.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Neags23

This is a bit of an offshoot of this thread: I still don't understand overall ratings

I didn't want to threadjack that one, so...

There was a SP I was looking at, and his POT rating seemed absurdly high (scouts off). So, I played around with the AI evaluation with the following results:

Ratings, Current Year, Last Year, Two Years Ago

AI: 100, 0, 0, 0
OVR: 20
POT: 25

AI: 95, 3, 1, 1
OVR: 20
POT: 38

AI: 85, 9, 4, 2
OVR: 20
POT: 80!!!!

That doesn't make any sense, does it?

This guy's ERA last year was 4.40 vs. a 4.56 league average ERA, with 202 IP. The year before he had a 3.82 ERA over 101 IP vs. a 4.50 league average ERA a Statistically, he's nothing special. Why would a 10% weighting increase to stats all of a sudden give him a potential of 80? And then not even affect his OVR rating.

Plus, this goes off of the other thread mentioned above, but his actual ratings are identical to potential. So why on earth would he be a 20 OVR but 80 POT? Should stats have this much of an impact on POT rating? I really can't believe this is working as intended.

I also can't believe this working as intended, and now have a theory about the problem, but I'm not smart enough to test it, and I think it again speaks to the difference between the AI evaluation and the scouts evaluation.

At 100% ratings, his potential appears about right, yes? And if you remember that overall and potential are ratings compared to the rest of the league, then perhaps this is what happens.

Once you assign some number to stats, then this immediately gives a "bonus" to all players that had stats that year, placing them above players that didn't, thus improving their overall. Make sense?? For example, if you assign 80-20-0-0, he will jump above anyone without stats in the current year so long as he does (even if they're bad stats). If you make it 70-20-10-0, then he also jumps ahead of anyone without stats last year as well, assuming he had stats last year. Following me? So just by posting stats, any stats, his comparitive potential value improves over all pitchers without stats, thus increasing his overall potential rating.

It's a horrible theory, in that that's not the way I would think it should work, but it would explain what we're seeing woudln't it?? And while I don't think it makes sense for it to work this way for scouting purposes, I think one could make a good argument that it should work this way for evaluating purposes as far as salary, roster moves, trades, etc. Am I making sense or just further losing my mind?

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by ravinhood

Yup working as intended because those numbers are PROSPECT a mathematical perhaps. I never use them as I find you get more out of information by just watching the player play and his actual abilities in action. I've had players with 5 stars that didn't play as well as 3 stars. Stars and numbers are just for part of your calculations they aren't meant to be be-all end all information for deciding if a player is good or bad.

Hmmm... Still not buying it. A mathematical perhaps, I get that. This isn't my first rodeo. But how can he possibly, even as a prospect, even one out of a thousand times ever be potentially an 80 when he's currently a 20 and his potential ratings are the same as current? Doesn't make sense.

Now, OFG, I think you're on to something there. I like your theory and I want to subscribe to your newsletter

I'll do some testing on this theory.

[Neags23]

Now I'm more confused than ever. This is with scouts off, and 100% ratings weight. I realize the OVR and POT are relative to the rest of the league. But that would mean that the rest of the league is significantly worse on average in potential ratings than this guy. Which is just not the case.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Now I'm more confused than ever. This is with scouts off, and 100% ratings weight. I realize the OVR and POT are relative to the rest of the league. But that would mean that the rest of the league is significantly worse on average in potential ratings than this guy. Which is just not the case.

This looks a bit strange indeed. Can you supply me with the league files of that guy please?

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

This looks a bit strange indeed. Can you supply me with the league files of that guy please?

Posted with the file name "neags23.zip".

If you go to all players, look at pitchers and sort by potential, you'll see a lot of guys like this. There's a full page and a half of guys with 80 potential, and few should be an 80. One that I'm staring at now is Antonio Lopez.

[GBS]

The first step toward getting this fixed (or explained better) is the admission that there is a problem. Haven't seen that yet. Not meaning to critisize this otherwise wonderful product.

[Bishop]

Originally Posted by GBS

The first step toward getting this fixed (or explained better) is the admission that there is a problem. Haven't seen that yet. Not meaning to critisize this otherwise wonderful product.

Markus asked for a zip of the league, you want him to admit it without looking at it first?