Overall rating/Potential rating, Whats the point

[mm7607]

I dont understand then rating system at all. Whats the point in have a players potential rating change every year? Wouldn't a players potential be just that? His potential which means the best he could ever be. Is there a way to change this or at least slow it down? I let a pitcher go whose ratings were 20/20 yet 4 years later he is rated at 78/78.

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by mm7607

His potential which means the best he could ever be.

Frankly, I'm not sure anyone (including the manual) has ever come up with a very good definition of what "potential" -- also called "talent" -- really means. But I feel pretty comfortable it does not mean what you apparently assume it means. For example, you can choose to have potential ratings created using different formulas, when you first create a league. And AFAIK none of those formulas would create a potential rating that was equivalent to "the best he could ever be".

My shot at a definition is that "potential" or "talent" is a kind of vector that has a big influence on the direction and speed of player development. But that's just taking my best shot.

As to whether it is reasonable for that vector to change over time, my answer is that IRL is can, and must. For example, when a player passes his peak, that vector is going to be pointing downward. In fact, if nothing else happens to that player, the vector is naturally going to change according the player's development curve (boy, if that doesn't take me back to calculus class ... )

Anyway, there it is, for better or worse ...

[Fullgatsu]

Isn't potential what a player projects to become. In OOTP a player don't have a real limit for what he could become, every player in theory have the chance to get 255 points in every stat but suffice to say that would probably never happen so potential may be the wrong word for it and I think it works better if one think potential as projection as a player may surpass his projection but that is quite a rare occurance and one should expect more along the lines of their projection/potential.

No idea if that makes any sense for anyone not me.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Fullgatsu

Isn't potential what a player projects to become. In OOTP a player don't have a real limit for what he could become, every player in theory have the chance to get 255 points in every stat but suffice to say that would probably never happen so potential may be the wrong word for it and I think it works better if one think potential as projection as a player may surpass his projection but that is quite a rare occurance and one should expect more along the lines of their projection/potential.

No idea if that makes any sense for anyone not me.

Potential ratings can change and they do. You have to figure that IRL there are players who never reach their "potential" because they aren't willing to work to get there and there are those overachievers who not only reach their original projected potential but surpass it because of their work ethic and desire to be the best they can.

In OOTP I look at the potential ratings in combination with work ethic and intelligence ratings with most of the emphasis on the work ethic. I figure all the potential in the universe means nothing if the player isn't willing to work for it and will draft a so-so player with great work ethic in a heartbeat and then let my great coaches work with him. Doesn't always pan out but many times they become serviceable players, and on a few occasions they turn out a lot better than I ever anticipated. My current starting catcher is an example of that.

But there are reasons, even IRL, that would cause the assessment of a player's potential to change and I think OOTP captures it quite well.

[Pineapple]

I view potential as the player's possible ceiling. I say possible because the ceiling can change.

In real life and (perhaps in OOTP?), there are different kinds of prospects. You have naturally gifted talented players that will mature into superstars no matter what (Strasburg, Peyton Manning, Kobe Bryant, etc.). You can throw them into piss poor situations and they will still turn out great.

Then you got another group of players that require good environmental stimulus. Their potential and ability to reach it or exceed it greatly depends on their situation. Perhaps, it is coaching that takes these players to the next level. Maybe, there was a great mentor to help him grow.

It is not an exact science. Peyton Manning reach stardom by being thrown in the fire without much help. Aaron Rodgers developed into a superstar by sitting behind Brett Favre. Perhaps if Rodgers was playing for the Detroit Lions, he would have developed differently.

This is why Michael Inoa signed with the A's over the Reds and Rangers. Inoa and his family felt Oakland had a better pitching development program and therefore signed with Oakland.

There's many players that are naturally gifted but many more who are a byproduct of the system and environment they were in. So their potential is based on their projected tool set... your tools can only get you so far, the rest comes from interacting and feeding off of your environment.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by mm7607

I dont understand then rating system at all. Whats the point in have a players potential rating change every year? Wouldn't a players potential be just that? His potential which means the best he could ever be. Is there a way to change this or at least slow it down? I let a pitcher go whose ratings were 20/20 yet 4 years later he is rated at 78/78.

First a question. Are you using scouting? Sometimes the potential doesn't change your crappy scout finally figures out after 4 years the guy he thought was a scrub is a stud. He is triple A and hitting .400 and the scout finally says maybe he has potential. With normal scouting and a good scout I often find players over performing what my scout thinks they will just as I sometimes see the 5 star prospect hit .100 at Rookie level and get cut next season.

A few factors that after this.
1. Random talent change option in league setup. I think it is on the global setup. OOTP randomly changes talent sometimes. This is part of balance. OOTP generates too many top prospects. Random talent changes means that a percentage of these will lose their top prospect status just as a percentage will become top prospects from above average or average from bad.

2. Aging and Development mods. Same place as 1

These affect how current ratings change and maybe potential with age and how fast a player gets to his peak ratings. Aging affects when a player will decline. Lowering the number I believe makes them decline later. Development speed affects how quickly they peak. I think they can affect potential but I can't confirm this. I have seen declining players where CA = PA at one point and CA < PA now so I am not 100% aging affects potential. It does affect current.

3. Injuries
Another realistic balancing. Long periods on the DL affect potential. Think of it as your have to spend a minimum of X years to develop. If that is set back chances are you don't develop before you decline so you will never reach your potential you could have at 18 because injuries set you back.

4. Coaches?

Coaches affect development speed for sure. I think they may affect potential. In OOTP 10 I was looking to have all top notch coaches in one game. I noticed a lot less burn out of prospects from rookie or short A to A. With more average coaches it seems more guys are burning out and going from 5 stars to 1 star the season after the draft. Again can't confirm but I believe it affects potential change. Note it could just be because I am normal scouting and my scout is not excellent in all areas.

[Marinersfan51]

Players can be top prospects and then flame out or be a low draft pick who becomes a star in real life. Same thing in the game. Everyone might think Delmon Young would be a superstar, but he is not and is never going to be. Nobody thought Albert Pujols would be, but he is.

[GmOfTheYear]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Potential ratings can change and they do. You have to figure that IRL there are players who never reach their "potential" because they aren't willing to work to get there and there are those overachievers who not only reach their original projected potential but surpass it because of their work ethic and desire to be the best they can.

In OOTP I look at the potential ratings in combination with work ethic and intelligence ratings with most of the emphasis on the work ethic. I figure all the potential in the universe means nothing if the player isn't willing to work for it and will draft a so-so player with great work ethic in a heartbeat and then let my great coaches work with him. Doesn't always pan out but many times they become serviceable players, and on a few occasions they turn out a lot better than I ever anticipated. My current starting catcher is an example of that.

But there are reasons, even IRL, that would cause the assessment of a player's potential to change and I think OOTP captures it quite well.

I know people think the work ethic and intelligence are important. Fact is give me talent over any intangibles and I will win everytime. Same in this game. Give me a good player with poor work ethic and dumb as a brick over an average player with elite work ethic and elite intelligence.

All I know is that in this game if you sort the draft by era for pitchers and by obp mixed in with homers you will always get good players regardless of their intangibles like work ethic and intelligence. I dont even look at that anymore.

[KBLover]

Originally Posted by GmOfTheYear

Give me a good player with poor work ethic and dumb as a brick over an average player with elite work ethic and elite intelligence.

To me, this doesn't prove intangibles to be worthless - it just means talent means more.

And it should.

However:

-What if you have nearly equal talent to another team/player and both are average? How much do intangibles matter? How about if both are weak? Or both are strong?

-Just how far a gap can a weaker team/player with better intangibles make up? A little? Barely any? A decent amount depending on what intangible it is?

-How much do they matter in developing talent. Talent is the ultimate resource, but do intangibles help players develop the talent they have and/or perhaps grow more? Would a team full of good prospects develop poorly if they all had 1s in leadership, intellect, and work ethic and average coaching?


To me, answers to those questions would tell more about the worth/value of intangibles.

[CardinalsFan]

Originally Posted by mm7607

I dont understand then rating system at all. Whats the point in have a players potential rating change every year? Wouldn't a players potential be just that? His potential which means the best he could ever be. Is there a way to change this or at least slow it down? I let a pitcher go whose ratings were 20/20 yet 4 years later he is rated at 78/78.

Look at Kerry Wood's career.

[SiN8]

Good thread. KBLover and I have been having the same discussion on the Newbie forum.

Being a long time FM player, I always view potential as a static value. Only current ratings will over a player's career. The scouting system is designed to provide that fog of war into the actual potential value in order to create that element of surprise to the manager.

My biggest gripe is that there will only be 2 or 3 batters in a draft who are rated more than 1 star potential. What's the point of scouts if they can only recommend to me two players who can make my ML lineup?

[GmOfTheYear]

Originally Posted by SiN8

Good thread. KBLover and I have been having the same discussion on the Newbie forum.

Being a long time FM player, I always view potential as a static value. Only current ratings will over a player's career. The scouting system is designed to provide that fog of war into the actual potential value in order to create that element of surprise to the manager.

My biggest gripe is that there will only be 2 or 3 batters in a draft who are rated more than 1 star potential. What's the point of scouts if they can only recommend to me two players who can make my ML lineup?

Gotta disregard scouts and go by stats...drafts easy just sort by obp for hitters and era for pitchers...keep drafting..you will get some great talent.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by GmOfTheYear

I know people think the work ethic and intelligence are important. Fact is give me talent over any intangibles and I will win everytime. Same in this game. Give me a good player with poor work ethic and dumb as a brick over an average player with elite work ethic and elite intelligence.

All I know is that in this game if you sort the draft by era for pitchers and by obp mixed in with homers you will always get good players regardless of their intangibles like work ethic and intelligence. I dont even look at that anymore.

And I have quite a few players on my roster that I drafted with poor talent potential and high work ethic whose potential ratings skyrocketed. I drafted my catcher (2nd round) strictly for his arm. The highest of his offensive potential ratings was a 3 out of 10 for his contact. I guess his work ethic combined with the coaches in my system caused a dramatic change. His contact is now a 7, gap is 6, power is 2 (we're in 1912 so that doesn't matter) and his avoid k's and eye are at 8. He has gone from a 1 1/2 star prospect to a 5 star with a current star rating of 4.

I never anticipated him being more than a late game defensive replacement and a starter in some of the games against the two teams that love to run on me. He is now the starter in the all-star game.

All those potential superstars that were drafted ahead of him, all but one has yet to have any impact.

My starting SS was also drafted for his glove, 10's in all ratings and plays all 4 IF positions. At the time I drafted him he was projected as a fair - avg offensive player. Last season he destroyed the old RBI record and is on pace to have as many again this season. Even with the low offensive projection I drafted him in the first round, passing over a player with offensive potential ratings of 10/10/1/9/10. That player is on a team but isn't performing near as well as my SS. My decision on which one to draft came down to work ethic. My SS had a 10, the other guy checked in with a 3.

How much of an effect the work ethic rating has I don't know. Maybe it's my coaches that are making most of the difference but I have seen too many examples to just disregard the work ethic.