Extremely High % of players rated 20/20 ACT/POT

[Living Lejuhnd]

I see people mentioning things about bring up players from the International Complex when their ratings are close to those of players in the rookie league.

I had noticed this before, but it got me thinking. How would I follow this logic when nearly all of my minors guys are 20/20 (scale of 20-80) on their actual vs potential? Do I really just have that pitiful of a minor league system, do I have a setting wrong, or am I misunderstanding the advice being given?

[Living Lejuhnd]

And to quickly add, if I change all the ratings to OSA vs my Scout, every single viewable player from the screen shot I have has an overall rating of 20, but some of the POT ratings increase.

So once again, this poses the question, on a scale where 20 is the bottom, how would I know that a player is "ready" to make the jump?

[Living Lejuhnd]

Also, here are my scout's ratings.

[Charlie Hough]

If the advice was to look at their ratings, it means looking at their ratings and not their current or potential ability.

Look at Jeremy Hefner on your 25-man roster. His current ability is only 27 and his potential is 31. But look at his ratings for Stuff, Movement, and Control. Notice the difference?

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

If the advice was to look at their ratings, it means looking at their ratings and not their current or potential ability.

Look at Jeremy Hefner on your 25-man roster. His current ability is only 27 and his potential is 31. But look at his ratings for Stuff, Movement, and Control. Notice the difference?

This. I don't really pay a whole lot of attention to 'overall' and 'overall potential'. I look at the the individual ratings and potential ratings. This is, to me, a much better indication of a players progress.

[Living Lejuhnd]

So what are the overall and overall potential ratings supposed to be indicative of? If I'm assessing a player's abilities based on sub categories and ignoring their overall ratings, what's the point of having them?

I could understand if they were meant to be a very quick view of a player's abilities, but this doesn't seem to be the case as those #'s really seem to be so far off from reality since everyone is the same.

Also, what attributes the insanely high discrepancy we see sometimes between OSA and our scout. For instance:



These appear to be two completely different players. One who is a forever minor leaguer and one who could be an impact player in the bigs. Is it common to get this type of discrepancy? I read the manual and it says go with your scout, so does that mean I just dismiss this guy as a non factor?

[byzeil]

Go with your scout over OSA. Your scout is more skilled than the OSA scouts and they have more exposure to your players.

[Living Lejuhnd]

But why such an incredible discrepancy? We're not talking about little things here and there we're talking about major categories that they're not even close on....

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Living Lejuhnd

But why such an incredible discrepancy? We're not talking about little things here and there we're talking about major categories that they're not even close on....

Because scouts vary in their ability to evaluate players. That's why some organizations dominate in developing young players and identifying talent while others consistently struggle. This is why you need good scouts.

Or, turn off scouting or set the scouting accuracy level higher.

First of all, do yourself a huge favor and read the OOTP 14 manual and particularly the sections that cover player ratings.

The point of the current and potential ability ratings is to give a general sense of how the player compares to other players at the same position (if you're using that setting) or compared to all players (if you're using that one). These ratings can also change, so you're only seeing a relatively short-term assessment of the player's ability right now and for the immediate future. Things can and will change.

Generally, current and potential ability are good indicators of a player's quality in the context of your league's full talent pool, but there's a reason why the other ratings are there. They allow you to assess a player's real skills on the field. So, while a player may not stand out compared to others in his current ability and potential, it doesn't mean he's a bad player. I've had many players who were only one or two stars (you're using the 20-80 system), but they were highly valuable members of the team. If they can hit and field or they have good enough pitching ratings, they can make a contribution.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by Living Lejuhnd

But why such an incredible discrepancy? We're not talking about little things here and there we're talking about major categories that they're not even close on....

OOTP 14 toned down the discrepancies between OSA and your scout, but they can still exist. This is meant to reflect the idea that OSA doesn't really have staff and is basically just doing a cursory evaluation of every player, whereas you have a full scouting department (abstracted to one scouting director).

In general, the discrepancies between your scout and OSA will be larger for players in your organization. This is to reflect the idea that you're getting a closer, day-to-day look at players in your organization.

Scouts also have different personalities and skills. The Mets' Tanous is a "highly favor ability" type (I also play as the Mets). From the manual: "A Scouting Director that favors ability will base players' potential ratings on what the player can already do and project what he thinks the player will become in the future. The director that favors tools will base the players' potential ratings on the maximum peak the player could achieve. In theory, a scout that favors tools will find more superstars, while a scout that favors ability will find more serviceable major league players."

So OSA (which is probably 'neutral'), sees a mid-90s fastball and a curveball that, if it develops, gives the kid a lot of potential. Tanous has a more pessimistic outlook based on the player's current skills.

[RchW]

How do you have AI evaluation set in this screen? Check in-game for how your minor league system is ranked. Without that info we can't give you educated replies. As previously noted don't pay too much attention to overall and potential ratings. Check actual ratings and stat output instead. Depending on how you have AI eval set there can be a significant gap in time before the overall ratings reflect player improvement. Especially when they move up from level to level.

Keep in mind almost all of your minor league players should be 20/20 because almost all of them will never make it. Of the ones that do show better potential only a few of them will make it too. Did you expect more?

In real life Tampa Bay since 2004 has drafted 13 players who have a career WAR of more than 1. Zero players since 2009.

In real life St. Louis since 2004 has drafted 14 players who have a career WAR of more than 1. Zero players since 2010.

Both of these organizations have deserved reputations as superior in player development yet look at how few. I chose WAR=1 arbitrarily. Some of these 1 WAR players may still not make it and others with less or no WAR may yet make it. It illustrates the point that very very few players ever get a sniff at a successful MLB career.

Edit I see you have scouts but it doesn't change the comment. Just replace AI by scout.

[RchW]

Dola, I revised my draft pick search to eliminate recent years. We checked 1998-2009 for STL and TB and looked for players with career WAR ≥ 1 and career WAR ≥ 5.

Tampa Bay drafted 41 players with WAR ≥ 1. Of that 19 had WAR ≥ 5.

St. Louis drafted 32 players with WAR ≥ 1. Of that 15 had WAR ≥ 5.

Considering a career WAR of 5 is about 3 seasons of decent play, two very good organizations generate less than 2 players per year at that average level and probably less than 1 player per year that has a career of any significance.

Edit; Found the symbol ≥

[Living Lejuhnd]

Originally Posted by RchW

How do you have AI evaluation set in this screen? Check in-game for how your minor league system is ranked. Without that info we can't give you educated replies. As previously noted don't pay too much attention to overall and potential ratings. Check actual ratings and stat output instead. Depending on how you have AI eval set there can be a significant gap in time before the overall ratings reflect player improvement. Especially when they move up from level to level.

Keep in mind almost all of your minor league players should be 20/20 because almost all of them will never make it. Of the ones that do show better potential only a few of them will make it too. Did you expect more?

In real life Tampa Bay since 2004 has drafted 13 players who have a career WAR of more than 1. Zero players since 2009.

In real life St. Louis since 2004 has drafted 14 players who have a career WAR of more than 1. Zero players since 2010.

Both of these organizations have deserved reputations as superior in player development yet look at how few. I chose WAR=1 arbitrarily. Some of these 1 WAR players may still not make it and others with less or no WAR may yet make it. It illustrates the point that very very few players ever get a sniff at a successful MLB career.

Edit I see you have scouts but it doesn't change the comment. Just replace AI by scout.

Here is how I have things set. Anyone have any strong feelings about making modifications here?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Living Lejuhnd

Here is how I have things set. Anyone have any strong feelings about making modifications here?

That says pure ratings only are used in evaluation ie no stats. I don't know the effect of not checking that box when scouting is on.

Where are you ranked in MLB minor league systems?

[Living Lejuhnd]

Originally Posted by RchW

That says pure ratings only are used in evaluation ie no stats. I don't know the effect of not checking that box when scouting is on.

Where are you ranked in MLB minor league systems?

To start 2013 Mets are ranked 19/30 for minor league system.