"starting to struggle" message

[canes21]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

I'm glad you asked. I'll use my example, Anthony Hara a 23 year old rookie who began the season with a potential of 74. As of July 20 2014 he has a 7-7 record with an era of 3.87 and a whip of 1.18. He has dropped from 74 to 71.

In MLB as of July 20 2014 there was one rookie aged 23 or younger with 7 wins, Yordano Ventura. Ventura was 7-8 with a 3.59 era and 1.31 whip. He has been described as...

Yordano Ventura, baseball's next pitching phenom

...which would be an indication that level of performance for a 23 year old rookie is pretty solid. Only one rookie 23 year old in MLB has matched those numbers and he is described as a phenom.

Therefore to answer your question I would define realism as something resembling what happens in MLB. For a rookie 23 year old to begin at 74 potential and put up those numbers would indicate an increase in potential, not a decrease which is what happened to Hara.

The concept of realism being completely random increase or decrease makes no sense to me, but others obviously disagree.

1) The article was posted before the seasons started I believe.
2) This is just an opinion and is nothing set in stone(just like the potential rating).
3) Real life is completely random. How many guys have had breakout years and continued to be great in the 2nd half of their careers after being mediocre the 1st half? How many guys were drafted to be the next Barry Bonds yet never got past AA ball?

Real life is completely random. Some guys progress, some guys don't. If it wasn't random, then the job of scouting would be a pretty easy one, no? Every scout would share the same opinion every time. Yet it is random in real life and scouts are wrong all of the time.

[Jr.]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

It seems like the main issue is that the ratings aren't matching up with the production. The OP seems to have this ideal that a 23 y/o pitcher with those particular numbers should have a certain potential and that he should have a bright future and get better as he ages(which is definitely understandable). As we all know, this isn't always the case, and this seems to be a way of the game representing that, albeit in a premature fashion.

This is when I wish the potential ratings were hidden. Still send the emails and such to get an idea that a guy is out-performing/under-performing his expectations, but keep the number/letter hidden and go off of production (which would take much more detailed stat-tracking, especially for the minor leagues).

In the end, if the guy is producing, that's all that matters.

[tessl]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

Whaaaaat?
So you are saying that every rookie pitcher who goes 7-7 with a near 4 ERA should increase because one guy who is purported to be "the next phenom"(never heard that before about a player) happens to be mediocre in his inaugural season?
There has never been a highly touted pitcher put up those numbers and regress?...is that what you are saying?

Off the top of my head...I will present to you Steve Trout. I'm pretty sure he was a top 10 first round pick...had a good first season(full) and then dipped and never reached his potential.

M.K.
Knight165

Please read the post again. I said realism should resemble real life and only one rookie 23 or younger has the same numbers. It was merely average or subpar for a rookie that age to put up those numbers more than one player would have those numbers and several would have better numbers.

This isn't complicated.

[KBLover]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

I'm glad you asked. I'll use my example, Anthony Hara a 23 year old rookie who began the season with a potential of 74. As of July 20 2014 he has a 7-7 record with an era of 3.87 and a whip of 1.18. He has dropped from 74 to 71.

14 decisions isn't really a large enough sample either. That's not even a full season, and even a full season shouldn't paint the whole picture.

74 potential - that's a C. That ERA is about average. If anything, I would argue there should be no change at all. Average projection producing currently average results. If I had to call anything, it would seem like Hara is a "safe" projection with a low ceiling right now, barring further improvement.

If his ratings are going up, his improved skills could lead increased production, then it could be seen as a sign of increased skills being translated to performance, but, if nothing else, he's not slipping any, so no reason to sour in projection on him.

If an "A" player put up those numbers, I'd think he'd be "on watch" to see if he's showing signs of improving (maybe he's learning his secondary pitches still, maybe he's showing a plus pitch and improving command, etc), because a 3.80 is not phenom or even future top-of-the-rotation performance. So, again, if his skills are improving, no reason to get too worried just yet.

But that's just not enough time to say either way, just like I don't think it was enough time on your Hara either way. Anything can happen with Ventura, he could indeed be on his way to being an ace or being a middle guy, or turn into a reliever and blossom as a closer. We've seen that happen before and vice versa (something I'd like to see possible in The Show without having to edit - something within the game's mechanics).

Hara should not get a potential gain, imo. He just should be left alone completely. Not enough time to judge anything. He shouldn't drop because he had a couple bad outings (even if it is just 3 points, because it could simply happen again over and over, like it did in the opposite direction for me and Michael Feliz going from low/mid B to mid A in 2 good AA months). And he shouldn't gain because his ERA/peripherals are solid but not showing that he's reaching for higher things right now.

Most of the time....there will be reasons for performance not meeting expectations...but sometimes there is just no definable reason.

I love that "no definable reason". I think it's much more accurate than just saying "luck" or "randomness", implying there is no reason - it just "up and happened out of the blue". I think, more likely, we just don't know/can't find a generally predictable/definitive cause.

Just like my dog's epilepsy - I'm sure there IS some trigger somewhere even if it's deep inside his body/brain that promotes a seizure - but it looks "random" to me (and the vets, i.e. idiopathic epilepsy) because of missing information, but I don't believe it's "truly" random. Like a computer's random numbers, I think it's pseudo-random. The "seed" just hasn't been discovered and may be undiscoverable with current methods/understanding.

I think prospect development (and really, all player development to some degree) works on a similar principle; we don't have the means/technology/understanding/data to figure out any patterns or any useful info that could help in future projections. So the "idiopathic player failure/blossoming" diagnosis is as good as we can have sometimes.

[Knight165]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

Please read the post again. I said realism should resemble real life and only one rookie 23 or younger has the same numbers. It was merely average or subpar for a rookie that age to put up those numbers more than one player would have those numbers and several would have better numbers.

This isn't complicated.

No...it isn't...but you seem to like to make it complicated.
First...you seem to refuse to acknowledge that there is a certain random nature to all things....at least to some extent.

But then you shoehorn one instance(both in the game and IRL) to support your argument as IDK...."unshakable"?

But...I counter your IRL argument with Steve Trout.

In 1981 at age 23(that's your requirement...right....forget the rookie status...it's meaningless)

8-7 3.47 ERA and a 1.28 WHIP
(that's nearly the same line as your guy)
According to you.....that's good enough for a growth or at least to remain the same.


1982
6-9 4.26 ERA and a 1.49 WHIP

1983
10-14 4.65 ERA and a 1.53 WHIP!

Uh-oh.....he's gotta regress....he's just gotta!

1984
13-7 3.41 1.38 WHIP

1985
9-7 3.39 ERA 1.45 WHIP

Age 27 ...in his prime...looks like he's turning it around!

1986
1987

Yeah....nothing random IRL.

M.K.
Knight165

[tessl]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

No...it isn't...but you seem to like to make it complicated.
First...you seem to refuse to acknowledge that there is a certain random nature to all things....at least to some extent.

But then you shoehorn one instance(both in the game and IRL) to support your argument as IDK...."unshakable"?

But...I counter your IRL argument with Steve Trout.

In 1981 at age 23(that's your requirement...right....forget the rookie status...it's meaningless)

8-7 3.47 ERA and a 1.28 WHIP
(that's nearly the same line as your guy)
According to you.....that's good enough for a growth or at least to remain the same.


1982
6-9 4.26 ERA and a 1.49 WHIP

1983
10-14 4.65 ERA and a 1.53 WHIP!

Uh-oh.....he's gotta regress....he's just gotta!

1984
13-7 3.41 1.38 WHIP

1985
9-7 3.39 ERA 1.45 WHIP

Age 27 ...in his prime...looks like he's turning it around!

1986
1987

Yeah....nothing random IRL.

M.K.
Knight165

Rookie status is meaningless? Performance is meaningless, rookie status is meaningless, reality is meaningless, the driving factor in MLB is ramdomness? Maybe you and I should try out for a major league team, we might randomly become superstars.

You are posting your opinion of what you believe will make the game "more interesting" instead of reality. You probably won't do this because it doesn't fit with what you are advocating, but there are literally hundreds of pitchers age 23 and under in professional baseball who would qualify as rookies.

I have provided you with Hara's numbers as of July 20 2014. Go to MLB.com and search rookie pitchers and if Hara is below average as a 23 year old rookie , 7-7, 3.87, 1.18 you should be able to find and post numerous 23 and younger rookies who are performing far better.

I'm curious since I don't use your rosters - what number did you assign to Yordano Ventura's potential in your roster?

[Knight165]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

Rookie status is meaningless? Performance is meaningless, rookie status is meaningless, reality is meaningless, the driving factor in MLB is ramdomness?
The DRIVING factor? Nobody said that(except you). It is a factor on some occasions...that's what I said and you know it. Don't try and twist it into ALWAYS......that's not what it is in the game....that's not what I said.
YOU are the only one who keeps saying it' TOTALLY random.
Check that one at the door.
..And I stated that the rookie status is meaningless....because I was giving you an example of a 23 year old and his performance at that age. If you want to go back to his rookie year....it doesn't change what happened throughout his career



You are posting your opinion of what you believe will make the game "more interesting" instead of reality.
How can you say it is not sometimes reality...I just showed you a COMPLETE CAREER that shows that one year's performance does not dictate the next year's performance. Continue to ignore it.....you do that quite well instead of answering as to how that happened in light of your theory.
You probably won't do this because it doesn't fit with what you are advocating, but there are literally hundreds of pitchers age 23 and under in professional baseball who would qualify as rookies.
I advocate that in most cases...the potential will drive the players progress....but in some....it will not happen...in others it may be up and down.
I still have no idea what "being a rookie" has to do with anything in this.
If you could explain how that is somehow relevant ....that would be helpful.

I have provided you with Hara's numbers as of July 20 2014. Go to MLB.com and search rookie pitchers and if Hara is below average as a 23 year old rookie , 7-7, 3.87, 1.18 you should be able to find and post numerous 23 and younger rookies who are performing far better.

I just showed you one....not from this year and not a "rookie"....but he is the same age and has a nearly identical stat line.....but your theory is that there should be no change to a pitcher with that stat line.
To disprove a theory...you need only to provide one instance that conflicts with it. I did...I'm sure I could find HUNDREDS of those as well.


I'm curious since I don't use your rosters - what number did you assign to Yordano Ventura's potential in your roster?

Off hand I don't know.... Likely a B...as I'm pretty sure Baseball America and Prospectus has him as a 55 medium....which means he projects to LIKELY be a 3-4 starter.

M.K.
Knight165

[KBLover]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

Rookie status is meaningless? Performance is meaningless, rookie status is meaningless, reality is meaningless, the driving factor in MLB is ramdomness? Maybe you and I should try out for a major league team, we might randomly become superstars.

Rookie status is meaningless. There is no physiological reason for the arbitrary rookie cut off to make a player develop (or fail to do so). Age is much more of a factor and much more projectable/worthy of leeway. An 18-year-old throwing a 3.80 ERA in the majors would be big news because you can EASILY project his body gaining strength, the kid learning the game, he probably has awesome pure stuff that he's getting by on right now, etc.

A 26-year-old rookie doing a 3.80 ERA would have value because he's around league average and average players do have value. However, you can't just say "he's a rookie, therefore he's going to be an ace in the future because he's already average". Real player development does NOT work that way. The fact he's 26 likely limits any physical growth (though it's not impossible) and most gains will come from experience, which may or may not do much. He would be hard to project further and his current performance isn't giving any clues either.

By your logic, we should grab gloves and go become major league rookies because if we do well - hey we're superstar material. Never mind I'm 37 and I'm not Satchel Paige, so a 37-year-old rookie, even if I had a GREAT year would just have one big "regression eminent" sticker on me and it would take multiple years to shake it. It would not be technically impossible, but very improbable that it's unreasonable to expect any other projection on just one season.

Baseball is physical tools + baseball skills and instincts + "random" factors. Personally, I don't believe in any "true" randomness, just missing information on factors that are making things happen or more/less likely to happen. However, whether it's the failings of the English language or people just liking shorthand and slang that it's gets wrapped up as "luck" or "randomness" instead of "we don't know what caused it, but we know it happened based on the results".

It's when the evidence proves it's ability and not "luck" that things get interesting. Like the pitchers who "got lucky" for a career because they buck DIPS/FIP, etc. Then we get to learn things and fill in the missing information instead of just being content with current knowledge. The difference is with stats, it's all observable. You can see a knuckleballer, you can see how a high FB% pitcher works and take that + FB = lowest BABIP = this guy "outperforms" the metrics. You can see Glavine induce crap contact all game even though he's average at not walking guys and below that in K's.

Player development is one area there's a lot of missing information. Why is it that two able-bodied, physical specimens with tons of athletic skill and training can take two greatly different paths? One becomes Mike Trout, the other "yet another tools kid that couldn't make it".

What caused Steve Trout to flop eventually? He did as well as Ventura - yet did not make it for long. Why? Presumably, he had skills and production - what happened?

What is/are the reason(s) for that?

Now, assuming we actually did have all the information - how do you translate that to a video game? A computer, as good as they are now, can't even "think" yet (i.e. the crap AI in most games and the unrealistic "mental errors" in games) let alone begin to replicate the possible reasons why two gifted athletes in a sport can have completely opposite careers.

The problem with projecting the future is we, by definition, have no evidence. The future hasn't happened. We're saying what we THINK "will" happen, which of course could be completely wrong. One guy says Ventura is average. One says he's going to flop. One says he's going to be a star. One of them will be right. Can you tell me 100% definitively which one it will be? Not your opinion, not your beliefs, not your hopes or current observations, tell me, absolutely 100% what Ventura will be?

Have you ever been wrong on a projection? Can you pinpoint EXACTLY why your projection went south? If not, then it's back to Knight's "no definable cause". Something made it happen, we can't sift through the smoke and noise to figure it out (yet, maybe one day we will).

What caused Steve Trout in Knight's example to flop? He was looking solid...until he wasn't. What's the reason? He had just as good a rookie year, bounced back to what looked like his true ability - and then faded away.

What "definable cause" made that happen?

I have provided you with Hara's numbers as of July 20 2014. Go to MLB.com and search rookie pitchers and if Hara is below average as a 23 year old rookie , 7-7, 3.87, 1.18 you should be able to find and post numerous 23 and younger rookies who are performing far better.

You're missing the point.

Hara's numbers are nice (so far) for a rookie, but what does that DEFINITIVELY say about his future?

Players can have one good rookie year...and never get there again. They could have bad rookie years and go on to be solid or better.

You can't take 14 starts and prove anything either way. If he was 7-7 with a 6.32 ERA, I'd be saying the same thing. It's just not enough time, which is why the game's rapidly changing projections are just as wrong as saying "he's got good rookie numbers in 14 starts, therefore he should be gaining potential".

He shouldn't be doing anything at all because it's not enough samples of his performance to say either way.

[tessl]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

First of all, I hope you don't take this personally. I commend you for you extensive work on your popular rosters. On this topic we disagree.

You chose the year 1981 which as I'm sure you know was a strike year and seems a bit odd to compare that with 2014 but I went to fangraphs and crunched some numbers.

Using Hara as a measuring stick, there was only one 23 year old pitcher, rookie or not, who had 7 wins by July 20 and that was Fernando Valenzuela but since MLB went on strike in June I chose to use season statistics.

Instead I will use all 23 and younger pitchers in MLB who had 7 or more wins for the entire season of 1981, the season you chose.

Fernando Valenzuela 13-7 in 1981, six time all star, pitched 17 years in MLB, most people would agree he had good potential and his 1981 numbers would have indicated better than Hara's drop from 74 to 71 in potential.

Dave Stieb 11-10 in 1981, 7 time all star, most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Britt Burns, 10-6 in 1981, 1 time all star, was 18-11 and top ten in Cy Young voting when he suffered a career ending injury at age 26. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Dan Petry, 10-9 in 1981, won 15 games in 1982, 19 games in 1983, 18 games in 1984, 15 games in 1985, arm surgery in 1986 and continued to pitch with a 13 year career but was not the same after the surgery. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Rich Dotson, 9-8 in 1981, won 22 games in 1983, all star in 1984, arm surgery in 1985 after which he lost velocity and couldn't throw a curve ball due to pain. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Dave Righetti, 8-4 in 1981, 16 year MLB career, converted to a closer, finished with 252 career saves. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Steve Trout , 8-7 in 1981, the one pitcher you chose to focus on while ignoring the others. You accurately portrayed him as a mediocre pitcher. I'm not sure why you picked Trout out of that list unless it was because he best made your case.

Mike Witt, 8-9 in 1981, 12 year MLB career, two time all star, #3 Cy Young voting 1986, 6 consecutive seasons of 200+ innings. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Bill Gullickson, 7-9 in 1981, 14 year MLB career, 20 wins in 1991, 162 career MLB wins, Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Neil Allen, 7-6 in 1981, vulture wins out of the bullpen. He was a relief pitcher, not a starter.

My point sir is Hara's numbers at his age do not indicate he is dropping to a 71 potential which, as you are aware, will limit his progression in the game. I would prefer if they are going to do this to young pitchers they use injuries to reduce potential, not simply a random drop for a solid performing, healthy pitcher. That would be at least somewhat realistic.

[Knight165]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

First of all, I hope you don't take this personally. I commend you for you extensive work on your popular rosters. On this topic we disagree.

You chose the year 1981 which as I'm sure you know was a strike year and seems a bit odd to compare that with 2014 but I went to fangraphs and crunched some numbers.

Using Hara as a measuring stick, there was only one 23 year old pitcher, rookie or not, who had 7 wins by July 20 and that was Fernando Valenzuela but since MLB went on strike in June I chose to use season statistics.

Instead I will use all 23 and younger pitchers in MLB who had 7 or more wins for the entire season of 1981, the season you chose.

Fernando Valenzuela 13-7 in 1981, six time all star, pitched 17 years in MLB, most people would agree he had good potential and his 1981 numbers would have indicated better than Hara's drop from 74 to 71 in potential.

Dave Stieb 11-10 in 1981, 7 time all star, most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Britt Burns, 10-6 in 1981, 1 time all star, was 18-11 and top ten in Cy Young voting when he suffered a career ending injury at age 26. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Dan Petry, 10-9 in 1981, won 15 games in 1982, 19 games in 1983, 18 games in 1984, 15 games in 1985, arm surgery in 1986 and continued to pitch with a 13 year career but was not the same after the surgery. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Rich Dotson, 9-8 in 1981, won 22 games in 1983, all star in 1984, arm surgery in 1985 after which he lost velocity and couldn't throw a curve ball due to pain. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Dave Righetti, 8-4 in 1981, 16 year MLB career, converted to a closer, finished with 252 career saves. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Steve Trout , 8-7 in 1981, the one pitcher you chose to focus on while ignoring the others. You accurately portrayed him as a mediocre pitcher. I'm not sure why you picked Trout out of that list unless it was because he best made your case.

Mike Witt, 8-9 in 1981, 12 year MLB career, two time all star, #3 Cy Young voting 1986, 6 consecutive seasons of 200+ innings. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Bill Gullickson, 7-9 in 1981, 14 year MLB career, 20 wins in 1991, 162 career MLB wins, Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Neil Allen, 7-6 in 1981, vulture wins out of the bullpen. He was a relief pitcher, not a starter.

My point sir is Hara's numbers at his age do not indicate he is dropping to a 71 potential which, as you are aware, will limit his progression in the game. I would prefer if they are going to do this to young pitchers they use injuries to reduce potential, not simply a random drop for a solid performing, healthy pitcher. That would be at least somewhat realistic.

So you choose to make Hara ...Fernando Valenzuela...Stieb.....Petry...whoever on your list ...fine
That happens in the game more than the other way around.
I chose to make him Steve Trout....and again...to disprove your theory...that's all I had to do was provide the one. You can stack another dozen with the stat lines....it won't matter because I showed you that it can happen.
Can you admit that?!

I'll just ask you one question.
WHAT made Steve Trout...the eight pick in the first round have his career go the way it went?
Why did he not become the B+ pitcher he was projected to be?

You know the answer....but you just won't admit it.

THERE IS NO "HERE IT IS" REASON.
Sometimes it just happens!

M.K.
Knight165

[KBLover]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

Fernando Valenzuela 13-7 in 1981, six time all star, pitched 17 years in MLB, most people would agree he had good potential and his 1981 numbers would have indicated better than Hara's drop from 74 to 71 in potential.

And from 1988 on, he was average at best. That would be on par with an average potential. In his career he was a 101 ERA+. Average. Literally.

Dave Stieb 11-10 in 1981, 7 time all star, most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

He turned out well. Of course, by then he's shown 2 years of growth. Your Hara has a whooping 14 or so outings. Not exactly the same amount of evidence.

Britt Burns, 10-6 in 1981, 1 time all star, was 18-11 and top ten in Cy Young voting when he suffered a career ending injury at age 26. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

And before his injury he was gradually declining. 143 ERA+ then 135, then 100 at best. A good rookie year doesn't mean a player is going to superstar.

CEI's are as "random" as anything else. In a video game, they are completely random.

Dan Petry, 10-9 in 1981, won 15 games in 1982, 19 games in 1983, 18 games in 1984, 15 games in 1985, arm surgery in 1986 and continued to pitch with a 13 year career but was not the same after the surgery. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Two years later, he puts up a 4.83 ERA. A couple years after that, he's average at best. So what exactly did his good early numbers predict?

Also, again, he had more body of work showing he was possibly above average. How many games has your Hara played again?

Rich Dotson, 9-8 in 1981, won 22 games in 1983, all star in 1984, arm surgery in 1985 after which he lost velocity and couldn't throw a curve ball due to pain. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Average rookie year - average the rest of his career. '83 was easily his best season - never again replicated it. Of course, by your logic, his potential should have gone up...even though it was a career year he never reproduced.

Dave Righetti, 8-4 in 1981, 16 year MLB career, converted to a closer, finished with 252 career saves. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Righetti did well - though why was he converted from a starter?

Mike Witt, 8-9 in 1981, 12 year MLB career, two time all star, #3 Cy Young voting 1986, 6 consecutive seasons of 200+ innings. Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

Witt would likely be a B potential and he would stay there until he suddenly just started dropping off in 1988 for whatever reason. Never recovered.

Bill Gullickson, 7-9 in 1981, 14 year MLB career, 20 wins in 1991, 162 career MLB wins, Most people would agree his 1981 numbers at a young age were an accurate indicator of better than a potential decline from 74 to 71.

1981 was a career year for him - never reproduced it again. What exactly did those numbers predict?

Neil Allen, 7-6 in 1981, vulture wins out of the bullpen. He was a relief pitcher, not a starter.

Average rookie season - ended up with an average 98 ERA+ in his career.

My point sir is Hara's numbers at his age do not indicate he is dropping to a 71 potential which, as you are aware, will limit his progression in the game. I would prefer if they are going to do this to young pitchers they use injuries to reduce potential, not simply a random drop for a solid performing, healthy pitcher. That would be at least somewhat realistic.

Maybe Hara is one of those guys up there that will flame out eventually. There's people on your own list that had okay rookie/young years and didn't do any better. Some, by 28, were fighting for their careers. Perhaps he's just going to be average and that's it. That's also on your list up there.

What's realistic is that pitchers any kind of rookie year can end up a 100 different ways. They don't always get better. They don't always get worse. It's all possible. How do you capture ALL the possibilities in a video game without using RNG?

Because even using those stats, all of those guys on your list didn't just have a straight up path to their careers.

[Knight165]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

Dave Stieb....probably the best pitcher on his list....
5th round pick of 1978(what was his starting potential? or projection?)

Mike Morgan-meh
Andy Hawkins-meh
the illustrious Rod Boxberry(sorry if you are a member here Rod )-who?
Tim Conroy-who?
Rip Rollins-
and Hall of Famer-Brian Ryder...who could forget him?

All chosen in the FIRST round of that draft.

What potential letters would you give THOSE guys?

M.K.
Knight165

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

http://beta.sportingnews.com/article/4586321-mlb-draft-2014-busts-worst-prospects-picks-brien-taylor/slide/233378

All these guys were "can't miss" guys. Scouts all raved about them.

In the Show world I'm sure they would have 99 potential.

[tessl]

Re: "starting to struggle" message

<table style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;width:90%;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="75"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="50"><tbody><tr><td width="37">
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/07.gif');width:1px;height:24px;background-position:center;" valign="middle" width="100%"> Quote:</td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td align="left">
</td> <td align="left"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td> </td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/09.gif');width:100%;height:24px;" align="left" nowrap="nowrap" valign="middle" width="100%"> Originally Posted by tessl</td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td align="right" width="100%"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="100%"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/11.gif');width:100%;height:24px;" width="100%">
</td> <td align="left"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/04.gif');width:37px;height:1px;" width="37">
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/00.gif');width:100%;height:1px;" width="100%">
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/05.gif');width:18px;height:1px;" width="18">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/04.gif');width:37px;height:1px;" width="37">
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/00.gif');width:100%;height:1px;" width="100%"> Fernando Valenzuela 13-7 in 1981, six time all star, pitched 17 years in MLB, most people would agree he had good potential and his 1981 numbers would have indicated better than Hara's drop from 74 to 71 in potential.
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/05.gif');width:18px;height:1px;" width="18">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="37"> </td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/02.gif');width:100%;height:14px;" width="100%">
</td> <td width="18"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> And from 1988 on, he was average at best. That would be on par with an average potential. In his career he was a 101 ERA+. Average. Literally.

My intention is not to demean or insult you in any way, but you are giving your perception instead of facts.

• 10% of minor league players play MLB.

• The average MLB career lasts 5.6 years, it is lower for pitchers.

Valenzuela made the all star team 6 times which in itself is more than the average length of a MLB career. He pitched for 17 years in MLB.

Most of the guys on that list pitched longer than 5.6 years except for the ones who blew out their arms. The facts indicate they were not average and certainly at the age of 23 they were not declining in potential from 74 (c) to 71 (c-) which is the entire point of this thread.

At age 23 Hara's numbers do not indicate he should be declining if the game is trying to replicate Major League Baseball reality. If the game is simply trying to placate people who are bored with reality and prefer randomness then it makes sense.

[Knight165]

Re: &quot;starting to struggle&quot; message

<table style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;width:90%;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="75"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="50"><tbody><tr><td width="37">
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/07.gif');width:1px;height:24px;background-position:center;" valign="middle" width="100%"> Quote:</td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td align="left">
</td> <td align="left"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td> </td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/09.gif');width:100%;height:24px;" align="left" nowrap="nowrap" valign="middle" width="100%"> Originally Posted by tessl</td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td align="right" width="100%"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td width="100%"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/11.gif');width:100%;height:24px;" width="100%">
</td> <td align="left"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/04.gif');width:37px;height:1px;" width="37">
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/00.gif');width:100%;height:1px;" width="100%">
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/05.gif');width:18px;height:1px;" width="18">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/04.gif');width:37px;height:1px;" width="37">
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/00.gif');width:100%;height:1px;" width="100%"> Fernando Valenzuela 13-7 in 1981, six time all star, pitched 17 years in MLB, most people would agree he had good potential and his 1981 numbers would have indicated better than Hara's drop from 74 to 71 in potential.
</td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/05.gif');width:18px;height:1px;" width="18">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="37"> </td> <td style="background-image: url('/forums/images/quotes/02.gif');width:100%;height:14px;" width="100%">
</td> <td width="18"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> And from 1988 on, he was average at best. That would be on par with an average potential. In his career he was a 101 ERA+. Average. Literally.

My intention is not to demean or insult you in any way, but you are giving your perception instead of facts.

• 10% of minor league players play MLB.

• The average MLB career lasts 5.6 years, it is lower for pitchers.

Valenzuela made the all star team 6 times which in itself is more than the average length of a MLB career. He pitched for 17 years in MLB.

Most of the guys on that list pitched longer than 5.6 years except for the ones who blew out their arms. The facts indicate they were not average and certainly at the age of 23 they were not declining in potential from 74 (c) to 71 (c-) which is the entire point of this thread.

At age 23 Hara's numbers do not indicate he should be declining if the game is trying to replicate Major League Baseball reality. If the game is simply trying to placate people who are bored with reality and prefer randomness then it makes sense.

It's better than placating those who ignore reality altogether.

M.K.
Knight165