Prospect Progression

[Ckid8]

Re: Prospect Progression

I don't know if has been answered but can a prospect that has a B potential one year will his potential if he does good move up to an A or will it forever be a B potential

[335TDC]

Re: Prospect Progression

I don't know if has been answered but can a prospect that has a B potential one year will his potential if he does good move up to an A or will it forever be a B potential

Potential can change, but it doesn't happen often. Sano on the Twins and Diaz on the Mariners are two high-B potential guys who can jump up to A's in a month or two if they're on fire.

[BeatArmy]

Re: Prospect Progression

Just went through the 2017 draft. Did okay, 2 high 80 pot pitchers and a high 80 pot catcher. My fourth pick is a 47 OVR LF with a POT of 97, highest in the draft. Is there any way I can get him anywhere near there or are those low OVR/High POT guys just there to infuriate?

[Jr.]

Re: Prospect Progression

Just went through the 2017 draft. Did okay, 2 high 80 pot pitchers and a high 80 pot catcher. My fourth pick is a 47 OVR LF with a POT of 97, highest in the draft. Is there any way I can get him anywhere near there or are those low OVR/High POT guys just there to infuriate?

He'll be MLB ready in about 10 seasons and will probably get pretty close from what I've seen in my past franchises

[TheWarmWind]

Re: Prospect Progression

Just went through the 2017 draft. Did okay, 2 high 80 pot pitchers and a high 80 pot catcher. My fourth pick is a 47 OVR LF with a POT of 97, highest in the draft. Is there any way I can get him anywhere near there or are those low OVR/High POT guys just there to infuriate?

My 2014 1rst round draft was a SP rated at 48 OVR, but he's dominating the minors and is now a cusp player in 2018. He played some time in the majors this year and just barely lost his spot in the rotation. Likely to play a full season next year and his OVR is above 80 already (I reward results, not OVR).

It's rare but it happens. Think of them as high risk high reward prospects, but prospects can have monster years of progress in the minors.

[BeatArmy]

Re: Prospect Progression

My 2014 1rst round draft was a SP rated at 48 OVR, but he's dominating the minors and is now a cusp player in 2018. He played some time in the majors this year and just barely lost his spot in the rotation. Likely to play a full season next year and his OVR is above 80 already (I reward results, not OVR).

It's rare but it happens. Think of them as high risk high reward prospects, but prospects can have monster years of progress in the minors.

You're saying baby the guy through the minors? A year or two in AA, year or two in AAA then maybe?

[UberA13c]

Re: Prospect Progression

So the awful, rapid regression system is still in play? Practically a game breaker for me the last few years. Nothing is more irritating than Trout/Harper/Machado regressing at 29 years old after winning an MVP or two. Still don't understand why they haven't listened to the want of "editable progression/regression options".

Haven't started my franchise yet.

[TheWarmWind]

Re: Prospect Progression

You're saying baby the guy through the minors? A year or two in AA, year or two in AAA then maybe?

I'm just saying he's not a throw away. Those low OVR high potential guys CAN work out.

[Ranger Fan]

Re: Prospect Progression

So the awful, rapid regression system is still in play? Practically a game breaker for me the last few years. Nothing is more irritating than Trout/Harper/Machado regressing at 29 years old after winning an MVP or two. Still don't understand why they haven't listened to the want of "editable progression/regression options".

Haven't started my franchise yet.

It is definitely still there. Adrian Beltre on y Rangers franchise through July is hitting 325 (third in the AL) He has 64 RBI's (10th). He starts as a 92 rating. He is now a 76. I am in agreement its ridiculous. Regression should be based solely on performance and not age.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Prospect Progression

It is definitely still there. Adrian Beltre on y Rangers franchise through July is hitting 325 (third in the AL) He has 64 RBI's (10th). He starts as a 92 rating. He is now a 76. I am in agreement its ridiculous. Regression should be based solely on performance and not age.

So for arguments sake. ..a guy that is 27 and is hitting .220 should tank?

Stats do not impact tool development or regression. Derek Jeter in the minors had errors galore did that mean he should have regressed?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Nolove626]

Re: Prospect Progression

It is definitely still there. Adrian Beltre on y Rangers franchise through July is hitting 325 (third in the AL) He has 64 RBI's (10th). He starts as a 92 rating. He is now a 76. I am in agreement its ridiculous. Regression should be based solely on performance and not age.

I agree partly with you, but there has to be a happy medium. They progression seems to be to random for some guys, and to predictable for others. For instance, I also am running a rangers franchise and San dyson led every closer in ERA, saves, and one the Roland's reliever award. Any attribute increases? Nope. Any potential increase? Nope. When's the last time you have heard of a guy having a season like that (in real life), and the very next year he is not rated highly on that years iteration of the show (also in real life).

Also, the progression of potential needs to be more dynamic. So far playing this game for over a month and running multiple franchises I have only seen the same formula. With a potential increase you gain 1 point, and for potential decreases you lose two points. It almost feels like the game penalizes your players harder for a bad season than it rewards you for a good season.

On another note some of your top prospects will just not hit enough in the early stages and will suffer a ratings and potential decrease to start the season. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen a guy have a bad spring training or first month of the season and take a ratings or potential hit. This is simply not realistic. Not to mention once your player gets that red arrow pointing down next to their overall rating they almost never get their season back on track. Now when I see a red arrow next to a players overall after the first month or two of the season in franchise, I pretty much just chalk it up to a lost season for that guy because they almost never get their game back in track. It's almost like the game decides well this guy started off cold in the beginning of the season then they have to suck for the rest of the year, because we can't have every player doing well.

I can't remember a year where the show franchise mode has felt less dynamic and predictable. There's good and bad with the production based progressionn. Good because you get some surprises. Bad because training has absolutely no effect on your players rendering it pretty much a useless feature, and some prospects are just not going to hit enough to improve because by year three even the double A pitchers are near major league quality. For the first time in 10 years of playing the show I leave prospects in single A until the are at least 65 overall because they are almost guaranteed to flounder.

If the developers would just come out and realease a video or blog detailing the engine behind franchise mode I.e. Training and what it actually effects now that they have switched to production based progression, what causes potential and attribute increases, what statistics factor in to certain attributes progressing I think there would be less confusion and speculation. To be honest I think they have masked franchise as this dynamic responsive experience, but honestly I think the coding to make this a reality is to complicated and that they literally made franchise mode a giant dice roll and that is why they have not realeased any details on the engine.

I mean who would buy the game if they actually came out and said "well to make franchise and all of its possible factors dynamic would be coding nightmare, so we just made it a random dice roll to mask a dynamic experience". If I am wrong about franchise being dynamic then tell me why the dodgers win the World Series 90% of the time in the first season of franchise? If you use OSFM I know for a fact you are seeing this.

[tessl]

Re: Prospect Progression

I remember a couple years ago when people were complaining progression/regression was too predictable. They aren't complaining any more :-)

What puzzles me is why the devs listen to these people and "fix" what isn't broken.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Prospect Progression

Any testing should be done with default rosters. If you use default rosters you will see far fewer retirements due to injury.

My guess is that the system tries to balance the quantity of overall and potential players. Default rosters have more d potential players.

I also think this impacts progressions because the proportion of overall players tends to stay relatively balanced.

I have run numerous sims and seen guys like trout and Harper maintain a 99 for many years or regress. There is randomness built in.

Players tools do not progress once they get past their peak. A player that is 28 does not see an increase in speed, endurance, bat speed etc in real life. Ratings are a reflection of that.

I always use the example of David Ortiz. At age 25 he had a .234 with 18 homeruns. If potential was based on stats he would have regressed. At age 33 he had another .230 avg "down" year.

Stats do not tell the whole story. I would hate to see a day when stats dictate progression. The xp system of development is why I no longer buy Madden.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Ranger Fan]

Re: Prospect Progression

So for arguments sake. ..a guy that is 27 and is hitting .220 should tank?

Stats do not impact tool development or regression. Derek Jeter in the minors had errors galore did that mean he should have regressed?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

If that shows a pattern, sure. If the guy has a terrible season he should regress. I personally don't think anyone should regress during the season. Look at the stats for the season, look at age, and then plus or minus that guy. Why not ? What logic is it that says my 37 year old still overly productive guy should regress 16 points before the season is over. Right now it seems age is the overriding factor.

[Nolove626]

Re: Prospect Progression

Any testing should be done with default rosters. If you use default rosters you will see far fewer retirements due to injury.

My guess is that the system tries to balance the quantity of overall and potential players. Default rosters have more d potential players.

I also think this impacts progressions because the proportion of overall players tends to stay relatively balanced.

I have run numerous sims and seen guys like trout and Harper maintain a 99 for many years or regress. There is randomness built in.

Players tools do not progress once they get past their peak. A player that is 28 does not see an increase in speed, endurance, bat speed etc in real life. Ratings are a reflection of that.

I always use the example of David Ortiz. At age 25 he had a .234 with 18 homeruns. If potential was based on stats he would have regressed. At age 33 he had another .230 avg "down" year.

Stats do not tell the whole story. I would hate to see a day when stats dictate progression. The xp system of development is why I no longer buy Madden.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Dude, are you playing MLB 17 or 16? They switched to production based progression this year so statistic are literally the main factor in progression (for example lefty righty splits). I'm not saying I disagree with your point, but this is just a fact.Case in point to prove this true. I had hunter renfro hit 5 home runs against righties and progress 1 point in pwr r. He hit 15 home runs off of lefties and shot up 10 points in pwr L. So if what you are saying is correct then potential has more to do with how he sim engine works then attributes do, which would in fact be 100% a dice roll since every player plays the same because there is no attribute differential. I don't think the game decides okay we'll roughned odor is going to suck this year because there are not enough D potential players. I would actually be interested to see how many A, B, C and D potential players there is on the OSFM rosters to prove that it's not a non default roster issue.