Why prospect progression needs work

[mhagf4]

This is an outstanding article done by someone at RoyalsReview.com. Essentially, it breaks down the success and failure rates of Baseball America's top prospects. If you look at this article, you'll see why this game, in the interest of realism, needs to make a change to the way "prospects" progress. When you see that in real life, over 2/3 of top 100 guys "fail", yet in the game "A" players become successes every time, you'll see that a change is needed.

Very interesting stuff.

The Conclusion section from the article:

I think several conclusions are warranted, at least for the period of the study (which includes a great many current major league players).

• About 70% of Baseball America top 100 prospects fail.
• Position player prospects succeed much more often than pitching prospects.
• About 60% of position players ranked in Baseball America’s top 20 succeed in the majors.
• About 40% of pitchers ranked in the top 20 succeed in the majors.
• About 30% of position players ranked 21-100 succeed in the majors (with the success rate declining over that ranking range from about 36% to about 25%)
• About 20% of pitchers ranked 21-100 succeed in the majors (with the success rate declining over that ranking range from about 22% to about 15%)
• The success rate of prospects (both position player and pitchers) is nearly flat and relatively undifferentiated for players ranked 41-100, and especially those ranked 61-100.
• Corner infield prospects and catchers are the most likely to succeed in the majors, but outfielders, third basemen and shortstops are the most likely to become stars. Second basemen and pitchers are the least likely prospects to succeed in the majors or to become stars.
• Prospect success rates have not improved much over time and there is little data to support the contention that prospects are more likely to succeed now than they have in the past.

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/14/1992424/success-and-failure-rates-of-top-mlb-prospects

[nomo17k]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

Very interesting article.

One thing is are you talking about the prospects in the franchise mode or RTTS? I tend to think casual players want to see their RTTS players progress fast enough so that they can continuously have a sense of accomplishment. For selling to a mass market there probably needs to be a compromise between giving real life feel (which is often just filled with bitterness) and the gaming factor... I don't know.

On the other hand, I'm loving the prolonged mediocrity of my RTTS player (still hitting .240 at AAA after 4 years, LOL), as I feel that reflects more of the current reality of myself, and it will make it much more gratifying if I make it to the show in the end.

So I personally agree and prefer if it's harder to see how players progress.

Perhaps there should be a way to make it difficult to know the potential of players. I've never been fond of rating system in games that directly ties them to performance. When people scout, they can only come up with subject measures of players' abilities, and they are often incorrect.

[bayman]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

You do realize that to match these percentages the game would have to have the exact same amount of minor league teams as real clubs have right? And please don't say "well then do that" as if it's that easy to include.

[mhagf4]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

I don't necessarily like the hidden potential idea, but I would like to see a player's potential fluctuate more, based on how he is handled in the minors. Rush him to quickly, or leave him down too long...it affects his potential.

Also, I'd like to see players potentials and progression be more tied to training. Think about how a player actually progresses. Let's say you have a guy who has a lot of raw power, speed, and arm strength. However, he has no pitch recognition, or plate discipline. If he is 20 years old, he might be a damn good prospect. But if you don't "train" him in the right areas, he'll turn into the next Jeff Francouer.

For a pitcher, you might have a guy who throws 95, is big, and has a sharp breaking curveball. That kind of guy would be a top prospect. But, if you don't train him in his command, or develop his 3rd pitch, he'll be a middle relief guy at best.

I think these kind of training, and prospect handling, with a little bit of random variability would make the progression system much more realistic.

[mhagf4]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

You do realize that to match these percentages the game would have to have the exact same amount of minor league teams as real clubs have right? And please don't say "well then do that" as if it's that easy to include.

These percentages are based only on Baseball America's top 100 list. Thus, all A and B type prospects. When is the last time you had an A prospect turn into a turd on this game? In real life, they do over 50% of the time.

[bayman]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

These percentages are based only on Baseball America's top 100 list. Thus, all A and B type prospects. When is the last time you had an A prospect turn into a turd on this game? In real life, they do over 50% of the time.

I understand exactly what you said. I also agree that there are not enough busts in the game. However, I also understand math and that matching these percentages based on the total amount of players in a minor league system in the game is impossible. In real life when a top 100 guy fails he may be "replaced" with a guy from like the 7th minor league team which can't happen in this game. I never said there wasn't an issue, but blanket statements that are not realistic is not the way to improvement.

[maddguuns]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

I understand exactly what you said. I also agree that there are not enough busts in the game. However, I also understand math and that matching these percentages based on the total amount of players in a minor league system in the game is impossible. In real life when a top 100 guy fails he may be "replaced" with a guy from like the 7th minor league team which can't happen in this game. I never said there wasn't an issue, but blanket statements that are not realistic is not the way to improvement.

I'm not going to jump all over you here, but basic math shows that the Show could institute these exact percentages, if they wanted. The top 100 represents 30 team's prospects over multiple drafts. At any give time, in the game, the minor leagues have upwards of 75 players.

And besides, who cares about percentages? That isn't the problem. This can be done easily, based on the numbers the game already uses. With 5-ish rounds fo the draft, each draft adds approximately 150 new players to the game (per year in franchise mode). With some time and creative programming, there is no reason the Show could not mimmick the star-to-bust ratios of real life.

What is being said in the thread, is that it would be nice to draft guys based on attributes, and see what happens when they are mismanaged in the system or injured, or even underdeveloped.

In fact, NFL Head Coach '09 does this to an extent. When a player gets drafted, he has a non-static potential rating. With injuries and bad performance comes a drop in the potential rating. In many cases, misused players never play up to their potential.

So, these percentages is not what anyone is after, it's the ability to see that 144th pick in the draft out play his initial ratings and become a star or that 3rd pick in the draft go the way of Antone Williamson.

In all honesty, my math sees this being a fairly easy modification. I would like to see your math if you think it can't be done.

[vegaas]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

This would be good as long as we also got the players drafted in the later rounds that have the potential to become stars.

[bayman]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

I'm not going to jump all over you here, but basic math shows that the Show could institute these exact percentages, if they wanted. The top 100 represents 30 team's prospects over multiple drafts. At any give time, in the game, the minor leagues have upwards of 75 players.

And besides, who cares about percentages? That isn't the problem. This can be done easily, based on the numbers the game already uses. With 5-ish rounds fo the draft, each draft adds approximately 150 new players to the game (per year in franchise mode). With some time and creative programming, there is no reason the Show could not mimmick the star-to-bust ratios of real life.

What is being said in the thread, is that it would be nice to draft guys based on attributes, and see what happens when they are mismanaged in the system or injured, or even underdeveloped.

In fact, NFL Head Coach '09 does this to an extent. When a player gets drafted, he has a non-static potential rating. With injuries and bad performance comes a drop in the potential rating. In many cases, misused players never play up to their potential.

So, these percentages is not what anyone is after, it's the ability to see that 144th pick in the draft out play his initial ratings and become a star or that 3rd pick in the draft go the way of Antone Williamson.

In all honesty, my math sees this being a fairly easy modification. I would like to see your math if you think it can't be done.

My whole point was that it was not easy and that comparisons to real life numbers are difficult at best. But since you know that coding these things into the game is "fairly easy" there is no point in continuing.

[WB1214]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

There would be nearly no way to do this in the Show, it would be really difficult. And when roster makers make these players, they make them according to their projections, which we get from the guys at BA and ESPN, etc. So guys that are highly regarded are going to be highly rated to put them in a position to progress to the point we feel that they are.
About the only thing they could do would be to have injuries or poor stats affect their progression, but that's not something that most would want to be done, because a 19 year old may have a bad year and could offset his progress to much, or something like that.

It would be tough to implement

[VideoTyrant]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

It is funny I see a thread on this because this is actually something I was going to test almost as soon as I got '11 never really tested it before and never really get far enough in my franchise to see if all the A prospects are making it and none are busting or if there are some dime a dozen Cs that really progress past there expectations.

I too have put a little research into this because like I said it was something I was planning on testing when '11 came out to see how prospect's potentials and there potential to bust is handled.....I found this good article too on it....

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9013

As you can see in the article 51 percent of 1st and 2nd round picks make it to the majors.....He also did a test to see what percent of guys that made it actually had successful seasons once they made it.

I don't understand why every1 thinks this is "Impossible" to implement into this game though.....because sheer # of prospects makes it impossible? Say you start your franchise you have 75 prospects already on your team say you start with 6 A prospects if the game programs a certain bust ratio for each letter grade of prospects saying 1/2 of your A prospects bust, 2/3 of your B prospects bust or what not you would still have enough prospects making impact in your farm system....and if you did get unlucky with a influx of busts well then make some key moves or FA pick ups or deplete your farm system to compete I mean there are other answers than yea I don't need a SS because this A prospect is for sure my next star there....teams that think like that in real life get burned all the time too so it would really add depth to managing your farm system IMO if you did have to plan back up plans if your A goes the way of bust.

[dickey1331]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

This would be good as long as we also got the players drafted in the later rounds that have the potential to become stars.

Exactly! I want my C prospect to turn into an A.

[maddguuns]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

I don't understand why every1 thinks this is "Impossible" to implement into this game though.....because sheer # of prospects makes it impossible? Say you start your franchise you have 75 prospects already on your team say you start with 6 A prospects if the game programs a certain bust ratio for each letter grade of prospects saying 1/2 of your A prospects bust, 2/3 of your B prospects bust or what not you would still have enough prospects making impact in your farm system....and if you did get unlucky with a influx of busts well then make some key moves or FA pick ups or deplete your farm system to compete I mean there are other answers than yea I don't need a SS because this A prospect is for sure my next star there....teams that think like that in real life get burned all the time too so it would really add depth to managing your farm system IMO if you did have to plan back up plans if your A goes the way of bust.

This is what I was trying to say. In fact, it's already programmed in...right now, all players play up to their potential ratings, but at different speeds, based on training and some other factor we can't figure out. Potential can be altered to range up and down. It's just a matter of making the limits stay away from extremes.

What I mean is...if the programming is set to be 50% of 1st and 2nd rounder becoming solid players, then they have to make sure its not 100% from one draft and 0% from another draft...the extremes need to be avoided.

But, apparently, programming is just too hard to even try. At least that's what some people are telling me.

[12]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

You know, I used the OS Full Minors roster and if anything, I felt most of the good prospects didn't turn into anything special. No one, aside from Dustin Ackley and Strasburg, became perennial all-stars. Stanton was good and hit a lot of home runs, but he wasn't that great. Neither was Heyward.

I guess I'm just not seeing the problem... It seems like a big percentage of the prospects never became anything special.

[nomo17k]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

Also, another thing that complicates the matter is the fact that something like Baseball America's top prospects doesn't necessarily reflect true abilities of players. There have been so many overhyped prospects in the past, you know.

For example, reading the statement "About 70% of Baseball America top 100 prospects fail," depending on the perspective (like pretending injuries don't matter) we may also say "70% of top 100 prospects have been overrated by Baseball America."

So, one factor why you see so many "A" potential players end up becoming great players in games is because in games those "ratings" tend to reflect how they really perform, because game engine uses them directly. It's like exposing DNAs of individuals and what they obtain through nurture entirely, which never happens in real life.

Yeah, I know I don't like "hidden" potential or hidden ratings either, but all the uncertainties involved in real lives makes things is difficult (though interesting).