Why prospect progression needs work

[SHanna34]

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.

No Winterball or Mexican leagues lol

[ellgieff]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

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.

Who do you code for?

The difficulty with any percentage based "random" system is that you are going to get extreme results sometimes. That's part of what random means.

The other bit that I'm interested in is what a successful season means (in the sense that only _some_ of the top prospects have "success"). I'd have thought getting paid to play would count as a success.

*shrugs* I'd certainly feel successful if someone wanted to pay me to play a game ...

[maddguuns]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

Who do you code for?

The difficulty with any percentage based "random" system is that you are going to get extreme results sometimes. That's part of what random means.

This is true...but, the game could br programmed on an individual player level. This means an "A" potential could drop until they turn into an "F" in four seasons and leave. Likewise, an "F" rated 5th rounder could progressively develop into an "A" potential over 8 years and, by then, he is a solid major leaguer. Now this should be based on many things, not the least of which being stats. If a "C" potential 23 year old AAer gets called up after someone gets injured, and performs well, maybe that means he should have higher rated potential.

This could even br programmed in like a "game changer" in NFL Head Coach. you get an email saying X player has shown us something, the scouting staff has determined he was misevaluated and has re-rated him a...".

It does happen...both busts and surprises. Mark Reynolds was a 16th round pick, Garrett Jones was a 14th round pick in 1999. Bob Howry was picked in the 29th round of the 1992 draft.

Now that I think harder about it, maybe the game changer would be the way to go...it's just that having static potential ratings is something that can and probably should be changed.

[Knight165]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

This is true...but, the game could br programmed on an individual player level. This means an "A" potential could drop until they turn into an "F" in four seasons and leave. Likewise, an "F" rated 5th rounder could progressively develop into an "A" potential over 8 years and, by then, he is a solid major leaguer. Now this should be based on many things, not the least of which being stats. If a "C" potential 23 year old AAer gets called up after someone gets injured, and performs well, maybe that means he should have higher rated potential.

This could even br programmed in like a "game changer" in NFL Head Coach. you get an email saying X player has shown us something, the scouting staff has determined he was misevaluated and has re-rated him a...".

It does happen...both busts and surprises. Mark Reynolds was a 16th round pick, Garrett Jones was a 14th round pick in 1999. Bob Howry was picked in the 29th round of the 1992 draft.

Now that I think harder about it, maybe the game changer would be the way to go...it's just that having static potential ratings is something that can and probably should be changed.

They are not static now.

M.K.
Knight165

[cardsleadtheway]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

They are not static now.

M.K.
Knight165

They might as well be. In three years of franchise play, there was nothing game changing in the potential changes for me. I didn't have a single guy change potential letter grades in my entire system. There may have been a few C or D guys in other systems that changed, but none of the A potential guys in your roster dropped a grade. And even the B and C potential players all saw pretty large progression gains over the years.

I had an in-depth conversation with my brother, an Madden player. He said progression works on potential for the first three years and then stats start to play a role. I don't know how this works, as I don't play anything but this game, but I like that your A guys will progress even sitting on the bench, but they will regress if they don't start to see playing time in year 4. In this game, I could drop an A potential guy into AA forever and he will still progress the same as if I play him every day in the majors.

[tessl]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

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/2011/2/1...-mlb-prospects

With each team only getting five draft picks a year in the game they have to make an above average success rate or they the mlb rosters would be full of minor leaguers in ten years.

[BatsareBugs]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

Either they'll need to change the letter grade system to something else (something similar to what Knight proposed), or have it recede to a lower as the player ages around 22-26 depending on his overall and the level the player has been playing in for the past two or three seasons. There could be a couple of surprise players (and they already have a system where some players potentials go up during the season). Currently we'd pretty much be determining who becomes a star or not on our roster sets, meaning it won't be random (when in reality, it is random to which of the top 100 prospects actual become stars, those who contribute, and those who flame out.) For example, we take an 18-year old high schooler who's a top prospect and whose potential is an A and who starts out as a D (let's say a 57 overall). If he progresses 5 points from ages 19-22, he'd progress up to around 76-77, between a C+ and a B-. If the player breaksthrough the majors and does well, the potential regression won't kick in, but if the player is flipping back and forth between the majors and AAA, each year the potential drops by half a letter grade and the player doesn't progress. Also, if a player is rushed, it'd be possible that both potential will drop and progression shouldn't occur.

A huge majority of the top 100 make it, a handful become perennial stars, a ton of them become quality players, most become decent regulars, and some become bench-fodder.

[BatsareBugs]

Re: Why prospect progression needs work

I sort of disagree that there aren't any busts for A-potential players. Look at their overall rather than the letter grade down the line. After a few seasons in my RTTS, thanks to the excessive amount of A-potential players in the rosters, I noted a lot of them were still C's and B's overall in their prime.