Weird potentials

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

In terms of all the guys you downgraded in your post because they haven't proven to be anything more than a below-average to average player so far in their MLB careers: Jose Bautista, Ryan Vogelsong, Cliff Lee, and Jason Hammel (amongst others) say hi .

But, yeah, I would love the ability to edit potential, simply because so much of it comes down to opinion. Understand why we can't have it, though.

Come on lol, don't use the exceptions to try to justify some of those.

[seanjeezy]

Re: Weird potentials

In terms of all the guys you downgraded in your post because they haven't proven to be anything more than a below-average to average player so far in their MLB careers: Jose Bautista, Ryan Vogelsong, Cliff Lee, and Jason Hammel (amongst others) say hi .

But, yeah, I would love the ability to edit potential, simply because so much of it comes down to opinion. Understand why we can't have it, though.

So you think Zach Britton is the next Cliff Lee or that Yonder Alonso is the next Jose Bautista? 4 late bloomers out of thousands of failures isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for handing out A potentials at the frequency SCEA does... Worse is when someone like Zack Cozart gets and A but Andrelton Simmons doesn't, makes no sense...

[jseward92]

Re: Weird potentials

They aren't changing it's a matter of opinion there is no right or wrong answer. We aren't Bugger King.

This post seriously made me LOL

[Nooooovak]

Re: Weird potentials

Come on lol, don't use the exceptions to try to justify some of those.

I kid! I kid!

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

So you think Zach Britton is the next Cliff Lee or that Yonder Alonso is the next Jose Bautista? 4 late bloomers out of thousands of failures isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for handing out A potentials at the frequency SCEA does... Worse is when someone like Zack Cozart gets and A but Andrelton Simmons doesn't, makes no sense...

This more so then anything else, I wouldn't care what guys got what potential, as long as there was some sense of consistency.

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

I kid! I kid!

I figured lol, your explanation is certainly valid, its just that, with potential, its all about projecting based on what we know RIGHT NOW. There are ton of guys we feel deserve A's but in reality, very few actually reach that stardom.

[Nooooovak]

Re: Weird potentials

So you think Zach Britton is the next Cliff Lee or that Yonder Alonso is the next Jose Bautista? 4 late bloomers out of thousands of failures isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for handing out A potentials at the frequency SCEA does... Worse is when someone like Zack Cozart gets and A but Andrelton Simmons doesn't, makes no sense...

Was just messing around. I don't think the Potentials are perfect, either.

[TheKnack]

Re: Weird potentials

I'll say this much: with the ability for every players face to turn into a digital face, it makes dropping a guy like Truinfel's ratings to the minimum and recreating him with the potential you feel is correct much easier.

Just rename Truinfel Joe DeCarlo and change his attributes as you feel necessary, then make a new Carlos Truinfel and make his potential the C-/C-/B- it should be.

[zack4070]

Re: Weird potentials

Cant we just edit the ratings ourselves. If we see someone down the road who obviously sucks in real life and they keep getting awesomer and awesomer in the game, can't we just bring down their overall ratings and they wont ever get much better.

Similar to what if for some odd reason Wellington Castillo for the Cubs this year hits .300 with 36 home runs, can't we just up their ratings on the game so it reflects that in the game???

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

Cant we just edit the ratings ourselves. If we see someone down the road who obviously sucks in real life and they keep getting awesomer and awesomer in the game, can't we just bring down their overall ratings and they wont ever get much better.

Similar to what if for some odd reason Wellington Castillo for the Cubs this year hits .300 with 36 home runs, can't we just up their ratings on the game so it reflects that in the game???

No, even we did bring ratings down/up, it would have no effect on it as a player progresses. Long term, their potential indicates their overall as they progress. Editing ratings will have no long term effect.

[zack4070]

Re: Weird potentials

No, even we did bring ratings down/up, it would have no effect on it as a player progresses. Long term, their potential indicates their overall as they progress. Editing ratings will have no long term effect.

So are you saying if I bump up Wellington Castillos power and contact to a 99, when I sim he will still be hitting like 9 home runs a year?

[jseward92]

Re: Weird potentials

So are you saying if I bump up Wellington Castillos power and contact to a 99, when I sim he will still be hitting like 9 home runs a year?

No I don't think he meant that. I think he meant that if there is a guy who is 22 a C overall and A potential but he should be a B or C, even if you take him down to an F he still will reach his A potential. If you did that to Castillo his homeruns would reflect the bump.

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

So are you saying if I bump up Wellington Castillos power and contact to a 99, when I sim he will still be hitting like 9 home runs a year?

For the first year, he will hit whatever amount of homers (say 30) however his ratings will decrease rapidly because his potential is a C, he may 30 homers year one, drop down to 15 in year two and by year 3, he'll be back to hitting those 9 homers.

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

No I don't think he meant that. I think he meant that if there is a guy who is 22 a C overall and A potential but he should be a B or C, even if you take him down to an F he still will reach his A potential. If you did that to Castillo his homeruns would reflect the bump.

Exactly what I was getting at

[zack4070]

Re: Weird potentials

For the first year, he will hit whatever amount of homers (say 30) however his ratings will decrease rapidly because his potential is a C, he may 30 homers year one, drop down to 15 in year two and by year 3, he'll be back to hitting those 9 homers.

Got it. Well that kind of sucks if thats how it works. So with so many guys having A potential, do you think the chance of guys being rated in the high 90's in say year 4 will increase to what it is right now???