Weird potentials

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

Not to be argumentative, but to show how subjective potentials are. This is the minor stat lines of a A prospect for OSFM. Granted its a small sample..

<table data-freeze="3" class="sortable stats_table" id="standard_batting" height="41" width="233"><tfoot><tr data-row="5" class="stat_total"><td align="right">
</td><td align="right">
</td><td align="right">
</td><td align="right"><table data-freeze="3" class="sortable stats_table" id="standard_batting"><tfoot><tr data-row="2" class="stat_total"><td align="right">.259</td><td align="right">/.352</td><td align="right">/.354</td><td align="right">/.705/.967</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Spoiler

Francisco Lindor

</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Which is scouting reports on players are so important. A lot of these guys don't have scouting report to back up their potential. There's a reason why Lindor is rated as a top 20 prospect in baseball and it has little to do with that statline.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Weird potentials

Which is scouting reports on players are so important. A lot of these guys don't have scouting report to back up their potential. There's a reason why Lindor is rated as a top 20 prospect in baseball and it has little to do with that statline.

Scouting reports only go so far as well. In 2008 this guy was in the top 30. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/...top&pid=508892

Even today his scouting report..
http://www.scoutingbook.com/players/p2179

[Godgers12]

Re: Weird potentials

Because potential drives player progression, player progression drives overall ratings, overall ratings drives contracts.

If we let people edit them it would wreck the team budgets in all season modes and eventually break the game. The engine in the game tries to keep the same number of A's, B's etc......... every year so that the league in 20 years down the road will resemble the league now.

Letting people just edit them with no recourse would cause a multitude of problems.

Ratings should not drive contracts.Contracts should be based on production, and age, nothing more. For instance, if a 99 OVR player is in a contract year and been hurt the last couple seasons, and put up pedestrian numbers, he should not receive a $100M contract. Whereas, if a 25 year old 75 OVR player is coming off a season where he hit .320/.410/.750, with like 30 HR's he should receive that mammoth contract, instead he will probably get a 2-3 year $10-15M deal.

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

Scouting reports only go so far as well. In 2008 this guy was in the top 30. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/...top&pid=508892

Even today his scouting report..
http://www.scoutingbook.com/players/p2179

What he was 5 years ago, should have no effect on what he is now.

As far as the scouting report, I could see reading that the justification. However, its well known scoutingbook is not accurate, and that scouting report is definitely not accurate, no other sites see him in that light.

Again everything is subjective, but we have to use our resources to best judge a player. Most importantly there is no consistency across the board with potentials, thats what makes it so awful.

[seanjeezy]

Re: Weird potentials

Not to be argumentative, but to show how subjective potentials are. This is the minor stat lines of a A prospect for OSFM. Granted its a small sample..

<table data-freeze="3" class="sortable stats_table" id="standard_batting" height="41" width="233"><tfoot><tr data-row="5" class="stat_total"><td align="right">
</td><td align="right">
</td><td align="right">
</td><td align="right"><table data-freeze="3" class="sortable stats_table" id="standard_batting"><tfoot><tr data-row="2" class="stat_total"><td align="right">.259</td><td align="right">/.352</td><td align="right">/.354</td><td align="right">/.705/.967</td></tr></tfoot></table>

Spoiler

Francisco Lindor

</td></tr></tfoot></table>

That's a horrible comparison, Lindor is a teenager in A ball so tools are more important at that stage of a player's career. The further you climb up the ladder the more weight the stats carry, and Triunfel has steadily gotten worse at every level. Its not like he's underperforming, what you see is what you get with him, hence the confusion over his potential grade.

[markpmitch]

In my opinion, in regards to the OSFM, I don't think it's a good idea to take real players out of the roster and replace them with created players just because we don't agree with someone else's opinion on their potential. There's enough guys to create and clearly there are a lot of guys all over the league who have debatable potentials. If you start replacing one or two, where do you draw the line? I think it would just be a good rule of thumb to leave the real guys alone... so Triunfel's an A. Should he be? Probably not, but its an opinion, and unless they make potentials editable someday, I say just roll with it and be happy with the trade chip.

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

In my opinion, in regards to the OSFM, I don't think it's a good idea to take real players out of the roster and replace them with created players just because we don't agree with someone else's opinion on their potential. There's enough guys to create and clearly there are a lot of guys all over the league who have debatable potentials. If you start replacing one or two, where do you draw the line? I think it would just be a good rule of thumb to leave the real guys alone... so Triunfel's an A. Should he be? Probably not, but its an opinion, and unless they make potentials editable someday, I say just roll with it and be happy with the trade chip.

Nothing will be changed in the opening day version. Don't worry about it. Any changes I think are necessary will be made in my own franchise.

[seanjeezy]

Re: Weird potentials

What he was 5 years ago, should have no effect on what he is now.

As far as the scouting report, I could see reading that the justification. However, its well known scoutingbook is not accurate, and that scouting report is definitely not accurate, no other sites see him in that light.

Again everything is subjective, but we have to use our resources to best judge a player. Most importantly there is no consistency across the board with potentials, thats what makes it so awful.

I tried to make that point earlier, it seems like there are a lot of legacy grades from previous versions of The Show... Baseball is all about what have you done for me lately, some of these guys have been below average for years.

This is from an article written earlier this week by John Sickels:

Carlos Triunfel, SS, Mariners, Dominican Republic, $1,300,000: Hasn't hit as well as expected, but he's reached Triple-A and the majors and could have a career as a bench contributor.

Its quite telling that Triunfel is still prospect eligible but no other major publication even bothers to mention him in their Mariners top 40... That's how much his stock has fallen in the 6 years he's been a pro.

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

I tried to make that point earlier, it seems like there are a lot of legacy grades from previous versions of The Show... Baseball is all about what have you done for me lately, some of these guys have been below average for years.

This is from an article written earlier this week by John Sickels:



Its quite telling that Triunfel is still prospect eligible but no other major publication even bothers to mention him in their Mariners top 40... That's how much his stock has fallen in the 6 years he's been a pro.

There's ZERO consistency with their legacy grades, Pineda and Ackley drop to a B, Smoak and Truinful are A's, Wanna give ALL these guys an A or a B, thats fine but ZERO consistency across the board.

[seanjeezy]

Re: Weird potentials

There's ZERO consistency with their legacy grades, Pineda and Ackley drop to a B, Smoak and Truinful are A's, Wanna give ALL these guys an A or a B, thats fine but ZERO consistency across the board.

I think this is the new pitch edits, remember how some guys would have updated repertoires while others were left untouched for years?

Spoiler

The Show is a series that strives for authenticity yet pitcher repertoires is one area the developers consistently seem to miss their mark. In 2011 Boston's Daniel Bard threw 68.7 percent fastballs, 24.8 percent sliders and 6.5 percent changeups. Bard's weapons were essentially a four-seam fastball, a two-seam fastball and a slider. As the numbers prove, he rarely threw a changeup and often limited himself to just the four-seamer or slider in a game's most crucial points. In MLB 12 The Show, however, Bard has FIVE pitches: four-seam fastball, slider, cutter, two-seam fastball and a circle change. Bard admits he'll have to mix in more two-seam fastballs and changeups as he moves from the Red Sox bullpen to the rotation but five pitches for a guy who essentially has relied on two is a swing and a miss at realism. It gets worse.

In 2011, Mariners closer Brandon League threw 67.4 percent sinkers, 21.3 percent split-finger fastballs and 11.3 percent sliders. With two strikes, League went to his splitter a whopping 40 percent of the time. It is his big "out pitch" and one of the effective splitters in baseball; except in MLB 12 The Show, where both League's splitter and sinker don't exist. Nor does the cut fastball of Diamondbacks reliever Bryan Shaw, which earlier this spring Arizona closer J.J. Putz compared to Mariano Rivera's. Last season, 58.3 percent of all pitches thrown by Shaw were cut fastballs. MLB 12 The Show does not include a cutter among Shaw's three pitches, unfortunate for a pitcher who in last season's NLDS spotlight appeared in four games and faced 13 batters without giving up a base hit.

This is not just a pitch selection issue. Cleveland’s Vinnie Pestano last season had an immensely effective combination of 79.9 percent fastballs and 20.1 percent sliders. Pestano's fastball, which is actually a cutter, averaged 92.6 miles per hour and maxed at 95.5 mph. In MLB 12 The Show, not only does Pestano not possess a cutter, his four-seam fastball is just 88 mph. Pestano joked during our Twitter conversation, "Don't know whats more upsetting ... that my 2 seamer is harder than my 4 or my pitching clutch is only 54. #pickitupdigitalme." Pestano's fellow Indians reliever Joe Smith joked, "That's what you get for being a righty specialist."

Smith enjoys The Show series but is used to seeing his digital repertoire miss the mark. In 2011, the real Smith threw 69 percent sinkers and 31 percent sliders. In MLB 12 The Show, Smith's video game version doesn't possess a sinker. He's instead been given a four-seam fastball and a changeup, two pitches he doesn't throw. "With guys who have been around for a few years and the big names in the game they are pretty accurate," said Smith. "Young guys seem to have to 'pay their dues' so to speak before they give them really high ratings. But I would say all in all they do an excellent job."

This is basically how I feel... out of the ~1200 players only 124 made me scratch my head, and only a handful of those made me do a spit take... That is an amazing success rate when you consider the amount of players included in the game.

[nomo17k]

Re: Weird potentials

Has SCEA ever changed player potentials from one (weekly) roster release to next?

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

Has SCEA ever changed player potentials from one (weekly) roster release to next?

Yes, they made several changes to several guys last year.

A few years ago, when guys like Wright, Jeter etc. had D potentials, it was realized the impact that potentials had and those were fixed.

Its understood its a long shot things will be changed but with daily updates this year due to the Show Live. It's hoped something will be fixed.

[yanksdaniel99]

Re: Weird potentials

I think this is the new pitch edits, remember how some guys would have updated repertoires while others were left untouched for years?



This is basically how I feel... out of the ~1200 players only 124 made me scratch my head, and only a handful of those made me do a spit take... That is an amazing success rate when you consider the amount of players included in the game.

Exactly, some guys are changed, some aren't and it leads to inconsistency.

It's understood developers are under an enormous amount of pressure to complete a game within a short time frame so there should be no issue with us pointing out inconsistencies that need to be fixed.

[JayD]

Re: Weird potentials

As a Braves fan I must say that seeing Simmons rated as a B made me have that WTF moment

[CKW11]

Re: Weird potentials

A bit off topic but where is this video that shows the 40 man rosters?