Fictional Rosters

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by raleigh mcclure

I understand completely. And I was frankly impressed that you got the totals as close as you did. I figured there would an excess because of the way the potentials were listed on the original batters spreadsheet. I'm just not sure if it's a problem as far as franchise play goes. I'm wondering, specifically, if the CPU offers contracts based on potential grade at all. I would imagine that potential is taken into account when offering contracts to young players. If there are more ABC potentials, I wonder if teams start to run out of money signing the young players and that leaves talent on the sidelines. I guess if those that use these rosters are OK playing with budgets off or with accepting whatever happens to the FA list in a few seasons, then I shouldn't even worry about it. It's really not that big of a deal. I have Arizona, Atlanta, Baltimore, and Boston done. Planning on getting to a couple more tonight. Knight, what do you think of the pitcher prospect ratings? Almost every team has one or two SP prospects listed high enough to be in the top 5 SP's for the team, but the prospects are in AAA. I know that's OK for prospects to be rated higher than the MLB level starting rotation, but it seems like there's an excessive number of good pitching prospects in the fictional league. Plus, I had a look at the way the prospects are rated on the OSFM roster, and it seems like my h/9 and stamina ratings might be too low. Alternatively, the other pitch ratings for the fictional prospects may be a bit high. I'm not sure, but I'd appreciate your input. In fact, once I've finished with my edits and gotten things as good as I can get them, would you be willing to fix the pitching prospects? It would be a couple of pitchers per team at most. You might not even need to make many changes, but just have a look and do what you think is best. Would you mind doing that? RM

I will.
I did notice some pretty low H/9 attributes on some pitchers.

On the potential totals and the impact of the league, it's tough to say as this is the first year we've been able to import and I haven't really seen what having more or less than the previous average really does.
As far as the pitching attributes I like to start guys out(as "down the road guys") in the 40's/50's if they are A/B prospects. That gives them 3-4 and 5 years to gain steam. Future star pitchers it's in the 50's 60's to start. Having numbers even in the 70's 80's(say clutch or K/9) to start doesn't hurt as it tends to level itself out anyway.
I've been adding in some top heavy hitters to the league to compensate for the pitching. I'll also tone down the RP's and CP's a bit.
I already think these look REALLY good, I'm just putting my own stamp on it a bit.
These are already a blast to play with.

M.K.
Knight165

[statdude]

Can't wait to see the new knight rosters

[sluggbugg]

Looking forward to V2 and knights rosters both!!!

Who was it that was going to do the version where names were "themed" by team? Is that still in the works?

[sluggbugg]

Update RM? Not rushing, just curious.

[raleigh mcclure]

Quote: Originally Posted by sluggbugg

Update RM? Not rushing, just curious.

SluggBugg and others,

I had a super productive day (videogame-wise) and finished my edits. I uploaded the roster for Knight's finishing touches. You can view the almost-finished product in the roster vault. It's called "OSFV2 draft", was uploaded under "Diogenes2000" and was created today, June 17th.

We're almost there!

Thanks,

RM

[raleigh mcclure]

Knight,

I was going to include this in the PM I sent you but forgot. When you finish your edits, I would be pleased if you would upload the roster yourself so that it shows up under Knight165. Your screen name carries more weight than mine, and hopefully we can show this roster to more than the 88 downloads our version 1 received. If you would prefer not to for any reason, I understand. Just a suggestion.

And this is not a slight to any of those 88 downloads. We appreciate them all! A lot of work went into these and we're all just glad that people are enjoying them. I'm simply suggesting that we take advantage of Knight's cachet with the OS forums!

RM

[raleigh mcclure]

While I'm thinking of it, I originally planned to do more pitcher edits (I did some as I went), especially to RP's and CP's. But after I edited velocity, it looked like the fictional pitchers were OK.

I think this just confirms Triplethreat's suspicion that the velocity was the primary problem.

I looked at all of the pitchers when I did age and velocity edits (I also looked at sidearm deliveries and pitch types for sidearmers. I didn't do anything to the pitch selection to 3/4 pitchers or almost sidearm deliveries. If people are that picky, they'll need to make those changes themselves). I nudged up most of the pitchers in the 84, 85, 86 and 87 range. I left 30 pitchers (or was it 40?) total that have fastballs over 94. There is one 99, one 98, a few between 97 and 96, a few more at 95, and then 15 to 20 pitchers at 94. I think I ended up with a pretty good spread that also seems to have toned down overalls quite a bit too.

So, Triplethreat was absolutely correct that the velocity was the major difference between the OOTP ratings and The Show ratings.

RM

[Knight165]

rm;

I'll try and take a look at it this weekend.
I'm not sure how much time I have to edit right off the bat.
Can I make a suggestion?
Have you seen my pitcher charts for the OSFM rosters in that "recruiting" thread when we first started?
It would give you the attribute ranges you would need.
I'm not trying to shovel more work your way, I just don't want to hold up your process right now.

M.K.
Knight165