Overall to Potential

[niles08]

So if I hit a bunch of bombs in AA ball with someone I could expect their progression on power to be like +4 or something rather than even or even +1? Or no?

Sent from my DROID Pro

[Cavicchi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

No...that's not the way it works. It's not automatic because of a poor/great season. It's pretty selective. Probably you will only see 5-6 players get changes per year. Yes...the progression will change with it. As for Axford....it's not necessarily so that he will drop. A and B are pretty close in what the progression aims for. Age also plays a huge part in progression/regression and at 29...he's nearing the end of his progression days. M.K. Knight165

Axford's age in the roster is 28. I know he will be 29 on April 1st. Papelbon is 31, so how is he an A overall with A potential--since he is a few years older than Axford?

[Dutch Oven]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cavicchi

Axford's age in the roster is 28. I know he will be 29 on April 1st. Papelbon is 31, so how is he an A overall with A potential--since he is a few years older than Axford?

I could be wrong and someone please correct me if so.

But I believe what they are talking about is the quickness of progression and regression. For instance Player X has A potential and Player Y has C potential. Player X will progress faster than Player Y. Once both guys reach their regression, or downhill side of their career, Player Y will regress faster than Player X.

It has little to do with what their current Overall says. In your case Axford has ooutperformed his potential and still may improve given his age. But he wont improve as much as a guy with A potential will and once he does start declining his decline will be sharper than Papelbons will due to their respective potentials.

[Cavicchi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dutch Oven

I could be wrong and someone please correct me if so. But I believe what they are talking about is the quickness of progression and regression. For instance Player X has A potential and Player Y has C potential. Player X will progress faster than Player Y. Once both guys reach their regression, or downhill side of their career, Player Y will regress faster than Player X. It has little to do with what their current Overall says. In your case Axford has ooutperformed his potential and still may improve given his age. But he wont improve as much as a guy with A potential will and once he does start declining his decline will be sharper than Papelbons will due to their respective potentials.

Well, that just doesn't make sense to me in light of the fact Axford is getting better every year and Papelbon isn't.

[Dutch Oven]

I think you are way too closely relating Overall to Potential

Axford is a A player and at his age will continue getting better. Papelbon is a A player and likely wont keep getting better due to his age.

When Papelbon starts declining however his decline wont be as sharp as Axfords due to his higher Potential. Papelbon will stay a better player longer than Axford which I dont see as that huge a issue.

[Cavicchi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dutch Oven

I think you are way too closely relating Overall to Potential Axford is a A player and at his age will continue getting better. Papelbon is a A player and likely wont keep getting better due to his age. When Papelbon starts declining however his decline wont be as sharp as Axfords due to his higher Potential. Papelbon will stay a better player longer than Axford which I dont see as that huge a issue.

Well, I do based on the fact Axford is younger and showing improvement from when he entered the majors in 2009. Papelbon, on the other hand, is a few years older and showing signs of decline based on his season stats. He did have a good year last season, but was really off in 2010. Taking the past 2 years into account shows Axford the much more dominate pitcher. Now one can say Axford is not going to do as well in 2012, but that would be pure speculation without basis.

Of course we don't know how any player will do in 2012, but there is no reason to suspect Axford will be anything less than what he already is, an A overall with what should be A potential. Sorry, but I just don't get how it's so easy to say Axford should decline faster than Papelbon while being a few years younger and after a fantastic year.

[Dutch Oven]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cavicchi

Well, I do based on the fact Axford is younger and showing improvement from when he entered the majors in 2009. Papelbon, on the other hand, is a few years older and showing signs of decline based on his season stats. He did have a good year last season, but was really off in 2010. Taking the past 2 years into account shows Axford the much more dominate pitcher. Now one can say Axford is not going to do as well in 2012, but that would be pure speculation without basis. Of course we don't know how any player will do in 2012, but there is no reason to suspect Axford will be anything less than what he already is, an A overall with what should be A potential. Sorry, but I just don't get how it's so easy to say Axford should decline faster than Papelbon while being a few years younger and after a fantastic year.

Papelbon has a much larger track record than Axford which goes to their "Potential". By the time Papelbon turned 29 he had 4 and a half years in the majors whereas Axford has a bit over 2.

And I dont really get where you see much "decline" from Papelbon either.

Last year he posted the lowest FIP of his career, second highest K/9 and second lowest BB/9 of his career.

Both are extremely good pitchers, hense both being A players. Axford doesn't have the track record as of yet to have a A potential but could easily get it.

[niles08]

So what I've come up with is that if axford has another good year or two he may turn into an A potential before his decline begins?...im really loving this topic and if we could figure it all out it would be great.

Sent from my DROID Pro