Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

[ViatorLion10]

Quote: Originally Posted by Funkycorm

That is correct on the editing overalls. I should have specified I don't for those A and B potentials only usually. The problem with the low 50s and high 40s overall is that they are usually from the same set of positions. If you don't up the overall of the C, 1b, and 3b from the 40s to at least the low 50s and make them all 18 years old is that in 10 years there is no talent at those positions. Yeah they fill the depth chart and sit behind real prospects but if someone (like me) ventures far enough in because you want to purge the league with a league you create on your own that is half real half fake, you get no talent at these positions. This impacts more than just depth charts. There will only be a few 1b for example over 75. This means that they are cheap and under paid for the position and it screws up budgets more than they already are. Like I said I am happy to see others acknowledge the need for draft class edits because the community is not there yet as a lot of the community has narrow vision when it comes to rosters. And the more differing opinions we have here the better educated the community will be and the better it will be for the game as whole..

I think the main problem there isn't the player creations, its how overalls are determined. A couple years back I actually took the time to see how attributes contribute to overalls. If you enter in average attributes (essentially 60s for all batting attributes and 65 for all fielding), you get a wide variety of overalls based on positions. Catchers and 2B are overrated (79 overall), 1B/SS/CF/RF are underrated (73, 74, 73, and 74 respectively), and 3B/LF are right on par (77 and 76 respectively). I understand that different attributes matter more so to different positions, but that whole thing needs a little fine tuning because it messes with other parts of the game.

[Funkycorm]

Quote: Originally Posted by ViatorLion10

I think the main problem there isn't the player creations, its how overalls are determined. A couple years back I actually took the time to see how attributes contribute to overalls. If you enter in average attributes (essentially 60s for all batting attributes and 65 for all fielding), you get a wide variety of overalls based on positions. Catchers and 2B are overrated (79 overall), 1B/SS/CF/RF are underrated (73, 74, 73, and 74 respectively), and 3B/LF are right on par (77 and 76 respectively). I understand that different attributes matter more so to different positions, but that whole thing needs a little fine tuning because it messes with other parts of the game.

Exactly.

There was a dev on here back in the 19 cycle that said 62 was the average attribute rating for any given attribute, with the exception of stamina and durability, so they is how I came up with my 74-76 average. And yeah it differs slightly for position. I thought about making adjustments to my edits per position but it took too long. Only true position exception I make is for RP and CP.

[ViatorLion10]

Quote: Originally Posted by Funkycorm

Exactly. There was a dev on here back in the 19 cycle that said 62 was the average attribute rating for any given attribute, with the exception of stamina and durability, so they is how I came up with my 74-76 average. And yeah it differs slightly for position. I thought about making adjustments to my edits per position but it took too long. Only true position exception I make is for RP and CP.

I think if you wanted to adjust for the issue you're mentioning, maybe upgrade the players from those positions by 3 overall during your edit process as well (assuming they don't do past the thresholds I mention). I think that's probably a nice middle ground to use. I'll add that into the main post as well.

[Funkycorm]

Quote: Originally Posted by ViatorLion10

I think if you wanted to adjust for the issue you're mentioning, maybe upgrade the players from those positions by 3 overall during your edit process as well (assuming they don't do past the thresholds I mention). I think that's probably a nice middle ground to use. I'll add that into the main post as well.

I will bring them up to 50 from where they were but also lower their potential by 5, after any previous adjustments warranted by my charts, to make up that they came out very low rated. This minus 5 is the last edit potential wise I do after my max A and B edits first.

I also have a new edit I do with the top 50 list but that is not a concern until multiple years in so I won't mention it here. Would be sooner but since so many prospect ages are messed up by SDS it takes longer to meet my threshold requirement for those.

[Funkycorm]

I appreciate this being a civil discussion as it doesn't always happen when I start sharing my thoughts about potential editing.

[ViatorLion10]

Quote: Originally Posted by Funkycorm

I appreciate this being a civil discussion as it doesn't always happen when I start sharing my thoughts about potential editing.

I preach on other threads that creators need to be open to feedback and criticisms, so it's only right that I follow my own advice. You gave some good suggestions that I thought I could use to integrate into my method, but at the same time I disagreed with some of your points and countered.


Its all good, clean conversation to me

[lemarflacco]

Quote: Originally Posted by Funkycorm

I appreciate this being a civil discussion as it doesn't always happen when I start sharing my thoughts about potential editing.

I definitely think you guys should look into some sort of manual progression model that can account for breakouts and duds.

I try and implement this in my franchises where ill take one player/prospect per team that played super well for the year or the half year and edit them like 10 points or something to account for like players who kind of come out of nowhere but there def seems like a more scientific way to do this

[Funkycorm]

Quote: Originally Posted by lemarflacco

I definitely think you guys should look into some sort of manual progression model that can account for breakouts and duds. I try and implement this in my franchises where ill take one player/prospect per team that played super well for the year or the half year and edit them like 10 points or something to account for like players who kind of come out of nowhere but there def seems like a more scientific way to do this

I do something kind of like this but have thought about expanding on it a bit. But I can't seem to find a great way to accomplish is. As you say, a more scientific way. I tried something late in the 20 cycle like this but it didn't pan out as I had hoped. May revisit it later though.