Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

[ViatorLion10]

So one of the concerns in Franchise of using a custom roster that severely restricts potentials is that prospects from the base roster will be phased out by newly drafted prospects within a couple of seasons. This combined with the randomness of overalls and potentials being assigned to in-game generated prospects does create some issues for long term stability of franchises.


So because of that, I have developed my own little system for editing drafted prospects in Franchise. I know Cycloniac has a spreadsheet that is associated with his TrueSim set, but it doesn't seem very streamlined so I wanted to come up with something that quick, simple, and gets you right back into the game.


Step-by-Step Guide
-Identifying newly drafted prospects:

-So this is actually simpler than you think. You don't need any screenshots of the draft screen or the pick signings screen. All you need to do is when you first enter the off-season, look at team rosters. Any prospect on a 1/1 year contract should be a newly drafted prospect (as all other prospects contracts automatically expire at the end of the season and won't be renewed yet when the off-season first starts)

-Overall adjustment:

-One of the most annoying parts of the randomly generated prospects is getting players with MLB ready overalls (doubly so when that player is a teenager). To control for the randomness, I use the following scale to put a cap on a player's overall based on his age. To edit the overall, simply figure out the difference between the current overall and target overall (e.g. current = 70 and target = 60; therefore the difference is 10) and minus that number from each one of the player's hitting/fielding (not speed or stealing) or /9 (and clutch, but not stamina) stats.
-To use this scale, use the player's age when drafted:

-<20yo: max overall of 60
-20-23yo: max overall of 65
-24+yo: max overall of 68

-Potentials adjustment:

-Younger players should be able to hold on to their higher potentials, while older players should be a little more restricted. Use the following scale to adjust potentials (only if potential is "B" of greater):
-To use this scale, use the player's age when drafted:

-18-21yo: 3% reduction

-If 80-81: make 79

-22-23yo: 5% reduction

-If 80-82: make 78

-24+yo: 8% reduction

-If 80-82: make 76
-If 83-84: make 78
-If 85: make 79

-Not a math genius? Not a problem. Simply take the first number of a players potential, multiply it by the reduction number, and then divide by 10 (e.g. a 22yo player has a potential of 94: 9 x 5 = 45; 45/10 = 4.5; minus 4-5 potential from the player, whichever you feel better about)

-Additional adjustments:

-Players at 1B/SS/CF/RF positions have a tendency to be underrated overall-wise due to how overalls are calculated in the game. To prevent long-term shortages of good OVR players at these positions, you can increase the batting and fielding attributes (not speed or stealing) of these position players by 3 points (increase of 3 overall) as long as it doesn't push a player passed one of the aforementioned thresholds.
-This is by no means a necessity, more so just a suggested possibility that is up to user discretion

Hopefully this all makes sense and is pretty easy to implement. Let me know if y'all have any feedback or questions. I'm happy to help out and respond.

[lemarflacco]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

Do you limit the amount of drafted players for team? If so , how many? Because I think if you have 7 prospects per team that would have the league be flooded with generated players and push real prospects out of the league.

[ViatorLion10]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

Do you limit the amount of drafted players for team? If so , how many? Because I think if you have 7 prospects per team that would have the league be flooded with generated players and push real prospects out of the league.

No, I don't think that is really necessary. I think by making these adjustments you should at least be able to put the generated players in-line with the base prospects. Even if base prospects get phased out over time, that's the normal progression of MiLB players. If guys don't get click they'll eventually get released and/or end up in another system.

[Funkycorm]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

As someone that has been developing a draft pick editing system since 2018, I have some questions about your ideas.

First, what kind of results did you get from test sims on this?

I think it is good that you realize that draft class edits are essential to long term health of any franchise. I think you have some decent started ideas here but have some observations.

Do you have any allowance here for the exception to the rule players like Soto, ARod, Griffey Jr. who reached the MLB at 19/20 years old.

Next, do you have any plan for those 3b, 1b, and C that typically have overalls in the 40s out of the draft? Is there a plan to increase their overalls?

Do you edit the ages of players 24-25 to lower ages since 4-5 years in you get a lot of these. A lot of the end up with C potential and lead to 30 year olds who won rookie of the year.

You have to keep in mind as well that most prospects increase only 3-4 overall a year so a 60 overall prospects will take 4-5 years to reach the MLB average of 75. I mention his because you have all players 20 and under with a max overall of 60. Example. Of I have a 52 overall SS with 90 potential who is 20 years old it will take him 6 years to be about 70 overall and 26. If he sits in the minors another 2 years and comes up at 75 overall, he is now a 28 year old rookie who may also be a rookie of the year at 28 now. Too unrealistic for most people's liking.

Another big key is to edit potentials of draft picks. You should be limiting the number of A and B potential players across the league to keep in line with rosters.

I applaud you for seeing that draft class edits are essential but you have to edit the classes to fix the fundamental problems in the game code with progression.

I typically will have no player come out of the draft with an age over 22 and most get edited to be 18 to 21 with any overall under 60 making them an automatic 18 year old. Remember we have to account for the games progression issues.

Realizing these classes need fixed is a good first step. I look forward to hearing more about your process and findings with these edits.

[ViatorLion10]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

First, what kind of results did you get from test sims on this?

I think it is good that you realize that draft class edits are essential to long term health of any franchise. I think you have some decent started ideas here but have some observations.

Do you have any allowance here for the exception to the rule players like Soto, ARod, Griffey Jr. who reached the MLB at 19/20 years old.

Next, do you have any plan for those 3b, 1b, and C that typically have overalls in the 40s out of the draft? Is there a plan to increase their overalls?

Do you edit the ages of players 24-25 to lower ages since 4-5 years in you get a lot of these. A lot of the end up with C potential and lead to 30 year olds who won rookie of the year.

You have to keep in mind as well that most prospects increase only 3-4 overall a year so a 60 overall prospects will take 4-5 years to reach the MLB average of 75. I mention his because you have all players 20 and under with a max overall of 60. Example. Of I have a 52 overall SS with 90 potential who is 20 years old it will take him 6 years to be about 70 overall and 26. If he sits in the minors another 2 years and comes up at 75 overall, he is now a 28 year old rookie who may also be a rookie of the year at 28 now. Too unrealistic for most people's liking.

Another big key is to edit potentials of draft picks. You should be limiting the number of A and B potential players across the league to keep in line with rosters.

I applaud you for seeing that draft class edits are essential but you have to edit the classes to fix the fundamental problems in the game code with progression.

I typically will have no player come out of the draft with an age over 22 and most get edited to be 18 to 21 with any overall under 60 making them an automatic 18 year old. Remember we have to account for the games progression issues.

Realizing these classes need fixed is a good first step. I look forward to hearing more about your process and findings with these edits.

These are some pretty good question, thank you. Let me try to answer all of them in order:


1) My test results seem pretty good to me. What I'm really aiming for is what I aim for with my personal roster edits, which is a logjam of players with "C" potential. These edits seem to do a decent job at pulling down potentials and at least keeping them in check.


2) The exception to the rule is so incredibly rare, it seems unnecessary to include any sort of adjustment for that. Case in point, you were only able to name 3 players from the last 30 years who fit that bill, one of whom wasn't even a draft pick (Soto was an IFA signing at 16yoa)


3) No, I don't really have an approach to raising player overalls, nor do I think it is necessary. The issue with the generated players is more them forcing out the base prospects too fast, not necessarily being able to fill roster spots over time. There should be enough generated players to fill out rosters with overalls in the 50s and 60s.


4) Editing players to a max age of 23 (college seniors who get drafted can often be 23) seems like a good suggestion. I'll add that edit to the main post. Thanks!

5) The base growth for players from 18-23ish is roughly 3-4 OVR, but that gets expedited by performances at AA and AAA. When you think about it, that makes sense. Players who don't perform will be stagnant in their growth, while those who ball out will grow their overalls exponentially. Additionally, players under 20yoa are usually at minimum 3-4 years away from being MLB ready (which I roughly consider to be ~73 OVR since the average player is ~76 OVR). Also, I'm not advocating that you further reduce the overalls of players who are underneath a threshold, only that they don't exceed the threshold (if you SS is a 56 OVR, he can stay a 56 OVR). Low starting overalls also play a factor in risk/reward. You eve read about those players who have "exceptionally high ceilings" but they come with a lot of risk? That's your 18yo 95 potential SS who's starting overall is 52.



6) This method should be able to limit the amount of "A" potential players and also do a decent enough job of limiting the "B" players as well. My testing looks pretty good, but I'd love to get feedback from others who have tried it as well so maybe I can adjust it in the future.

[Funkycorm]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

The progression system as a whole just needs so much work.

I never lower player overalls. No need to. It's why I lower their ages instead.

Calling at 23 works well in long term franchises and gets more necessary a few years in as players skip drafts and are in the pool again the next year.

With the exception to the rule. Yes it is uncommon. There are a few more players like that but since I adjust based on overall I will usually make sure they are 20 before they are truly MLB ready and minimize it to maybe one per year.

Most users don't mess with classes as they just play one and done so most of these edits are used by an extreme minority like myself. Trust me, I learned about how people feel about my theories the hard way.

Performance can have an impact on progression especially if they tear it up in AA but unlikely to see an increase of 5 or more in overall in one year.

In the end there is no truly wrong way to edit prospects. I have probably edited near 75 classes over the last 4 iterations of the game and still change up how I edit yearly.

[ViatorLion10]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

The progression system as a whole just needs so much work.

I never lower player overalls. No need to. It's why I lower their ages instead.

Calling at 23 works well in long term franchises and gets more necessary a few years in as players skip drafts and are in the pool again the next year.

With the exception to the rule. Yes it is uncommon. There are a few more players like that but since I adjust based on overall I will usually make sure they are 20 before they are truly MLB ready and minimize it to maybe one per year.

Most users don't mess with classes as they just play one and done so most of these edits are used by an extreme minority like myself. Trust me, I learned about how people feel about my theories the hard way.

Performance can have an impact on progression especially if they tear it up in AA but unlikely to see an increase of 5 or more in overall in one year.

In the end there is no truly wrong way to edit prospects. I have probably edited near 75 classes over the last 4 iterations of the game and still change up how I edit yearly.

The problem with not editing overalls is that you get 18yo C potential players who will be in the MLB the year after they are drafted. That's kinda silly to me. And limiting them to 60 overall isn't that restrictive considering the average AA player is ~61-62 OVR. A 60 OVR 18yo (who you make 19 with age adjustment) is roughly 3 seasons away from MLB ready just based on base growth (faster if he performs at a high level). That's about right on par with real life timetables.


As far as those players in the low 50s taking too long to develop, that's the risk you take drafting those kinds of players. Makes you have to take that into account when deciding who to draft instead of just taking the highest potential player.

[Funkycorm]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

The problem with not editing overalls is that you get 18yo C potential players who will be in the MLB the year after they are drafted. That's kinda silly to me. And limiting them to 60 overall isn't that restrictive considering the average AA player is ~61-62 OVR. A 60 OVR 18yo (who you make 19 with age adjustment) is roughly 3 seasons away from MLB ready just based on base growth (faster if he performs at a high level). That's about right on par with real life timetables.


As far as those players in the low 50s taking too long to develop, that's the risk you take drafting those kinds of players. Makes you have to take that into account when deciding who to draft instead of just taking the highest potential player.

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..

[ViatorLion10]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

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]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

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]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

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]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

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]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

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

[ViatorLion10]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

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]

Re: Simplified Version to Editing Drafted Prospects in Franchise

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