Ratings Spreadsheets for the O.S.F.M Opening Day set

[@legendm0de]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Plenty of players were rated 99 potential in SCEA's roster. David Ortiz A-Rod Jeter Beltran Soriano(Alfonso) Suzuki Giambi Cabrera(Miguel) Hunter Ibanez Trout 98 Harper 97 Cargo Cano 96 Cutch Tulo Posey Beltre(Adrian) 95 J-Hey Stanton Molina Taveras Goldy Puig Scutaro Machado Konerko I'm not sure what you are looking at......or mean. Why can't a player be a 99 potential at 19 y.o.? Do you mean OVR? ....and just for the record......Correa is a 95 potential and a 73 OVR. M.K. Knight165

I just always keep simming (to test some things) and keep seeing the trade market always involving prospects with these potentials. Bryce Harper and Carlos Correa's potential at this point should be no where near the same. Clearly Bryce Harper is capable of having one of the greatest seasons I have ever seen, how can you say that about someone in Single A or Double A. And Yea I stand corrected it was George Springers potential rated at 99. I think that most would agree that is overvalued by alot. Players also surpass their potential in sports sometimes like Tom Brady for example. So I don't think it's a bad thing to accidentally undervalue a prospect in baseball. But it appears over-valuing is triggering alot of season 1 trades that involve certain prospects.

Its also a matter of what people perceive A, B, C, D and F to mean relating to the game, which is why I could never agree with anyone but 5 to 6 players having a 99 in potential. But I'm just speaking to the reason why they always are included in trades and it can be avoidable and improve the decision making from CPU gms across the league. I saw Jon Lester traded to the Astros for Carlos Correa in my very first sim a few days ago and I had no idea at all why until I figured it could only be about the potential and age. For me I can't put Correa past a low 80 figure and Spring beyond a 87 or so when it comes to potential. If they surpass that I don't think that I'm stopping them by editing that attribute.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by @legendm0de

I just always keep simming (to test some things) and keep seeing the trade market always involving prospects with these potentials. Bryce Harper and Carlos Correa's potential at this point should be no where near the same. Clearly Bryce Harper is capable of having one of the greatest seasons I have ever seen, how can you say that about someone in Single A or Double A. And Yea I stand corrected it was George Springers potential rated at 99. I think that most would agree that is overvalued by alot. Players also surpass their potential in sports sometimes like Tom Brady for example. So I don't think it's a bad thing to accidentally undervalue a prospect in baseball. But it appears over-valuing is triggering alot of season 1 trades that involve certain prospects. Its also a matter of what people perceive A, B, C, D and F to mean relating to the game, which is why I could never agree with anyone but 5 to 6 players having a 99 in potential. But I'm just speaking to the reason why they always are included in trades and it can be avoidable and improve the decision making from CPU gms across the league. I saw Jon Lester traded to the Astros for Carlos Correa in my very first sim a few days ago and I had no idea at all why until I figured it could only be about the potential and age. For me I can't put Correa past a low 80 figure and Spring beyond a 87 or so when it comes to potential. If they surpass that I don't think that I'm stopping them by editing that attribute.

Okay....I think you're a little confused about a few things.
You say you don't think Correa and Harper should be anywhere near each other as far as potential. You only get to give out potential once.......so there is no "at this point". He was in everyone's top 10 for prospects. If a top 10 doesn't get in the 90's for potential....who does?

Now....I have to wonder if you're even looking at the right roster....Springer is an 84 potential....so it seems you think I UNDERVALUED him.


Lastly.....you don't think that more than 5 or 6 should have 99 potential...
We handed out 2 99's Buxton and Russell(for position players)
I think there were 11..... 90 or higher potentials given to our created players.(again position players)
......but I think maybe we just disagree on this particular area.

M.K.
Knight165

[@legendm0de]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Okay....I think you're a little confused about a few things. You say you don't think Correa and Harper should be anywhere near each other as far as potential. You only get to give out potential once.......so there is no "at this point". He was in everyone's top 10 for prospects. If a top 10 doesn't get in the 90's for potential....who does? Now....I have to wonder if you're even looking at the right roster....Springer is an 84 potential....so it seems you think I UNDERVALUED him. Lastly.....you don't think that more than 5 or 6 should have 99 potential... We handed out 2 99's Buxton and Russell(for position players) I think there were 11..... 90 or higher potentials given to our created players.(again position players) ......but I think maybe we just disagree on this particular area. M.K. Knight165

The roster I'm looking at is the very first version of OSFM this season and it gives Springer a 99 and Correa 95 in potential. Also when I say only 5 to 6 players should ever be given the 99 in potential I was referring to players that could obviously catch fire or with a "99" type of track record like Miggy, Kershaw, Pujols and if you can name 3 others them too. Certainly not any prospects in my opinion unless it was Bryce Harper or Strasburg back when they were prospects for example and even still 99 should probably be reserved.

Anyway, to make my point I just confirmed Georges potential in 2014 O.D. v1 rated 99 and 79 OVR. Springer's potential at 99 actually understandable for the version because this was before the 2014 season even passed spring training. He was coming off that monstrous Triple A year. Which leads me into my point, because you say now his potential is 84, even lower than where I'd probably put it. It goes to show, why grading someone 99 or anything near that in my opinion is like saying this player has proven he could be the next Barry Bonds, or Albert Pujols Tony Gwynn which is far-fetched for that to be said of any current prospects. It also shows however, that potential is an attribute that can be dynamic in some ways.

That's my opinion, however, but the issue that is at hand is just the affect that these potential attributes are having on trades. Since Carlos Correa at 18 is rated at 95 potential he is the centerpiece of all trade offers when I sim because the cpu is sure he is the next Manny Machado or better. He hasn't even played a season of Single A at this point, how is that possible. Im scared to think if all #1 draft picks truly had 99 potentials what would happen to MLB. So back to my George Springer example, if his potential saw the need to be adjusted from 99 to 84 in just 2 months just based on performance then it should be no problem to start measuring the potential attribute more closely so that at least it's not influencing trades so much.

[@legendm0de]

To use some quick examples, but I am no where near studied on prospects as the crew generating rosters are.

From everything I've heard (which is hardly anything aside from trade value) I'd give Corey Seager a low to mid (90-93) in potential. I would have given Gerrit Cole a 92 apprx figure in potential and still would now. Chris Sale back in 2010 would have gotten an extremely high rating in potential but it would just be 95 - 97 maximum not the 99 unless I really felt he could be Randy Johnson in which case he should have been rated 99 then. When it comes to Billy Hamilton he couldn't have gotten above a 89 in potential for me with questionable hitting, 85 more likely, his speed factor is extraordinary attribute though. Trying to think of other prospects to use as an example but for me thats the threshold of how I'd look at handing out potential. When altuve was a prospect I would have said he has a 90 potential because of how he can hit the ball and he came up really fast, very little time in minors called up from AA and has already exceeded 90 as on OVR. JD Martinez actually would have gotten a slightly higher potential from me at that time than altuve because his power I would have felt can change games more than altuve could however to this point I would be just wrong with that opinion.

I'm using this and posting this to compare my way I'd honestly rate potential compared to how it's being done. Perhaps you can tell me what you think but there would be alot of space between the value certain prospects were given in potential.

edit -- also in 2010 Strasburg was a prospect to and I already said I would have given Chris Sale 95 to 99 and Strasburg's would have gotten an identical figure. Bryce Harper was also a prospect and he'd be a 98 or 97 by how they were talking about him. With that said, it brings me now to Springers 99, Addisson Russel and your other prospect at 99. Since I live in Houston, Springer would have been in the 95 range, Bryce Harper has something special in the way he can hit the ball and is basically a 5 tool player plus he's been further ahead at a younger age so there is no way I can rate Springer the way I would Harper. At first glance, I would have given Springer a 95 in his potential at maximum. I don't know much about Addisson Russell I don't even know the other prospects name, but them being rated at 99 seems like its where I would definitely have a different opinion.

But hopefully that shows a little of what my philosophy looks like on the topic. I would not dumb it down just to alter trade logic but I think altogether my approach would have a domino effect on the manner which prospects are valued in trades.

[Knight165]

The "official" version of the O.S.F.M was O.D. v2(but I can understand you not realizing that...not a big deal)...but with everyone clamoring...I always release A.S.A.P. and then the updated "official" version after adjustments.

Springer is an 84 on v2(which was 4 or 5 days later)

But neither here nor there....I think we just have different views on how it should be handled.

M.K.
Knight165

[hellblazer]

Im still very much interested in your national league pitcher spreadsheet so I can make a accurate roster for the psp.

[hellblazer]

are you still working on this project. I would love to see a spreadsheet of the pitchers.

[55]

Quote: Originally Posted by hellblazer

are you still working on this project. I would love to see a spreadsheet of the pitchers.

This is from last year.