"starting to struggle" message

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

How does that pertain to the player I referenced in the op?

Because you brought in a "phenom" to compare to your C rated player that lost 3 points on his potential(was it 74 to 71...I can't remember and haven't seen it posted anywhere)
He's also trying to show you that all is not always as it seems and doesn't follow a specific pattern....which seems to be unfathomable to you.

M.K.
Knight165

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

I don't understand/agree with what they have done with progression. I have a 23 year old cpu generated pitcher, 74 potential. 6-7 record, 4.34 era, 1.27 whip, .242 BA against 88 hits and 33 walks with 62 strikeouts in 95 innings and I just got the "starting to struggle" message with the accompanying 3 point drop in potential from 74 to 71. Those aren't Cy Young numbers but I'll take them for a 23 year old. I'd call it no worse than average, certainly not struggling.

Just out of curiousity, what were his stats for the month this message popped up? I'm guessing the "starting to struggle" is talking about the past month instead of the entire body of work.

Also, what did his potential rating start out at? Could it be that it was say, 72 and he had a great month and it went up to 74 and then struggled and went to 71?

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

Well...I believe you are trying to be insulting... But if you must know...I throw a deck of cards in the air. M.K. Knight165

I am trying to determine how you arrive at potential ratings for your osfm rosters. You chose to reply to my thread, not the other way around.

You seem to discount performance at MLB level as a valid way to predict potential. How do you do it for your minor league rosters?

I'm not sure how that question is an insult.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

Just out of curiousity, what were his stats for the month this message popped up? I'm guessing the "starting to struggle" is talking about the past month instead of the entire body of work. Also, what did his potential rating start out at? Could it be that it was say, 72 and he had a great month and it went up to 74 and then struggled and went to 71?

As I indicated in an earlier thread, he has had two bad starts for the season, both in June. At the end of June I got the message. I'm pretty sure the increase or decrease depending on whether it is "stock is rising" or "starting to struggle" is always +- 3 points. In this case Hara was a 74 at the start of the season and is now 71.

My guess is the same as yours, it is based on a small sample size. If that's the case as discussed earlier, I believe it should be a couple times a year to get a more representative sample size. To base the future career potential of a 23 year old pitcher on two bad starts doesn't seem realistic.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

I am trying to determine how you arrive at potential ratings for your osfm rosters. You chose to reply to my thread, not the other way around. You seem to discount performance at MLB level as a valid way to predict potential. How do you do it for your minor league rosters? I'm not sure how that question is an insult.

That's because you read/comprehend only what you want to.
I never discounted performance at any level to determine any rating or potential.
I merely stated that SOMETIMES those things can change for seemingly no reason.
Do you do this a lot?.......State things that simply aren't true and try and attribute them as fact.

From the start.....I think most of us stated that MOST players should follow a projected path according to their potential....but that if say(for the sake of talk) 5% jump or dive surprisingly.....that just adds to the realism(since it does happen in real life).

M.K.
Knight165

[canes21]

The game isn't basing is whole career on two starts. The more games you play the more his potential will solidify. You are looking at it too much thinking it is set in stone this guy will always be a 71 potential. If he keeps pitching well, his potential will go yo. If you keep putting up average stats, he won't gain potential deservedly so.

You're way too caught up on this one outcome. I've played 2 franchises and finished one year and then am halfway through another. Tommy Lastella has had as close to two similar years as I could get and you know what. In my first franchise he rose to a B potential. In my current one he is still a C. Same stats all around basically, yet different results. Neither one is more correct than the other. Real Life isn't static, players show flashes, burn out, etc. You're just way too caught up in thinking it has to be one way only.

[countryboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

As I indicated in an earlier thread, he has had two bad starts for the season, both in June. At the end of June I got the message. I'm pretty sure the increase or decrease depending on whether it is "stock is rising" or "starting to struggle" is always +- 3 points. In this case Hara was a 74 at the start of the season and is now 71. My guess is the same as yours, it is based on a small sample size. If that's the case as discussed earlier, I believe it should be a couple times a year to get a more representative sample size. To base the future career potential of a 23 year old pitcher on two bad starts doesn't seem realistic.

But if he had two bad starts in June, then that would leave me to believe that instead of the potential rating being "random", its dynamic. Had he had two excellent starts and gotten the "stock is rising" message then I'm sure his potential would've gone the other way.

The game isn't basing his entire career on these two starts. The only thing that they are trying to project is what caliber player he will become. As he gets older, his potential rating will continue to change as they try to determine what caliber of player he will become become based on performance, and I believe training.

[Mizzou24]

As far as determining potentials I'm sure knight did some what the same thing as I did..

These guys have grades.. As he mentioned BA scouting.. So he probably uses a scale like that of some sort to give a base potential.. The top prospects probably have the higher potentials. I know that is the way I have been doing it. And then after the base I try to correlate the potentials based on farm systems and where they rank in terms of prospects.. For instance this time of the year the tigers are dead last in farm rankings.. They have a few prospects left in the farm that are worth mentioning of course.. But most of the prospects they have left are nothing to call dominant. It's really hard to gauge a potential of a player. As like everyone has stated guys can rise and fall very fast.. However top prospects in my terms of ratings always get a 76c- A potential..

Guys that are not top prospects are based on performance I have seen within the last three years of play.. And scouting reports I can find. Usually most would fall in the D-c range.