The potentials in the draft classes are out of line. I have my Braves franchise, and I was settling in for a long rebuild. I chose to sim my drafts as to not fill my roster with A quality prospects, but opening the window to sign the players picked, I got 3 A potentials. A SP, 2B, and a 3B. I also have a B potential LF who's two years away. Being that there's 33 90 players out of the box, it seems a bit odd to have classes that are loaded with A's.
Then there's the roster update today. A catcher in the Dodgers organization got put into the game with A potential. Consensus is he's not even a top 10 prospect for the Dodgers. Why? Tommy La Stella has been sporting B potential since last year. Remember Brett Jackson?
It just seems strange that a game that is so conservative with ratings out of the box as to put Freddie Freeman at an 82 has classes where it seems like three rounds full of players can obtain an 82 rating. When Freeman is right around the 10th best player in terms of WAR in his class. Maybe it's me because I rate conservatively doing rosters. But out of the box, it seems like current day 80-99 players are solid everyday players. But when you get into building your franchise, you can easily stack AA and AAA with a full roster of them. Don't get me started with how OSM ranked Astro prospects. I think 25 ended up with B rankings. I simmed a season with teams made up of entirely 99, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, and 40 players. Then I came up with the average performance across stats for categories that are independent of others around them (HR, K, BB, AVG), while adjusting for at bats across the board (99 team would obviously have more than the 40). Then applied scouting grades once the ratings which correlated with the league average were calculated, and my rerates ended being nearly as conservative as out of the box. For the Cubs, Bryant landed at 93. Schwarber, Almora, McKinney all came out high 70s. Those 3 would undoubtedly be A's if the Dodger catcher got an A rated potential. But what do you think?
(If you're curious about my experiment, here are the results for batting average and HRs. 99s .320-52; 90s .310-42; 80s .278-34; 70s .264-26; 60s .249-20; 50s .233-12; 40s .210-7; 30s .193-5.)
Then there's the roster update today. A catcher in the Dodgers organization got put into the game with A potential. Consensus is he's not even a top 10 prospect for the Dodgers. Why? Tommy La Stella has been sporting B potential since last year. Remember Brett Jackson?
It just seems strange that a game that is so conservative with ratings out of the box as to put Freddie Freeman at an 82 has classes where it seems like three rounds full of players can obtain an 82 rating. When Freeman is right around the 10th best player in terms of WAR in his class. Maybe it's me because I rate conservatively doing rosters. But out of the box, it seems like current day 80-99 players are solid everyday players. But when you get into building your franchise, you can easily stack AA and AAA with a full roster of them. Don't get me started with how OSM ranked Astro prospects. I think 25 ended up with B rankings. I simmed a season with teams made up of entirely 99, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, and 40 players. Then I came up with the average performance across stats for categories that are independent of others around them (HR, K, BB, AVG), while adjusting for at bats across the board (99 team would obviously have more than the 40). Then applied scouting grades once the ratings which correlated with the league average were calculated, and my rerates ended being nearly as conservative as out of the box. For the Cubs, Bryant landed at 93. Schwarber, Almora, McKinney all came out high 70s. Those 3 would undoubtedly be A's if the Dodger catcher got an A rated potential. But what do you think?
(If you're curious about my experiment, here are the results for batting average and HRs. 99s .320-52; 90s .310-42; 80s .278-34; 70s .264-26; 60s .249-20; 50s .233-12; 40s .210-7; 30s .193-5.)
Comment