Franchise Prospects Edits

[Caulfield]

Quote: Originally Posted by nickoppel

Does a persons age override that at all like an 18 year old A POT gets 720 in combined stats Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Oh definitely. I meant as a rule of thumb for me. The way I play, if a player isnt in AA by the time he's 20 I cut him . This is for my drafted players. I put my teenagers in Single A.

[kric9132]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigOscar

I tend to double the hitting progression of players under 23 who have overalls below 70. So if a guy improves his power by 3 in a year, I double that and make it 6 for him. Fielding I think progresses fast enough on it's own, but the hitting attributes just don't get there without help, on those young and raw prospects. That way, it's still a bit of a crapshoot as prospects frequently still don't really progress at all, but it gives them a chance to really get MLB ready quickly, all while still mainly in the games hands

I do the same

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

[kric9132]

Quote: Originally Posted by moTIGS

I’ve used a lot of approaches. Right now, I’m mainly just editing ages. Players getting drafted older than 21/22 is really rare, so any old prospect with a realistic shot to make a team’s 40-man roster at some point gets an age adjustment. I also edit the age of 20/21-year-olds to 18 if their ratings are terrible. Finally, if a team drafts a 21-year-old stud international prospect, I’ll often lower his age to sort of replicate the idea that those guys often sign when they’re like 16. Using these age guidelines, I end up editing on average 1-2 prospects per team per draft after the first few years (age isn’t really an issue in the initial draft classes). Sometimes I’ll edit durability. I know in real life, promising players have careers derailed before they ever reach the majors, so an elite prospect with horrible durability is realistic, but at the same time, we are given that durability info for every prospect before the draft. It doesn’t require scouting. We just know some guys can’t stay healthy. CPU teams seem to ignore it, so I help them out a bit. But I only do this if I happen to notice a high-potential guy has incredibly low durability, and it’s not a universal rule (my AAA DH is a guy I love except he has 47 durability, and I’m not changing it). I occasionally see a guy I like with low ratings, and I’ll decide to make him better for no real reason. CPU draft classes will NEVER have an Acuña/Soto type player. Just doesn’t happen. So sometimes I’ll decide this 19-year-old, 54-overall, 97-potential first baseman (hypothetically) needs to actually be a 77-overall. That puts him in range of a mid- to high-80s overall (depending on morale) at 21. I do this rarely, and sometimes it’s based purely on a guy looking cool. Lots of generated prospects look super generic. Same face, beard, etc. as 20 other players. Occasionally there are guys who look truly unique. They’re more likely to get a boost. And speaking of that hypothetical first baseman, it seems like there are far fewer good generated guys at some positions, like first, third, and catcher. I’ll be more likely to give a few of those guys a modest boost just so the league has a few decent young guys at those spots. Finally, I’ll change positions if ratings make the change logical. Will also edit height/weight for guys to avoid 75% of outfield prospects being 5-8. Personally, I find the random/subjective approach more interesting than a set of firm rules.

In my franchise the Orioles drafted a 22 yr old stud but durability is 40

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

[nickoppel]

Do you guys edit the prospects if they make the Future All Star game like adding points to prospects if they have an excellent year in minor leagues


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Therebelyell626]

Quote: Originally Posted by MightyMaxxx13

The great thing about this game is that you can edit prospects and rosters however you want. That being said, its not unrealistic that there are late blooming prospects. Look at a guy like Tim Beckham, who as a first overall pick obviously had a high ceiling but still took what, 10 years almost to become a productive major leaguer? In my experience, the only guys that truly need re-rates are the real players who were September call ups the previous year. Usually these guys put up bad numbers in their one month of major league experience, so SDS nukes their stats basically and they’ll be a 50 something overall. In reality, these guys are almost always coming off of great AAA seasons and are on the cusp of the majors. It doesnt make sense that a guy who pitched 120+ innings in AAA to a 3.20 ERA, but then put up a 10.00 ERA in 8 MLB innings would be the worst reliever on your entire roster, for example.

SDS nukes their stats simply for diamond dynasty. They can't have these cards being valuable or it would flood the market with too many valuable cards. There's no way anyone can realistically believe Austin meadows is a 63. Or Clint Frazier has all 40's hitting stats. I refuse to believe anyone is that ignorant baseball wise. They nerf these players so that the card market doesn't go out of wack