Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG17EASY
This discussion is reminding me why I like the Baseball America Prospect Handbook. They put a potential grade on all prospects, and then have a secondary grade that tells you the likelyhood that they reach that potential. So you know that so-and-so has a high ceiling in terms of potential, but maybe he's not likely to reach that potential. Or a guy like Manny Machado would've been a five-star prospect with a very high chance of fulfilling that potential.
Not sure if OOTP would be able to add that secondary rating, but it might be worth discussing prior to OOTP 16.
|
Something like this is valuable, with a "likelihood of achieving" being leveraged off of how much development is needed and how long they have to get there.
I think there's a middle-ground between option 1 (lots of great prospects who slowly die off) and option 2 (a bunch of mediocre looking players who eventually rise and shine).
The ideal system has a collection of 2-5 star players that run through the first 2-3 rounds of a draft, and is linked to a development system that BOTH "kills" 40-50% or so of the early picks and reaches down and creates a scattering of great finds in the lower parts of the draft. So you should leave draft day with 1-2 guys (with 3-5 stars?) you're really excited about being players some day, 1-3 guys (with 2-3 stars?) you figure have a good chance to help you some day, and a handful f unknown lottery tickets. Of the first group, 1 should generally yield a real player (often a star). Of the second group, 1 should yield a major leaguer of some value (and occasionally a star). Of the third group, several should wind up playing, a few should be real players, and a rare bird should be a star.
At the end of the day, (IMHO) part of this issue is related to the separation of the player creation process, the scouting process, and the player development (rating progression) process. [he says, working with two-three year old thinking
]