Quote:
Originally Posted by ALB123
I'm a little bit confused...What do you mean by "putting him in positions to succeed"?
|
This can be done several ways in real life. I'm wondering if the game reflects this. I think it's easier to describe how to NOT put a guy in a position to succeed, i.e. set him up for failure. Such as:
1) Rushing a guy through the minors. His ratings look like he could be an MLB guy soon, but he has a .200 BA in Single A. You then bring him up to AAA. He does worse. This would be "not" putting him in a position to succeed. I would hope to see the game be realistic and decrease his ratings, because you didn't manage him well. You made him worse. In real life this happens. Guys never pan out and it could have been due to a number of issues (coaching, improper level of competition, etc.).
2) Let's say you force a guy to play every game, even though he's super fatigued (not as likely to happen in real life, of course). His numbers end up sucking...or not being as good as they could, right?
3) Giving one guy more AB's who you'd like to see develop, versus a different guy who's just a roster filler. Even if maybe the roster filler is better "overall" at the time. This would be a way to set a guy up for success.
I'm sure there are many others we can come up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALB123
If the player was really kicking butt, I would expect to see his Current overall rating increase.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALB123
By the end of his first year in Rookie Level, which was pretty good, that player has gone up to a 1.0 or maybe 1.5-Stars in his Current Overall Rating, but his Potential Rating has actually dropped to 3 Stars. Usually, if things go well with his development...like, consistent quality play and the ability to advance each season from Short-Season A to A to High A there are very good odds that you'll see that kid's Potential Rating back up to a 4 or 4.5 Stars.
|
OK, so this makes it sound like you are saying the players' stats CAN affect their ratings & overall. This is good, if so...this makes sense. Otherwise, the alternative is just that the overall "stars" are simply random based on the randomness of the Development Engine, and stats really become irrelevant for evaluating a guy. And what you'd do with the prospect or how they happen to perform, don't really matter. Because if his ratings are good, he'll be good, it's just that he probably had an outlier down year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALB123
I
What do you mean when you say "their ratings are MLB good"? How does a player get MLB good ratings if you sit him on the bench all season? I don't understand what you're saying here, if you don't mind rewording it to give me another shot, I'd appreciate it.
|
For example, let's say you take a guy who is a 2 star overall rating in MLB, has like 40-50 "main ratings" (eye, contact, etc.), so has a shot on being MLB. But you decide to put him into rookie league and bench him.
What
should happen (to be realistic) is that he would likely fizzle out, at least a bit. You would/should see a decrease in ratings. I don't know if OOTP does this- do stats (or lack thereof), therefore reflect ratings? If instead of being benched, the guy hit .100 with 400 AB's in the minors (maybe the coaching is bad...maybe the team is losing and he doesn't handle losing well, etc.), would his ratings then decrease too? I guess it's hard to know if your scout just mis-evaluated him, or if he actually did get worse. If you had your scouting accuracy on 100%, would you still see the ratings drop? This is what I'm hoping would happen as far as realism, but I don't know, which is the basis of my original question.