View Single Post
Old 03-19-2018, 06:19 PM   #69
Lukas Berger
OOTP Developments
Lukas Berger's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 12,268
Thanks: 19,126
Thanked 9,035x in 4,506 posts
Originally Posted by Aaron's Aron View Post
I'm not really requesting their ratings be changed, I'm just nitpicking because everything else about the game is so good. The ratings of all the players as whole is really good too and I appreciate all the time that goes into doing them. The Top 100 Prospects list in game is really good, comparing really well with lists such as Baseball America, etc.

High upside but risky players in general must be hard to get right in the game because you don't want to make the ratings too good so that most don't all pan out and there's a wave of great players (when most would bust in real life), but you also want to represent the talent and what could be there.

Hunter Greene just comes to mind first because I'm a Reds fan. He could be one of the best pitchers in baseball, which I feel like is much more than 65. I understand that most outlets have him around there though (or lower, but with acknowledgement he could be higher). It's more likely he averages out around 60-65 though and doesn't reach peak potential, so it makes sense. But if you were going on pure upside, Hunter Greene would be much higher than around #30 on most prospect lists? It's a tough thing to do in the game I feel and it certainly applies to many more players other than him.
Yeah all that is reasonable and I appreciate the thoughts. As you say, it's definitely not easy to get right.

That being said, we don't rank the lists on pure upside. If anything I think we value polish a little too much still on they lists (though less than we did last year, which is part of why we were able to lower the potentials for the high upside guys. Last year they had to be overrated to get them to slot in higher than much more modest guys who shouldn't have been valued as highly as we ranked them).

So yes, technically you're right in that making him a 65 makes him more of a potential deGrom or Darvish than it does a potential Kershaw or Kluber.

That being said, no prospect get that sort of potential rating of 80 or "potential future HOFer". Kershaw was not an 80 prospect when he was a prospect, he was probably a 60. Same for Syndergaard, Sale whoever. Trout wasn't an 80 prospect either.

Remember, guys get potential boost as well as hits. The guys who end up being 80's are the guys who get boosts. But if you set a guy to have 80 potential and the he gets boosts, where does he go from there? He becomes better than anyone should be in the set.

Buy Out of the Park Baseball 20!

Buy Franchise Hockey Manager 5!

Found a bug? Have a technical issue? Please post here and/or file a support ticket here.

Last edited by Lukas Berger; 03-19-2018 at 06:22 PM.
Lukas Berger is online now   Reply With Quote
2 thanks for this post:
Aaron's Aron (03-19-2018), CBLCardinals (03-19-2018)