Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukas Berger
Greene's a 65 overall future potential in-game (relative ratings, all positions). That's actually higher than I think you'll find he is on MLB Pipeline or Fangraphs or most other prospect sites.
That being said, I'm always open to hearing arguments on who might need to be changed and why.
But just make sure to view guys in context of the entire league. If you argue Greene should be a 75 overall fv f.e., that would mean we'd need to boost the potentials of 30 other guys as well to match and have him show up in the proper place on prospect lists and in comparison to his peers.
Then we'd quickly end up back where we were last year  |
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.
