Risk factor

ihatepackers13 · 08-16-2014, 06:55 PM

While every player has both overall and potential ratings, a "risk" rating would also be useful. Not every player is equally likely to reach their potential (presumably), so having a third metric to gauge how likely they are to become a productive big leaguer would be nice.

RchW · 08-16-2014, 07:13 PM

I always thought the risk factor is something the evaluator does. IOW when you look at prospects you know that HS risk > College but with better upside. Same with players that may be high in all but one attribute vs a slightly lower ceiling guy who may be above average across the board. I'd also suggest that risk is relative. A well stocked team may view risk differently than a rebuilding team.

I guess that was a long winded way of saying that an accurate risk rating would make the game too easy IMO.

YMMV

MarkInCincy · 08-18-2014, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

I always thought the risk factor is something the evaluator does. IOW when you look at prospects you know that HS risk > College but with better upside. Same with players that may be high in all but one attribute vs a slightly lower ceiling guy who may be above average across the board. I'd also suggest that risk is relative. A well stocked team may view risk differently than a rebuilding team.

I guess that was a long winded way of saying that an accurate risk rating would make the game too easy IMO.

YMMV

ditto

blasek0 · 08-18-2014, 09:17 PM

Most teams do associate risk with players, though. You can already control the randomness of player development within the game engine, so I don't see the harm in adding some sort of low/moderate/high/extreme risk option on a player, which would be what scouts would tell you is already there. Tie the accuracy of this to scouting quality. It'd still be subject to the randomness of the player development engine, so ultimately it probably wouldn't change a whole lot.

Bubba Starling was a far risker pick than Lindor, Baez or Rendon, yet he was drafted ahead of all of them on his upside. However, you probably couldn't find a single scout who would tell you one of those players was riskier than Starling.

Marinersfan51 · 08-18-2014, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blasek0

Bubba Starling was a far risker pick than Lindor, Baez or Rendon, yet he was drafted ahead of all of them on his upside. However, you probably couldn't find a single scout who would tell you one of those players was riskier than Starling.

Starling's risk was mostly due to signability concerns because of his football commitment to Nebraska. Rendon was considered high risk because of injury concerns. For most players the risk is the gap between their current skill level and their potential, the larger the gap, the less likely they are to reach their potential. This is modeled in OOTP.

08-16-2014, 06:55 PM	#1
ihatepackers13 Bat Boy Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 1	Risk factor While every player has both overall and potential ratings, a "risk" rating would also be useful. Not every player is equally likely to reach their potential (presumably), so having a third metric to gauge how likely they are to become a productive big leaguer would be nice.

08-16-2014, 07:13 PM	#2
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	I always thought the risk factor is something the evaluator does. IOW when you look at prospects you know that HS risk > College but with better upside. Same with players that may be high in all but one attribute vs a slightly lower ceiling guy who may be above average across the board. I'd also suggest that risk is relative. A well stocked team may view risk differently than a rebuilding team. I guess that was a long winded way of saying that an accurate risk rating would make the game too easy IMO. YMMV __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit Last edited by RchW; 08-16-2014 at 07:15 PM.

08-18-2014, 09:17 PM	#4
blasek0 Major Leagues Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 345	Most teams do associate risk with players, though. You can already control the randomness of player development within the game engine, so I don't see the harm in adding some sort of low/moderate/high/extreme risk option on a player, which would be what scouts would tell you is already there. Tie the accuracy of this to scouting quality. It'd still be subject to the randomness of the player development engine, so ultimately it probably wouldn't change a whole lot. Bubba Starling was a far risker pick than Lindor, Baez or Rendon, yet he was drafted ahead of all of them on his upside. However, you probably couldn't find a single scout who would tell you one of those players was riskier than Starling.