Players with 35-45 Overall Value

[Daniel_09]

This is a good example that some real life players in the 35-45 overall and potential rating on the 20-80 scale can be useful on the 40 man roster.

Dylan Dood Atlanta Braves

Fangraphs Potential FV 35+ (Similar scale to OOTP Potential)

Decent Results IRL this 2024.

I think we often discard good players just because their overall and potential are yellow or orange in OOTP.

if you want to see YouTube videos follow Sporer who explains in more detail and always brings up in the conversation not to dismiss 45 overall players without looking at their individual ratings.

Since I have seen and read many people who only follow and watch for players above 50 overall, believe me you can get 40-45 overall players through trades or FA's that are very useful in MLB teams.

[OutS|der]

40-45 is backup level. 35 is Emergency Call-Up and 30 and under have no major league value.

This is only true if those values never change. We all know they do hence why you never discount a player based on displayed ratings only.
Those numbers are skewed based on talent levels of the league and your scout so can never be truly trusted unless accuracy is 100%

Youtubers don't know as much as they think they do

[Sweed]

In my solo gaming world I have never judged players on their current or potential overalls. They are a guide that can draw your eye but nothing more. I've always thought anyone that plays that way is missing the boat. It's about a player's skill set and production. This has always felt like common sense to me.

I've never looked into the "OOTP youtube" world, but I'm sure there are good youtubers out there along with some that really don't add much to the knowledge pool.

[ZepTepi]

"Youtubers don't know as much as they think they do"


"I've never looked into the "OOTP youtube" world, but I'm sure there are good youtubers out there along with some that really don't add much to the knowledge pool."


I don't agree with you in terms of all YouTubers who create OOTP content but your comment certainly describes at least several of them I've checked out OutSider.


I think your comment is closer to the truth Sweed but what's most important, imo, for anyone watching any of the how-to or play-through vids is that you don't take any of the content as being the "Right way" to play OOTP. There are just too many variations of settings and league configurations for there to be a right or wrong way to play. Of course there are right ways to play in terms of each individuals vision of what kind of OOTP save their envisioning. I think this along with general ways to manage aspects of the game such as minor leagues and player development, to name a couple, is where YouTube vids can really help someone hone certain skills that they may not want to learn by their own trial & errors. A couple of the better ones, again imo, are Around The World Sports and pfholden with the former being my fave mostly because of the way he explains his decisions. I've learned alot from him that I otherwise would have had to learn by the a fore mentioned trial & error method. Having said all that I do need to acknowledged that some of you are reading this thinking you wouldn't want to play the game any other way than through your own trial & error and this goes back to the theme of there not being a "Right Way" to play the game.

[shakturi101]

The overalls don’t matter at all. Theyre a slightly good estimate of the full value of a player but can be inaccurate depending on how you value ratings.

For example, the overall in pitching heavily values stamina for starters. There could be a very good starter with lowish stamina and a lower overall rating. Just lower his max pitch count and you could have a great starter.

I find the overalls for batters undervalue defensive range, and over value avoid K and gap power based on my personal assessment of players.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by shakturi101

The overalls don’t matter at all. Theyre a slightly good estimate of the full value of a player but can be inaccurate depending on how you value ratings.

For example, the overall in pitching heavily values stamina for starters. There could be a very good starter with lowish stamina and a lower overall rating. Just lower his max pitch count and you could have a great starter.

I find the overalls for batters undervalue defensive range, and over value avoid K and gap power based on my personal assessment of players.

This is an excellent point. The game also values defensive value very highly but doesn't consider DH a position so a player could be rated lower than they should since they can't play defense.

[NoOne]

Overall highly correlates to production but is not 1:1 causality.

You may very well find players with a lower overall that consistently create more runs or save more runs than counterparts with slightly higher overall ratings.

Point of reference -- One of my best closers ever across 1000s of seasons at this point was a 76/80. His save percentage and his era etc were consistenet every year for a 10-12 year period before he fell off ratings-wise. Early on he wasn't even a "76". Not sure if it was some sort of TCR or merely ratings working stats in or not.

He was better than nearly all my "80" rated closers over time. I keep a consistent statistical environment, so this is mostly an apples to apples comparison over time.

A "35" probably is never going to outperform a 60, but a 5-10 overall difference isn't as certain. correlation, not causation...

If you are constructing top-end teams consistently, then these lower rated guys are you bench players. Don't spend too much time on benchwarmers :P

[Guthrien]

While I'm of the opinion the 'overall' is the broadest of brush, if you look at league leaders in WAR or other high output statistics, you're never going to see '45' or lower rated players because they do represent AAA-AAAA talent. Never is too sweeping too perhaps (and doesn't apply to all statistics), but by and large it's accurate.

[hfield007]

the fact that the formula for overalls seems to change every version is an indicator it shouldn't be the be-all end-all determination of value.

I have a 39 overall player on one roster currently who has 12 stealing and 11 speed (on a 1-10 scale). He provides great value early on this season. 9 games played, 8 steals, 6 runs scored.

Or the low overall player who plays plus defense at 3 positions.

Their skillset and what you're using them for is the real determination of value on your team.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

While I'm of the opinion the 'overall' is the broadest of brush, if you look at league leaders in WAR or other high output statistics, you're never going to see '45' or lower rated players because they do represent AAA-AAAA talent. Never is too sweeping too perhaps (and doesn't apply to all statistics), but by and large it's accurate.

40 overall "should" represent bench level, 35 or lower is minor league level.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by hfield007

the fact that the formula for overalls seems to change every version is an indicator it shouldn't be the be-all end-all determination of value.

I have a 39 overall player on one roster currently who has 12 stealing and 11 speed (on a 1-10 scale). He provides great value early on this season. 9 games played, 8 steals, 6 runs scored.

Or the low overall player who plays plus defense at 3 positions.

Their skillset and what you're using them for is the real determination of value on your team.

if it adapts to the leauge environment, i'm sure it's equation changes based on league totals in stats and ai settings... got the stats impacting it too.

i think someone hit it on the head -- in the upper echelon it's probably more useful / accurate for a regular's role but at the bottom of team, like a speedy bench player, you need to weigh their talents differently. If their PA are minimized and they are often used as a PR or defensive replacement, you value those individual traits that match the role you use them.

This is why i like to rely on injury replacements from AAA than investing in them on the bench in MLB. My bench serves specific roles and those skills aren't best-served starting regularly.

I'f i'm gonna have a 30-45 guy fill in, he's better off being league minimum cost.

[hfield007]

Originally Posted by NoOne

if it adapts to the leauge environment, i'm sure it's equation changes based on league totals in stats and ai settings... got the stats impacting it too.

nah i mean i think it literally changes every year. because i had a long running quickstart that every time i would upload to the new version for 4 straight versions all the overalls changed each time.

[Guthrien]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

40 overall "should" represent bench level, 35 or lower is minor league level.

No argument here. In 24, 45 was solid level Major League contributor. It's 50 in 25 based on my playthrough experience. For batters, 50 will rarely represent statistical leaders (pitching seems more fluid and random).

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

No argument here. In 24, 45 was solid level Major League contributor. It's 50 in 25 based on my playthrough experience. For batters, 50 will rarely represent statistical leaders (pitching seems more fluid and random).

Yeah a 50 in OOTP is not a 50 in real life. OOTP tends to overvalue defensive positions, also the formula changes year to year, sometimes dramatically. The last two years have seen massive difference in ratings calculations. Individual ratings have always mattered more anyways.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Guthrien

No argument here. In 24, 45 was solid level Major League contributor. It's 50 in 25 based on my playthrough experience. For batters, 50 will rarely represent statistical leaders (pitching seems more fluid and random).

This is much more in line with how things are in RL. A 50 is an average MLB contributor. 45 is fringe average and 55 is high average.

I for one could not stand it when in OzoTP 55 was really more of a 50 IRL.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Madden and their company tainted sports gaming...

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Madden and their company tainted sports gaming...

It's human nature to want to build the "best". When players are rated via a number then it's all about getting the most players with the highest number no matter how unrealistic it is.
Games had to compensate for this by inflating ratings otherwise people complain endlessly over it.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

It's human nature to want to build the "best". When players are rated via a number then it's all about getting the most players with the highest number no matter how unrealistic it is.
Games had to compensate for this by inflating ratings otherwise people complain endlessly over it.

You can do that with individual ratings. People are just used to OVR because that is what the most popular sports games trained players to do. Even with this game, some people prefer 1-100 scale…

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

It's human nature to want to build the "best". When players are rated via a number then it's all about getting the most players with the highest number no matter how unrealistic it is.
Games had to compensate for this by inflating ratings otherwise people complain endlessly over it.

Let them complain.