Are Prospects Too Juiced?

[WyattGOAT]

Here are the top 45 prospects in my save, currently in year 2027. Are the potential ratings way too high? Feels like there should only be a handful of 70+ potential guys. My scout has neutral preference.

[locuspc]

Remember that potential is more like an estimate of their ceiling than of where they're actually going to end up. There should only be a handful of guys that actually reach 70+ overall, but you don't which of those 45 guys it's going to be, so they're all considered to have 70+ potential.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by WyattGOAT

Here are the top 45 prospects in my save, currently in year 2027. Are the potential ratings way too high? Feels like there should only be a handful of 70+ potential guys. My scout has neutral preference.

This does seem very high to me. May I ask what scouting accuracy you are using? The lower the accuracy, the more the scouts will seemingly "overestimate" players. It doesn't seem to work that way in reverse as much (or I may not notice it) I assume these are players created for the draft by the game...but yes, to have that many players rated so highly does seem "off" to me, and one of the reasons I actually don't like using lower scouting accuracy (if that's the issue here) and would rather up TCR to 200.

[Cod]

I guess it depends on how realistic you think the sim should be. Looking at the 2021 and 2022 Prospect Handbooks from Baseball America, the average for the top 200 prospects seems to hover around 45-50 for overall. With that logic, yes, your numbers are a little high.

Have you looked at the OSA evaluations for each of those players? Do they match? Better or worse?

[WyattGOAT]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This does seem very high to me. May I ask what scouting accuracy you are using? .

Originally Posted by Cod

I Have you looked at the OSA evaluations for each of those players? Do they match? Better or worse?

I’m on normal scouting accuracy and OSA has more or less the same evaluation.

[BarneyRubble]

The majority of them are extremely young (R and IntC). I doubt it's a concern. Only 16 (quick count) of them are in A ball or higher.

One thing to take a look at is how many rounds (players) you are generating for the draft. I draft 25 rounds and generate enough players for 28 rounds. The number of 'extra' players you generate may vary depending on how many independent leagues you have. If I didn't have any independent leagues, I'd probably create enough players for 26 rounds. It's my experience, unless OOTP had made a change, the more players generated, the more talent. I wouldn't worry about it until you believe the talent level at A/AA/AAA is inflated.

[Pelican]

Hard for me to translate, as I always use the metric (0-100) scale, but agreed those numbers seem high. I expect the players overall to form a bell-shaped curve (in either rating scale), with heavy distribution around 40-60 (both scales; especially yours). Are there also a lot of really bad players (twenties for you; single digits for me) from your draft? I understand the counter to the bell-shaped curve is that a draft is not a random distribution, but the cream of the crop, heavily scouted - and thus should fall in the upper ranges, at least as to potential. And I also agree that potential at low levels is just a number.

[NoOne]

draft prospects... turn on 100% accuracy scouting and you'll see few of those are actually high potential prospects.

can create a custom view and remove player name/number and other identifying characteristics... or, i'd just make a new game from back up and do it, then delete it.. that way your scouting history doesn't get messed up.

even with a 10m scouting budget (baseline default), "200" rated scout, you still get a ton of false-positives on player ability.

only the top 5-10 are 50/50 chances in real life of amounting to something better than just a regular/median player? something close to that. and that bar isnt especially high, either.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...itative-study/

looks like close to 1/2 for entire first round but the threshold was just 3+ years in mlb, which would include a lot of duds too. 1 in 3 in 2nd round...1 in 5 in 3rd, 1 of 6 in 4th and 5th... drops to 1 of 10 for 7th and 8th round.... 1 of 20 by 11th...

and, that's with a very low bar.

despite that, organizations are certain who they pick is amazing... so, it's true to life in that sense... scouts are wrong and wrong often when it comes to prospects. it's mostly a crapshoot not far into draft. talkin a 2-3 per round or fewer that likely play 3 years in mlb per round by the 3rd round.

if these are 'real' amatuers still, they tend to be overrated... not in quality or ceiling but distribution - specifically too heavy at the top. the game comes with a few years of these types of players, and they don't fit the ratio you'll see of fictionally created players later on.

[brotherblues]

Originally Posted by WyattGOAT

Here are the top 45 prospects in my save, currently in year 2027. Are the potential ratings way too high? Feels like there should only be a handful of 70+ potential guys. My scout has neutral preference.

Have you tweaked player creation modifiers? That can have a massive effect. I had a big mishap where I wanted to set Different creation modifiers in different years (i.e. 1.2 Contact one year, then set Contact back to 1.0 next year but bump Eye to 1.2, then next season bring Eye back to 1.0 and bump Stuff to 1.2, and just cycle like that through the years). Problem I ran into is that one year I accidentally put 2.0 for Contact and got an absolutely crazy draft pool. I had to delete a ton of prospects until I was happy. I brought the modifier back to 1.0 and figured I'll just never touch that again, and next season... boom, draft pool comes back as if Contact is still set at 2.0. So I had to do some heavy curating all over again, but my save might be toast tbh.

[andyhdz]

And a few months ago everyone was saying how there was no juice in prospects.

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by andyhdz

And a few months ago everyone was saying how there was no juice in prospects.

No, a few months ago there was too much juice in prospects because they were bugged to develop way too fast. It's a couple months ago there was no juice in prospects because the scouting was bugged to make everyone look mediocre. During this extended months-after-release alpha period, the handling of prospects has gone through various different phases of brokenness, with us alpha testers responding in kind.

When the bugs change I change my mind, what do you do sir?

[jcard]

Originally Posted by locuspc

]During this extended months-after-release alpha period[/B]

Exactly. So called patches have really been development properly done prior to release. Forget Steam or FastSpring; the correct platform for taking our money over the last three months would have been Kickstarter.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by jcard

Exactly. So called patches have really been development properly done prior to release. Forget Steam or FastSpring; the correct platform for taking our money over the last three months would have been Kickstarter.

Go on pal, see how far your money gets you. I bet you'll come back with renewed appreciation for the OOTP developers.

[Pelican]

I for one don’t look at OOTP as an investment, at least not in the literal sense. It’s more of a happily sunk cost. Forty bucks. I’m newly retired living (comfortably) on a pension, and it fits my budget. At less than ten cents per hour, lots cheaper than cable or streaming services. A lot of bang for those forty bucks.

And no, I don’t expect new software to be perfect. That’s a fantasy world. What I do expect is updates and patches and support. Which I get, timely, responsive, and thorough. What I have no right to expect, but nevertheless enjoy, is personal contact with the developers. I’m an Apple guy; but I would have to invest in Apple Care (another sunk cost) to get that level of service.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

Go on pal, see how far your money gets you. I bet you'll come back with renewed appreciation for the OOTP developers.

I for one donÂ’t look at OOTP as an investment, at least not in the literal sense. ItÂ’s more of a happily sunk cost. Forty bucks. IÂ’m newly retired living (comfortably) on a pension, and it fits my budget. At less than ten cents per hour, lots cheaper than cable or streaming services. A lot of bang for those forty bucks.

And no, I donÂ’t expect new software to be perfect. ThatÂ’s a fantasy world. What I do expect is updates and patches and support. Which I get, timely, responsive, and thorough. What I have no right to expect, but nevertheless enjoy, is personal contact with the developers. IÂ’m an Apple guy; but I would have to invest in Apple Care (another sunk cost) to get that level of service.

If you feel that the game you purchased met a minimum standard for a market-ready release, I do not begrudge you that. Nor do I apologize for my expectations. Just running a default fictional sim generates absurd outliers and distributions. I hardly equate dissatisfaction at that with demanding perfection, but I am aware that such distinctions are lost in the hyperbolic and broad-stroke character of this forum.

Who said anything about personal contact with the developers? My relationship with them is purely transactional. They sold me a product, which carries with it an expected level of completion. Great- they continue to work on the game. That is not the understood commercial agreement. Put another way, if (so to speak) my check had not cleared, do you think they would have said keep the game and just continue working on making your promised payment? Of course not, and they would be correct- I would have failed to meet my obligations in the transaction. Expecting the same in return is not something I feel a need to justify any further.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

Go on pal, see how far your money gets you. I bet you'll come back with renewed appreciation for the OOTP developers.

I mean, does that style actually work in adult conversations, or is it just for comedic effect? Am I supposed to respond by challenging you to an arm wrestling match or something?

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by jcard

I mean, does that style actually work in adult conversations?

Works better than trying very hard to sound like an intellectual guy, for sure.

[Pelican]

I would hardly describe one-to-one interaction with the developers online as “transactional”. The transaction occurred when I paid for and downloaded the game. I’m not paying a sou to interact with the development team. Apple support is the best; but I have not yet had Tim Cook join in one of my chats.

I have trouble understanding this contentious attitude and visceral contempt for the product. If it does not work for you, and you don’t want to invest the time to make it work as you wish, isn’t it just time to move on?? Constructive criticism is one thing. OOTP users have high expectations, and aren’t shy about complaining. Statistics outliers are worth running down. But again, expecting a flawless product is not reasonable.


In my own experience, probably 90% of the “errors” in the game I though I found turned out to be a product of me using the wrong settings or making the wrong assumptions. It took some patience and considerable guidance (including from developers) on these message boards for me to get it right. That was user error and learning curve. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

Works better than trying very hard to sound like an intellectual guy, for sure.

Uh, who is trying to sound intellectual? Me? We’re talking about a computer baseball game. I hope no one is trying to prove their intellectual chops here; that would be a pretty self-defeating effort.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I would hardly describe one-to-one interaction with the developers online as “transactional”. The transaction occurred when I paid for and downloaded the game. I’m not paying a sou to interact with the development team. Apple support is the best; but I have not yet had Tim Cook join in one of my chats.

I have trouble understanding this contentious attitude and visceral contempt for the product. If it does not work for you, and you donÂ’t want to invest the time to make it work as you wish, isnÂ’t it just time to move on?? Constructive criticism is one thing. OOTP users have high expectations, and arenÂ’t shy about complaining. Statistics outliers are worth running down. But again, expecting a flawless product is not reasonable.


In my own experience, probably 90% of the “errors” in the game I though I found turned out to be a product of me using the wrong settings or making the wrong assumptions. It took some patience and considerable guidance (including from developers) on these message boards for me to get it right. That was user error and learning curve. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I do not understand what you mean by interaction with the developers. I have zero expectation of anything like that, or belief that I am owed some type of personal consideration post-purchase. The consideration to a customer is expressed in the product that I purchased.
Contentious attitude? Visceral contempt? It is unfortunate that this is the impression you have taken, and I regret whatever part of that is my doing.
I do not presume to advise you on how to make your decisions of what you should or should not do regarding recreational choices, nor do I need your advice on how to go about mine.
I have nothing to add but will just repeat what I said earlier:
1. I stand by my criticisms based on my honest expectations
2. In making those criticisms in no way am I impeaching the credibility or legitimacy of the claims by anyone else to be satisfied with the product that they purchased. I am glad that others do get more fulfillment out of the game than do I, and have no reason to wish them anything other than continued enjoyment.