Potential rating higher than overall rating

[elykz]

First forum post! It was my BF who got me into these games (shout out to him ), and I've racked up probably hundreds of hours of playtime between OOTP 23, 24, and now 25. In historical saves though, a really confusing quirk that's existed since at least OOTP 24 is that some players will have a higher overall rating than potential rating:





In my experience, this only happens in historical saves, and only with pitchers for some reason. The screenshots show different ratings scales (20-80/stars) just to rule that out as a possible cause, and I've also ruled out scouting accuracy and pitcher role (RP/SP) after tinkering with the settings a little. It's not the biggest deal, but these players just stick out like a sore thumb and are much harder for me to want to get invested in as a result.

Sorry if this bug has already been reported and/or explained somewhere else! Just thought it'd be worth bringing up.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by elykz

First forum post!

Welcome!

Originally Posted by elykz

...
In my experience, this only happens in historical saves, and only with pitchers for some reason. ...

Yeah, it's an issue that has been around for years. You could look at it as the game thinks the player is going to get worse, but you see it much more often with 2-way players. Look at the batting ratings of the players you're seeing this with, they're probably decent if not better. And it may have been explained by the devs before (I forget), but it's just something you notice and move on from now.

[DJessup]

It is certainly a legitimate thing, I wonder if this is a "bug" or if it is "good programming". I see your scouting accuracy is "high" here, so yes, it definitely (in my experience with sports, moreso than with gaming) looks like your scout has found someone who is playing above their skill level. So either the high scouting accuracy is misjudging this players performance level, or they expect (As KQ76 suggests) that their skills will at some point come back down to where they suspect them to be.

This has been happening for well over a century, where players exceed or fall short of a scouting report. Thousands of examples of this throughout professional sports.

So, I'm in no way attempting to invalidate your claim, but moreso offering a reason for why this has happened. I don't think you've found a "bug", but a general manager IRL, would refer to this player as "A diamond in the rough". My suggestion would be to acquire this player from the A's, as well as the secondary player with "Average" scouting, and let them further develop! Good on you for finding a potential asset to your franchise!

[jcard]

Originally Posted by kq76

Look at the batting ratings of the players you're seeing this with, they're probably decent if not better.

I’m not sure about that here, judging by the hitting ratings visible in the upper right panel of the screenshots.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by jcard

I’m not sure about that here, judging by the hitting ratings visible in the upper right panel of the screenshots.

Ah, I forgot a pitcher's batting ratings were to the right on the same screen!

Yeah, they don't look good, but with how Contact has changed I'm not quite sure how to judge everyone yet (no Power means Contact might be lower). The second guy here at least might not be Al Leiter level bad with the bat.

You're probably right, this case probably isn't to do with 2-way player potential, but I have seen it be brought up a few times with them and so I do think there might be something off with how we're calculating the overall ratings. It'd definitely be nice to have the devs take a look at this one more time just to make sure nothing is wrong with them.

[DJessup]

Originally Posted by kq76

You're probably right, this case probably isn't to do with 2-way player potential, but I have seen it be brought up a few times with them and so I do think there might be something off with how we're calculating the overall ratings. It'd definitely be nice to have the devs take a look at this one more time just to make sure nothing is wrong with them.

Overall ratings has always been determined by popularity, not by statistical analysis. how one person has 3 70s in the 3 stats that matter, and be a 94 OVR while others have a 134 stuff, 112 movement and a 46 CTRL and are a 68 OVR.

There's no intelligent calculations on OVR aside from "People like Gerrit Cole more than Jordan Lyles. It won't matter if we make Cole a diamond, and Lyles a bronze, right?"
(example not statistically justifiable, more based on principle by example)

[kq76]

Originally Posted by DJessup

Overall ratings has always been determined by popularity, not by statistical analysis. how one person has 3 70s in the 3 stats that matter, and be a 94 OVR while others have a 134 stuff, 112 movement and a 46 CTRL and are a 68 OVR.

There's no intelligent calculations on OVR aside from "People like Gerrit Cole more than Jordan Lyles. It won't matter if we make Cole a diamond, and Lyles a bronze, right?"
(example not statistically justifiable, more based on principle by example)

I think you're talking Perfect Team and the OP is, I'm pretty sure, talking regular OOTP. I could be wrong, but I don't think PT overall ratings are calculated the same way as regular OOTP overall ratings are. I agree that when it comes to PT, the overall ratings can be truly baffling at times. I don't play historical regular OOTP so it's difficult to compare, but in my fictional leagues the overall ratings usually seem to make decent enough sense.

That said, yeah, people shouldn't put too much stock into the overall ratings, regardless of how you play the game.