Prospects: risk vs. reward

[injury log]

I was thinking about how prospects are discussed in real life, and was interested to hear how well people feel this is modeled by OOTP. Thinking about the last draft, you had a guy like Drew Stubbs, five tool guy, could be a superstar, but many scouts thought the bat would never come around, your classic high risk, high reward player. Then there's someone like Matt Antonelli, who most scouts thought was a safe bet to be a regular in the majors, but who likely didn't have the upside to be a superstar- a low risk, medium reward guy. Do people think this aspect of prospect evaluation is well modeled in OOTP? Do you judge risk by the distance between current ratings and potential ratings? By age? Would it be interesting (or does this exist already) to have a hidden player development modifier to reflect risk, which affected the chance of improvement in player ratings? Maybe scouts could report risk by giving green lights to safe prospects, yellows to ones in the middle and reds to high risk prospects?

I was also thinking about the types of trades that are common around the trade deadline- a veteran for some low-A pitcher; often the pitchers involved are high risk guys, throw 95mph with no control for example, have a 'projectable' frame, or have a wicked slider but nothing else. In OOTP, I find it hard to figure out which low minors guys are like this, and which are more like the soft tossing finesse guys with no chance of a major league future. Is there a way to identify high risk, high reward pitching prospects? Do height and weight play a role in prospect development? How important is velocity to pitcher development?

In any case, very interested to hear other thoughts about this!

[injury log]

Should have mentioned personality ratings as a risk factor- how important do people find these, and which ones?

Guess that's a dola...

[Neags23]

Personally, I view risk/reward as something you stated above, that being the distance from ratings to potential ratings. If a guy has potentials of 80's across the board, but current ratings are all 20, and the guy is 22 years old... well, that's definitely high risk.

On the other hand, if a guy has potentials in the low 70's or maybe even high 60's, and his current ratings are in the 40's and is only 19 or so... that's kind of your other example.

As far as personality goes, in drafting, I rarely look at that stuff unless it comes down to two players who appear to be evenly matched in every other aspect. Then, if one of the guy's has a higher work ethic or is more intelligent, I'll go with him. Those things seem to help out development somewhere along the road.

[neojonas]

I try to look for guys with higher work ethic because it seems they are less of a risk to reach their potential. I have no proof but it seems to work out.

[Getch]

As stated by Neags23, player who's ratings are far away from potential, but potential is excellent, is a high risk-high reward type player in OOTP.

For pitchers (and I'm not the first to bring this up), having ratings-per-pitch would go a long way to simulating pitcher development and prospects. If OOTP implements a model like this, then you could draft a pitcher with 96-98 mph fastball, but not much else, and try to teach him new pitches. If he gets new pitches, and develops a nasty slider for instance, you got an ace right there. But there's a good chance he can't learn anything else and is a flop. This is a high-risk/reward type player, and would add a lot of fun to player development.

Ratings-per-pitch would also resolve the endurance "issue", where starters vs. relievers are not determined by endurance, but more by how effective they would be as a starter vs. reliever (read: how many pitches they can throw effectively).

[Getch]

Originally Posted by neojonas

I try to look for guys with higher work ethic because it seems they are less of a risk to reach their potential. I have no proof but it seems to work out.

In OOTP 2006, work ethic would affect talent "creeps", where talents would go up or down by 1. So, players with high work ethic might see their talents creep up by a point or two (1-100 scale) over the course of a year, and vice versa. Haven't looked closely in 2007, but the same is probably true. This is purely by my observations, also, so it may not be true.

In OOTP 6.5, talent would only change in large movements, 8-15 or so points at a time.

Work ethic probably also would have the player's ratings increase faster, as you said.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Getch

For pitchers (and I'm not the first to bring this up), having ratings-per-pitch would go a long way to simulating pitcher development and prospects.

I would love to see this implemented, though I can imagine how much rewriting of the game engine could be involved. I agree that it's the best approach to the endurance problem- if a pitcher's performance the second time through a lineup was based on the number and quality of his pitches, this would better reflect the good reliever/bad starter kind of pitcher common in real life. Would also love to see some genuine knuckleballers who can throw 150 pitches but get absolutely hammered on an off-day and are heavily influenced by the weather, southpaw submariners who are lethal on lefties and get pulped by righties, that sort of thing.

Thanks for responses so far- interesting reading!

[cbbl]

Originally Posted by injury log

Should have mentioned personality ratings as a risk factor- how important do people find these, and which ones?

Guess that's a dola...

Specific to personality ratings, I tend to factor them in along with other ratings. I can't yet say how much of an impact they have on OOTP, but I'll pass over a top rated pitcher who's greedy and has a poor work ethic to take the #2 guy who's the opposite.

Having leadership on the team is important, so I rate guys who have that skill highly as well.

Intelligence is important for pitchers. The more intelligence, the better.

Desire for winning team is a consideration if I'm in rebuilding, 'cause guys who want a winner but don't get one will be unhappy with the team's performance, and that can dampen their morale.

None of the factors are strong enough to sway a choice between a 5* and a 3* player, but they can be between two players on the same level.

[beorn]

As best as I can tell, the game has it set so that a high school draft pick is high risk high reward.

If you count up talent movements, guys under 20 are extremely high. It is not unusual for some 18 year old in the bottom minors to have several talent increases and decreases during a single season. Thus, even the best 18 year olds are risky, while a medium 18 year old has some real upside.