Potential Ceiling, but Potential Floor?

[wuttang]

I'm really into following prospects and all that good stuff.
Watching a future superstar prospect like Polanco or Jose Fernandez is maybe more exciting to see as a Kershaw vs Trout at bat for ppl like me.
So fiddling with the minor leagues and scouting/drafting were big part of why I got OOTP.

You'll often hear a prospect has a low floor but high ceiling (usually young HS kids with high bust rates but with all star tools), or a prospect has high floor but a low ceiling (usually older college kids who'll likely make it in the bigs, but never become an all star).

Would there be a way to tell those apart in OOTP?

I love how potential is done in this game, and how with scouting you can never be 100% sure of the player's true skill / potential.

And I know this would be something difficult to implement,but just something I'm hoping to maybe see in the far off future.

thank you

[RchW]

Originally Posted by wuttang

You'll often hear a prospect has a low floor but high ceiling (usually young HS kids with high bust rates but with all star tools), or a prospect has high floor but a low ceiling (usually older college kids who'll likely make it in the bigs, but never become an all star).

Those are just words. People who analyze and predict things always have an out when they describe young players. Words like ceiling and floor are hedges that can be used to justify a wrong call or no call on a player after the fact. Anyone who actually claims to know the floor and ceiling limits of a specific player before the fact is full of undigested cow feed.

Most prospects don't realize their potential. Very few prospects exceed it. More non-prospects exceed their potential for obvious reasons and the majority of all future players fail to do anything at all. I'd challenge anyone to show me correct predictions outside of pure chance of players that developed to their "floor".

I think an additional set of negative potential ratings to make a "floor" rating (a series of 1's or 2's or 20's ??) would cause number bloat and just be another advantage for human players over the AI if it was accurate. Most of us already know that given two similar prospects that the HS one is likely a higher risk/reward investment vs the college guy. I don't think we need such additional detail to assess current need vs calculated risk when choosing prospects. I'm considering turning off potential ratings and relying on the overall potential, scouting reports and stats to parse the value of players. Less is often more in this game. YMMV

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by RchW

Those are just words. People who analyze and predict things always have an out when they describe young players. Words like ceiling and floor are hedges that can be used to justify a wrong call or no call on a player after the fact. Anyone who actually claims to know the floor and ceiling limits of a specific player before the fact is full of undigested cow feed.

Most prospects don't realize their potential. Very few prospects exceed it. More non-prospects exceed their potential for obvious reasons and the majority of all future players fail to do anything at all. I'd challenge anyone to show me correct predictions outside of pure chance of players that developed to their "floor".

I think an additional set of negative potential ratings to make a "floor" rating (a series of 1's or 2's or 20's ??) would cause number bloat and just be another advantage for human players over the AI if it was accurate. Most of us already know that given two similar prospects that the HS one is likely a higher risk/reward investment vs the college guy. I don't think we need such additional detail to assess current need vs calculated risk when choosing prospects. I'm considering turning off potential ratings and relying on the overall potential, scouting reports and stats to parse the value of players. Less is often more in this game. YMMV

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I think a more detailed written scout reports is what's missing from this game. The mechanics are already there IMO

[wuttang]

Originally Posted by RchW

Those are just words. People who analyze and predict things always have an out when they describe young players. Words like ceiling and floor are hedges that can be used to justify a wrong call or no call on a player after the fact. Anyone who actually claims to know the floor and ceiling limits of a specific player before the fact is full of undigested cow feed.

Most prospects don't realize their potential. Very few prospects exceed it. More non-prospects exceed their potential for obvious reasons and the majority of all future players fail to do anything at all. I'd challenge anyone to show me correct predictions outside of pure chance of players that developed to their "floor".

I think an additional set of negative potential ratings to make a "floor" rating (a series of 1's or 2's or 20's ??) would cause number bloat and just be another advantage for human players over the AI if it was accurate. Most of us already know that given two similar prospects that the HS one is likely a higher risk/reward investment vs the college guy. I don't think we need such additional detail to assess current need vs calculated risk when choosing prospects. I'm considering turning off potential ratings and relying on the overall potential, scouting reports and stats to parse the value of players. Less is often more in this game. YMMV

Sure drafting 16-20 year old kids could never be an exact science, especially in baseball where they take another couple years to finally debut. It doesn't mean all the scouts and professionals are "full of undigested cow feed" as u put it lol. that'd be just disrespectful as well as naive.
Well I guess common sense would say 16 yr old HS kids have lower floors, and 19 yr old college kids have higher floors. But if it was that B&W simple, there'd be no reason teams waste so much time and money following these kids.
Sure, especially in baseball it's a crap shoot, and a high percentage never sees the majors. I mean once you get to round 20+, who really knows who's who? lol
but I guess drafting in any sports is about having as much info as possible and making educated gambles.

I admit, I haven't been through a draft yet, and haven't taken a look at the scouting reports as much, and that I should.
But I disagree more info is bad. Bigger and More is always better for me! (Tim Taylor grunt ^^) I figure if I was a real GM, scouts would give me 20-80 reports on a kids and speak of their floor and ceilings.

That's what's so great about games like OOTP. Options. More and more Options!
Options to turn off moral and personalities. options to leave em on for ppl who love it.
some ppl might now care at all about "floors" but some ppl like me might love em.
I believe having more options is never a bad thing
thank you^^

[baseballonly]

Wouldn't the actual rating be the "floor"? there's a chance the prospect never gets any better.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by baseballonly

Wouldn't the actual rating be the "floor"? there's a chance the prospect never gets any better.

This. The functional floor for any young player is current ability.