Performance and development

[clarnzz]

So you prefer it to be as is, where any statistical evaluation of minor league players on who will develop into a quality player completely useless?

[Henry]

See, there's where we differ. I don't think it's useless, it's "unpredictable" just like in real life. Now, it may be we need to tighten up the scouting reports and "star system" a bit to reduce the variances - but I would think the last thing you want is a "predictable" scouting report.

Henry

[clarnzz]

Yeah, I definatly don't want predictiability. I would just rather have the fair/fair/fair third rounder who got lucky and put up good minor league numbers to be the one that is "more likely" to upgrade over the identical fair/fair/fair third rounder who can barely hit A and AA pitching.

Its all still luck and random, is just with the increased statiscal involvment, analyzing your leagues minors would be alot more fruitful and enjoyable.

Edit: added "more likely"

[Steve Kuffrey]

Originally posted by clarnzz
So you prefer it to be as is, where any statistical evaluation of minor league players on who will develop into a quality player completely useless?

I would also disagree, is it fool-proof, no. But can you honestly say that IRL it is 100% accurate? No, is it a "crap shoot" IRL? Maybe to a degree, this is a road that we have been down many times on the message board. Lists have been made of "sure thing" #1 picks that have crashed and burned in a big way and others that have spread the spectrum of fair to great.

Does the game do a perfect job of reproducing this or any scheme of development? No, certainly there is room for improvement. There has even been talk of totally revamping the ratings all together but even then it will not be perfect.

This is just another of the seemingly endless list of areas of the game which will continue to be looked at and adjusted as need be. If folks are looking for "sure things" get DMB or SOM, they are nice, safe and fairly predictable.

[clarnzz]

Originally posted by Steve Kuffrey
I would also disagree, is it fool-proof, no. But can you honestly say that IRL it is 100% accurate? No, is it a "crap shoot" IRL? Maybe to a degree, this is a road that we have been down many times on the message board. Lists have been made of "sure thing" #1 picks that have crashed and burned in a big way and others that have spread the spectrum of fair to great.

Does the game do a perfect job of reproducing this or any scheme of development? No, certainly there is room for improvement. There has even been talk of totally revamping the ratings all together but even then it will not be perfect.

This is just another of the seemingly endless list of areas of the game which will continue to be looked at and adjusted as need be. If folks are looking for "sure things" get DMB or SOM, they are nice, safe and fairly predictable.

You have also missed my point completely....

All I am saying is the #1 overall that should be more likely to crash and burn is the one who had bad luck and put up bad minor league numbers, while the one more likely to go onto greatness is the one who had good luck and put up good minor league numbers.

[Henry]

Ok, let's go back to your examples....

Say we have player A, hes a 3rd round draft pick. 20 years old, talents of fair/fair/fair. Lets say player A has a nice debut season in A and moves on AA for his second season where he once again posts solid numbers and looks on to AAA at the age of 22 and he holds his own. In real life this guy would be looked at as a good prospect, in ootp, he doesn't even crack the top 100.

This sample player "probably" is playing over his head. Why? Because he's doing well even though his numbers are lower than average. I assume from your description that he probably still is a fair/fair/fair (or close), so his rating are likely no better than "3s" - yet he still puts up good numbers. Problem is, if you move him to the show, he's likely to bomb becasue he doesn't have the ratings to succeed.

Then say we have player B, hes a 3rd round draft pick, 20 years old, talents of fair/fair/fair. This player completely sucks for 2 years in A ball but whaddya now, the talent god shines on him and he gets a talent bump to A/A/A. He then makes the move to AA where he's mediocre for 2 seasons and once again, the talent gods shine on him, suddenly this guy is G/G/G and one of the top prospects in the league for no other reason than the random chance hit him.

Player B, on the other hand, has gotten a talent bump. Call it bulking up, learning patience, whatever. He goes from a fair/fair/fair to average/average/average. Problem is, his ratings haven't followed. The scouts look at him and say "He should be able to do it" - but until his rating get up to "5" or so, he's not going to pull it off.

...so, who is the prospect and who isn't? Tat's the issue, it's up to you to decide (or guess) whatever the case may be.

Henry

[clarnzz]

Originally posted by Henry
Ok, let's go back to your examples....

Say we have player A, hes a 3rd round draft pick. 20 years old, talents of fair/fair/fair. Lets say player A has a nice debut season in A and moves on AA for his second season where he once again posts solid numbers and looks on to AAA at the age of 22 and he holds his own. In real life this guy would be looked at as a good prospect, in ootp, he doesn't even crack the top 100.

This sample player "probably" is playing over his head. Why? Because he's doing well even though his numbers are lower than average. I assume from your description that he probably still is a fair/fair/fair (or close), so his rating are likely no better than "3s" - yet he still puts up good numbers. Problem is, if you move him to the show, he's likely to bomb becasue he doesn't have the ratings to succeed.

Then say we have player B, hes a 3rd round draft pick, 20 years old, talents of fair/fair/fair. This player completely sucks for 2 years in A ball but whaddya now, the talent god shines on him and he gets a talent bump to A/A/A. He then makes the move to AA where he's mediocre for 2 seasons and once again, the talent gods shine on him, suddenly this guy is G/G/G and one of the top prospects in the league for no other reason than the random chance hit him.

Player B, on the other hand, has gotten a talent bump. Call it bulking up, learning patience, whatever. He goes from a fair/fair/fair to average/average/average. Problem is, his ratings haven't followed. The scouts look at him and say "He should be able to do it" - but until his rating get up to "5" or so, he's not going to pull it off.

...so, who is the prospect and who isn't? Tat's the issue, it's up to you to decide (or guess) whatever the case may be.

Henry

And thus my problem, the statistics are meaningless. How did you evaluate those prospects. "ratings"

[Steve Kuffrey]

So you are always wanting stats to be in line w/ "displayed" or known ratings......like I mentioned the "stat based" games are exactly that. I would say that the beauty of the game is this part of things where I can't always lean on the two lining up. Just my opinion.

[Henry]

Agreed. The "statistics" are a byproduct of the ratings. Thus, if the law of averages tends to favor the player, he plays over his head for awhile. If the Gods turn against him, he plays under his ratings.

In either case, it the relationship between Talent and Ratings that determines his worth. If his talent is 50% higher than where he should be in ratings, then he's seen as a prospect.

Henry

[clarnzz]

Originally posted by Steve Kuffrey
So you are always wanting stats to be in line w/ "displayed" or known ratings......like I mentioned the "stat based" games are exactly that. I would say that the beauty of the game is this part of things where I can't always lean on the two lining up. Just my opinion.

No, I know that the stats don't always line up with the displayed ratings or talents and they are quite unpredictable, which is why I would think prospects talent development could be "more" (not completely) based off their statistics.

I like the unpredictability, I just would prefer the talent developments to take into account the statistics moreso than being completely random. They would still be random, but there would be a method to the madness and one that made some reasonable sense.

[Falcon52]

I think one thing you have to keep in mind is the player with the best minor league stats doesn't always project to the best major league player.

I'll use hockey as an example, since it's more my area of expertise rather than development in baseball.

In hockey, before you make the NHL, you have to play junior hockey, then perhaps play on the farm. Now in junior hockey particularly, alot of guys put up HUGE numbers, but never have a shot at the NHL. Whereas guys who put up average numbers make the NHL. Now you might be asking, why is that? Well because at the JUNIOR level, you're playing against JUNIOR talent, so any shortcomings a player has (ie. Skating speed, size, strength, consistency) can be overlooked because alot of the players in your league aren't very good. Therefore, a 5'8, 170 lbs player can put up huge numbers. But when you get to the NHL, everyone is bigger, stronger, and alot better. Which means, the little fancy tricks you got away with in junior, you can't anymore. So suddenly the 5'8 guy's size factors in, and his strength factors in.

In contrast, the guy who put up "average" numbers in JUNIOR, might turn out to be a better pro, because even though he's not a superstar with huge skills, he's still got decent skills but doesn't have the same shortcomings (say, he's 6'2 and over 200 lbs) that the junior scoring wizzard did.

That's why at the NHL draft, NHL teams don't go for the kid who scored the most goals, or who got the most points. They go for the kid who has the attributes to play pro, such as overall skating, strength, size, smarts, and work ethic.

Junior stats can't be ignored, but at the same time, they shouldn't be used as a measuring stick for guaranteed success. And I'm sure it's the same with baseball and minor league stats. Some kid can hit 30 homeruns a year on straight fastball pitching, but can't hit any off of off-speed stuff. Another kid can only hit 8 homeruns off fastball pitching, but also hits another 8 off off-speed stuff. Which kid will make the majors? the one who hit 30 total homers, but can't hit off-speed stuff (majors stuff), or the kid who hit 16 total homers, but is more capable of handling off-speed stuff.

[Henry]

Originally posted by clarnzz
No, I know that the stats don't always line up with the displayed ratings or talents and they are quite unpredictable, which is why I would think prospects talent development could be "more" (not completely) based off their statistics.

I like the unpredictability, I just would prefer the talent developments to take into account the statistics moreso than being completely random. They would still be random, but there would be a method to the madness and one that made some reasonable sense.

The problem, however, is that if the stats are a byproduct of the ratings - but yet are subject to the law of averages, they really don't tell you anything valuable. Each time a player comes to the plate, the coding is looking at the rating, not his last at bat(s).

Changing the Prospect rating to be keying (even partially) off of stats would be even more misleading.

Henry

[Henry]

One last thought (for tonight) ...

Maybe what you are saying is that the player's performance "should" be used in some way to determine if the player gets a ratings boost ?? Basically using his results to help the game decide how to distribute the upgrades....

Hummm.. on one hand this seems reasonable - but on the other hand I wonder if tying ratings adjustments to statistics(performance) wouldn't drive some players ratings out of wack.... you might end up with "the haves" and "the have nots" with very few players in between... (maybe it could be balanced).

Henry

[gopads02]

Good thing Clarnzz started this thread, because I was about to comment on almost the same thing. I have been holding off on participating in the forums and chiming in until I felt I had a solid enough feel for the game. This is my first post so bear with me. [Background note: purchased OOTP5 2 months ago, have gone through 20 seasons on the league I mainly play with, & also have ran 50 year + leagues just to test the stats engine, also re ran numerous times the same seasons over and over again, I also have what is essentially an econometrics degree so I have pretty good understanding of regression analysis, distributions, variance, etc.]

Note: the majority of this argument is referring to development of prospects in the minors.

Note2: I love OOTP5 and I do think Marcus has done a fabulous job so far, as it shows since OOTP is clearly the best product in its class right now, that said however, Improvements can be made & the following is constructive criticism not an attack on Marcus or his game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the issue here is not whether the degree to which Talent affects ratings or vice versa, but the way in which players get "Talent" boosts. Henry & party are arguing that Ratings are a product of Talent, age, etc...which I understand completely how that works with regards to development, how it affects stats, etc. & I'm completely fine with it. I have no problem with the way stats or performance is generated and how they have no direct relationship to previous at bats or statistics.

What I have an issue with is how some players get Talent boosts during the season and off-season. These "boosts" are totally random, which leaves too much to chance- let me back track- not just too much to chance but ALL to chance.

I'm not saying chance and variance is a bad thing, I'm saying total random luck determining if a player gets a talent boost in the off-season makes it frustrating and more importantly moot to even follow stats as a criteria for player evaluation...if that is the case in real life, great GM's like Billy Beane who are using more and more statistics & the regression tools of statistics not just traditional scouting "talent" evaluation methods, would not be running circles around the competition right now.

As it is currently in OOTP5, I don't trade for players or promote them based on their stats at all- the only thing I look for when evaluating whether or not to acquire a prospect or promote him, is his ratings which are a function of his Talent bars. I mean I do not even factor in statistics*1 at all when deciding whether or not to promote a player! Isn't there something wrong in that statement? Especially concerning the sport of Baseball where Statistics has the most depth & relevance compared to other sports.

*1 Let me clarify, I do use statistics, but only as a tie-breaker in situations when I have 2 prospects and both have identical blue star ratings and nearly identical category ratings. But if I have a guy who has awesome statistics all through the minors and he's 1 or 2 blue stars in AAA I don't even bother giving him a chance to star in the majors because I know he'll never develop any further-unless by sheer luck he gets a talent boost. I know that unless he gets lucky and gets a talent boost during his time in the majors, it's not worth it to even give him a chance at the majors- as matter of fact if a guy gets to age 23 and is only a 1 or 2 blue star prospect I cut him, even if he had fantastic numbers. Now I'm fine most of the time with this (like 95% of the time) since the prospect has poor statistics & it's understandable why, being that he's a 1 or 2 blue star guy. But it's the other 5% percent that bugs the heck out of me. The 5% whose stats are better than their blue star talent bars would indicate.

Haven't you ever had a player who has performed heads and shoulders above his mates in all levels of the minors A/AA/AAA & you had to give up on him becuase he's a 1 or 2 blue star prospect ? This prospect is an example of 1 in a handful that is in my system right now: I have this 21 year old SS named Chris Lofgren in AAA right now who the computer auto-drafted for me in the 10th round out of High School. Lofgren is and has always been a 1.5 blue star prospect since he was drafted out of high school- this has not changed, neither has his Talent bars & ratings which are F/A/F/A/F/P & 3/6/2/5/2/2. As a 19 year old in A he hit .328 28 HR 112 rbi.370 OBP .550 SLG. After this 1st year I thought to myself, “his year was a fluke & he can’t do it again in AA let alone AAA where his 3avg/6 doubles/5 hr can’t carry him any further- either that or his 3/6/5 would start dropping down to what his talent level suggests.”

But lo and behold As a 20 year old in AA he hit .397 33 hr 109 rbi .454 OBP & .686 SLG & so far in AAA as a 21 year old so far 2 months into the season he’s hit .312 9hrs .360 obp. Now this whole time I’m thinking to myself what a great story and yet what a shame I can’t bring him up because his Talent bar & ratings bars are so low. Ever since his A-ball season I’ve been praying to the baseball & ootp gods that this kid gets lucky enough to receive a “Talent Boost”- if anyone deserves a talent boost it’s this kid who has proven he’s not a fluke for 3 years @ 3 different levels & at what is considered a young age for his level. 3 years have gone by & I have seen no Talent boosts- all the while I have other 1 star nobodies who stink it up & inconsequentially get random talent boosts.

If this occurred in real life then only guys recognized as “talented” like Ruben Rivera would be in the Majors & guys like Jason Giambi wouldn't be given the light of day as far as being called up to the show. However in real life "talented" guys (as in: he's a good looking physical specimen: can run from the batters box to first in under 6 seconds, can throw from the OF to home on one bounce, looks "good in a pair of jeans", etc.) but whose ratings never develop still get the opportunity and moreover, “no talent” or better yet “unrecognized talent” guys like Jason Giambi/ Mike Piazza who everyone thought of as having no futures defied expectations and continued to ascend up the minors and were also given a chance more so because of their statistics and performance than their raw-talents. Coming up, Giambi could probably be thought of as a singles hitter who could hit for average but was so slow and lacking of power he wasn't worth it at 1b or OF. Boy did Giambi & Piazza prove scouts wrong. I can name off many of the A's players- Zito is another guy who comes to mind who had great statistics and did nothing but perform in college but still wasn’t as heralded coming out since his raw talent ie 88 mph fastball was considered low. In fact when he was drafted something like 9th overall it was considered a "reach" pick by most so called scouts & experts. And yet despite having less raw talent, Zito and others like Jaime Moyer, Woody Williams have performed at a level way beyond their given talent/apparent talent. Guys like Giambi (relating in OOTP terms) are guys whose ratings and thus stats have gone beyond what their talent bars would indicate. In OOTP, there's no chance a guy can develop beyond the level of his talent bars & star rating-unless he gets lucky & the AI randomly gives him a talent boost.

I'm not saying the system Marcus has is totally wrong, it just works out in a way that neglects a major aspect of scouting, which is evaluation of players for future success based on their performance not just their talents. By performance I mean their minor league stats. Now I know you'll say performance is taken into account since it is a function of ratings which itself a function of Talent- yeah I know it’s been stated to death…

But what is Talent a function of in OOTP ? Talent or more specifically Talent increases/boosts are a function of LUCK or what the computer assigns the players. What irks me is that the only way a prospect can improve his upside talent potential (note what I said is upside talent potential not his performance or ratings bars) in this game is if he gets lucky and receives a random talent boost. There is no correlation between statistics/performance & the chance of getting a talent boost as far as I can tell*2*.

I understand that in real life certain people are born with better raw talent (ie the right type of fast twitch muscle that gives them speed or the right type of body frame to develop power) but I also know that in real life players also make it to "the show" based on their hard work, determination, perseverance & as far as a GM is concerned also based on a prospect's performance IE statistics in the minor leagues. When a GM, in real life, is evaluating whether or not to promote a player he probably factors in a combination of a player's talent and the player's performance ie Minor league numbers & statistics along with the usual other factors like age & level of competition, etc. As an OOTP GM however, I have no incentive to use stats in evaluating whether or not to promote a guy, all I use is a players Talent bar & his ratings bar.

It's a shame if Statistics in this game is used just for archival & historical purposes, not for player evaluation & as an indicator for future performance/potential. Where as a real life GM like John Schurholz may factor 65% of his decision based on his scouts' talent evaluation & 35% on statistics (Billy Bean maybe 40/60 or higher) in OOTP as a GM I currently use 90-100 percent scout talent/ratings & 0-10% performance/stats (the 10% of the time is when two players happen to have the same ratings & potential & I use stats as a tie breaker) But 100% of the time I discount the stats of the "low talent” guy. If a guy is a 1 or 2 star blue rating guy I don’t even give him a chance at “the show” despite his stats~ outstanding, mediocre, or poor.

OK so far all I've done is said what's wrong but have not provided a solution. The solution is simple. Instead of making talent boosts totally random. Why not make the probability a player gets a talent boost say 60-90% based on luck and the other 10-40% based on his performance in the minors relative to his expected performance? This way luck still plays a big part in how a player turns out (IE you can’t absolutely predict MLB performance based on Minors Performance) but in this scenario you can’t totally devalue an overachieving talent-less player who has performed surprisingly well statistically either.

Let me clarify, right now under the current system players receive talent boosts randomly as in all players have an X percent chance of getting a "Talent boost." Let's say X is 25% chance (just choosing an easy arbitrary number for arguments sake). I'm assuming under the current system all players have a 25% chance of getting a boost which means total randomness IE Player A is just as likely (25%) chance of getting a talent boost as Player B no matter what either player’s stats/ratings/talent bars indicate. Also to clarify when I say Talent Boost I mean actual boosts in the Talent bars as indicated by the Player development screen statement “Brad Baker increases his talent in getting strikeouts!”- not boosts in current ratings.

Can't we have an “Overachiever” algorithm that starts off giving the majority of players the normal 25% chance at a talent boost, but a player like Lofgren, whose statistics indicates say a performance level of more than 20% beyond his expected statistics with respect to his talent potential, gets a 20 percentage points bump up to say a 45% chance at a “talent boost” after 1 year. Now this doesn’t guarantee that Lofgren will get a boost it just means he’s got a better chance at a boost at 45% vs the others who still have a 25% chance at a talent boost. Now let’s say after the 1st year he doesn’t get the boost, which is understandable because that could have been a fluke year. But once again what if the player Lofgren defies logic & scouts and does it again but this time in AA w/ the same crappy low talent & ratings bars- this means the guy now should get a bump up to 70% chance at a boost. Now lets say Lofgren again does not get the boost but performs well in AAA (that means he’s defied the odds 3 times). Lofgren’s chance at getting a boost before his first MLB spring training should now be 95% (45+25+25) of getting a “talent boost” since he’s proven he’s more than just a 1 or even 2 year wonder- this way guys like this don’t just get tossed away.

Note: this is an “overachiever” algorithm which means if a player is already recognized as being really talented say he’s a G/G/A/A/G/B 4 blue star guy & he performs well this doesn’t mean he gets a 20 percentage point bump up to 45% chance for a boost- he remains at the normal 25% because he didn’t overachieve- he did what was expected of him (IE though he performed in nominal terms at a level that is considered good, however, based on terms relative to his expected level he didn’t overachieve or surprise at all since he performed 0% above the level expected of a 4 blue star potential guy). That’s what I mean by “With Respect to Current Blue Star Talent Potential” So in this algorithm the guy who gets the biggest percentage point bump in chances for a “talent boost” reward is the 19 yr old 1 blue star prospect who performs w/ statistics expected of a guy whose 5 stars at AAA.

In addition to “talent potential”, a guy’s relative Age & Minor League Level (A/AA/AAA) should also play a factor in a player’s base expectation level. In this way it is still difficult for a stats overachiever to become a full fledge 5 blue star potential guy since even if you do find him and he does get a “talent boost” after 1 year- he’s now regarded as a 2 blue star prospect and not a 1 blue star prospect anymore so it isn’t that big of a surprise if he performs well with the exact same stats again since now that level that was previously 20% above what was expected of a 1 blue star prospect is now only 10% percent above what is expected of a 2 blue star prospect~ then maybe this time around he’s only got a 35% (25+10) chance of getting another “talent boost.”

This is similar to guys like Piazza who were considered as having virtually no upside or talent coming out of the draft but “emerged” as prospects not necessarily because they “emerged” by an overnight random luck boost but because of hard work, determination, & consistent performance in the minors. Piazza was not really considered ever as a top prospect nor did he finally be considered a "prospect" until after his AAA season & years of "overachiveing" before his big call up to the majors. I guess “emerged” is a bad word, it’s not they’ve finally emerged as a prospect but that they’ve finally been recognized as prospects for hidden talents they’ve always had but never got recognition for because they’ve got a flabby butt (or was undersized or came out of the small town in Iowa) as a draftee or minor leaguer.

In OOTP, you can recognize “the prospects” from the guys who have no chance based on their talent bar/rating bars alone. So there are no "surprise prospects" like Piazza or Lofgren who’ve finally been “recognized” for their achievements after 3 strong years in the minors as a prospect, instead in OOTP they can only surprise you by “emerging” as prospects over the off-season or during the season based on sheer random luck. Now personally as a GM I get more satisfaction from guys who "overachieve" and get "talent boosts" afterwards than guys who didn't do a thing but get lucky and get random "talent boosts." I guess I root for the "overachievers" since they are more deserving of it. Additionally, if I traded for the guy or drafted him at a low round I can have a more earnest feeling of satisfaction in being able to sift through the stats and find the guy

I mean one of the thrills of following baseball is watching as low raw-talent guys like Jeff Bagwell, who don’t look like the Vlads of the world, get swiped from the Bo-sox by the Astros for an over-the-hill relief pitcher. Now I know on a macro level the Astros could’ve just gotten real lucky & Bags developed power as a Talent once he joined the Astros (much like a 1 star prospect getting a random overnight talent boost in the power category by his new org in OOTP) but I’d like to think the Stros did their homework and traded for Bags because they knew something the other orgs didn’t, that he had a better chance of developing that power due to his consistently strong OBP/avg numbers he showed in the minors despite his so-called low talent ceiling, smaller stature for a first baseman and questionably funky batting stance.

That’s what’s missing in OOTP, the satisfaction-the reward, of studying your statistics, running through the lists of minor league leaders & trading for that guy who you consider a prospect but other teams overlook because he’s got low talent bars- Now I’m not saying not every single overachieving guy I trade for whose stats are great should get guaranteed talent boosts, I’m just saying he’s got a slightly higher probability of one then say the prospect w/ average talent and poor stats.

Why not reward a player who has consistently beat the odds [by posting strong minor league numbers despite low talent potential] and give him a slightly higher chance of a "talent boost" in the off-season ?

-fin,
GoPads

*2*Note: Keeping all things equal as much as possible (IE Keeping the same coaches & scouts by giving them legendary ratings & extending their contracts over the life of the entire sample period) I've run both 50 year leagues & re-run the same season over and over again only to conclude that there is no covariance or correlation b/t one player and another or one player & their stats when it comes to the determining if he gets a talent boost or not.

[clarnzz]

Awesome post pads, exactly what I was trying to squeeze out of my gramatically challenged mouth. I really believe this would be a huge improvement on an already great game.

[Kekkonen]

Originally posted by clarnzz
Okay, we are definatly on a differant page here. I will try to clear up what Im saying a little better.

Say we have player A, hes a 3rd round draft pick. 20 years old, talents of fair/fair/fair. Lets say player A has a nice debut season in A and moves on AA for his second season where he once again posts solid numbers and looks on to AAA at the age of 22 and he holds his own. In real life this guy would be looked at as a good prospect, in ootp, he doesn't even crack the top 100.

Then say we have player B, hes a 3rd round draft pick, 20 years old, talents of fair/fair/fair. This player completely sucks for 2 years in A ball but whaddya now, the talent god shines on him and he gets a talent bump to A/A/A. He then makes the move to AA where he's mediocre for 2 seasons and once again, the talent gods shine on him, suddenly this guy is G/G/G and one of the top prospects in the league for no other reason than the random chance hit him.

I see your point, and I do agree to some degree. However, if you want to rationalize the way things work now, you could think that by the time player A has gotten to AAA, he's doing everything by the book, he's been coached by the best at all levels, and everyone still sees that he's nothing more than a competent minor league hitter. Player B, on the other hand, hasn't really had any competent coaching before joining your organization, he's just gotten along with his natural instincts. And even though he's still swinging the bat funny in AA, your staff thinks that IF he one day can get his act together, he might be something special.

[clarnzz]

Originally posted by Kekkonen
I see your point, and I do agree to some degree. However, if you want to rationalize the way things work now, you could think that by the time player A has gotten to AAA, he's doing everything by the book, he's been coached by the best at all levels, and everyone still sees that he's nothing more than a competent minor league hitter. Player B, on the other hand, hasn't really had any competent coaching before joining your organization, he's just gotten along with his natural instincts. And even though he's still swinging the bat funny in AA, your staff thinks that IF he one day can get his act together, he might be something special.

Wow, you must have some great scouts for them to completely see through these players statistics to their true inner ability.

[Henry]

gopads02,

Whew I got through it once - and a LOT of good info here - and it seems to mkae sense to me. Give me a bit to read it a few more times and understand it all before I respond though

I think you've made a strong case for a couple things - just ant to think out how that might effect other parts of the game

Henry

[mad0die]

Originally posted by clarnzz
Awesome post pads, exactly what I was trying to squeeze out of my gramatically challenged mouth. I really believe this would be a huge improvement on an already great game.

Clarnzz - you should consider hiring Pads to state all of your cases. What a great HITS talent theory he could come up with!

[mad0die]

Let's say that we do base talent upgrades in the minors on stats in some degree. What happens to the talent upgrades for major leaguers? You don't really want to base those off stats or the best guys will keep getting better.