What does it mean when a veteran's ratings are below potential?

[moberegger]

On my team, I have Edwin Encarnacian. He had a great first half to the season, but an absolute garbage second half. At some point in the season, a bunch of his ratings dropped, but his potential remained the same (as in, his potential is equal to what his ratings were previously).

I am just trying to figure out what this means. Does this just mean he is in a bad slump? Does it mean he fell off a cliff and declined rapidly? I don't know what to make of his numbers... he started the season hitting ~.300 and was on pace for 50+ home runes, but finished the season with 36 home runs, a BA of .219 and an OBP .312. Still managed to get a league high 120 RBI, though.

I have scouting on 100% accuracy and have again speed set to .750 if that makes a difference.

Should I expect him to improve?

[BigRed75]

I take it to mean he is in a bad slump but has the potential to regain where he was. In other words, this isn't necessarily the beginning of the end.

Now, if his actual ratings were above his potential, that'd be a different kettle of fish. That's the scouts telling you the player is about to go off a cliff and you should get out from under his contract immediately.

[NoOne]

ignoring inaccuracy... and assuming he was once at or above potential - they can go a little bit above.


if he's getting older, it might mean he's in decline. there's no guarantee that the rate you have seen will continue in a consistent manner. it could happen fast, or it might be an initial drop and they maintain that for 2-3years.

having aging below 1.000 will help... TCR is a factor too. if you see a sudden and very large drop in a potential rating, that's likely TCR. if it's happening each scouting report over the course of a year, that's aging.

i use .950 batting/pitching aging. not much different from normal from an eye's view of things. 30+ becomes dangerous anywhere near default. 34-35+ is incredibly risky.

TCR can hit early in a career. from what i've gleaned in the forums it is not one-size-fits-all application. e.g. if a skill rating/potential is very high or very low, a TCR change is more likely to occur. i think it happens more often at younger ages, but it might be because i only focus on 'better' prospects in the minors. so, if you get a 20 y.o. "mike trout" in the MLB, cross your fingers as he approaches his prime years - a lot can happen in 7-8 years. work ethic and maybe intelligence are important in the moments related to this topic, too.

[ihatenames]

If the player is over 30, I usually take this to mean the player is in decline. I don't think I've seen a player recover at that age. I would try to move him if you can. Based on his contract I'm not sure you'll have any luck, but it's worth a try.

[Izz]

Originally Posted by moberegger

Does it mean he fell off a cliff and declined rapidly?

Pretty much this.

[sprague]

This is one of my minor criticism of the game.
Not that a player dropped fast, but that the potential didn't change.

Fine an older player rating fall, but his potential when he was 22 is not really his potential at 33 anymore. But the game doesn't reflect that. It still seems he might get good again, which he won't.

I know that. I wonder if the ai understands that, or if it makes decisions on a 33 year old's potential rating the same as those of a young player.

[BigRed75]

See, I read it as the exact opposite of the previous three. If his current ratings are below his potential, that means he still has room to "grow", which for someone his age means that he has the ability to recover his previous ability. But if his current ratings are above his potential, it means that he's playing above his head and is due for a downward adjustment in ability, so beware.

[sprague]

Originally Posted by BigRed75

See, I read it as the exact opposite of the previous three. If his current ratings are below his potential, that means he still has room to "grow", which for someone his age means that he has the ability to recover his previous ability. But if his current ratings are above his potential, it means that he's playing above his head and is due for a downward adjustment in ability, so beware.

That's fine in theory, but never seen an over 28 player with higher potential ever reach it again. Their ratings just keep on deteriorating, but potential rarely changes with it.
Anyone ever see an over 30 player all of a sudden get a ratings boost.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by sprague

Anyone ever see an over 30 player all of a sudden get a ratings boost.

Not in a situation comparable to the OP. I agree with your viewpoint (and others) that this is indicative of a veteran who is in decline. Without fail, 100 percent of the time when I see a player like this, he never recovers to what the potential ratings suggest he's capable of (although he may be a serviceable player for a little while longer). It can be misleading, but I've learned to accept it as a former star or very good player who's entering the decline of his career.

[moberegger]

Welllll crap! Haha.

When he was raking at the start of the year, I extended him for ~12 million AVG (don't remember the exact number, but it wasn't much more than he is making now.) He also has 10-5 rights, so I can't trade him.

Oh well. Just part of the game, right? Live and learn!

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by sprague

This is one of my minor criticism of the game.
Not that a player dropped fast, but that the potential didn't change.

Fine an older player rating fall, but his potential when he was 22 is not really his potential at 33 anymore. But the game doesn't reflect that. It still seems he might get good again, which he won't.

I know that. I wonder if the ai understands that, or if it makes decisions on a 33 year old's potential rating the same as those of a young player.

i think that's just predicated on a simple misconception of how they define it and how you define it. (and how i think of it differs a bit too, but more along the same lines)

i.e.
you are born with potential. it's innate. current ability is learned. they don't represent the same thing and therefore shouldnt adhere to the same behaviour over time.

unfotrunately its a big lie to tell kids you can grow up to be anything... some people are simply uncoordinated or stupid just as some are extremely coordinated or smart*. (*not meant to read as exlcusive of each other). just like athletic ability, your IQ is not improving once it's developed (age 3-4 in this case)...it can only go down over time.

Current ability rises and falls and changes constantly - represents bad offseason workouts, age, unhappiness, whatever... potential can only go down. eventually a body does age or gets damaged and you react slower, your eyes don't work as well, you produce less testosterone and therefore maintain less muscle and you heal more slowly as you age, too.

what shouldn't occur is TCR... your brain or body's ability to build muscle and coordination will not magically change as time goes by. this is either in the game due to illogical conclusions or to cover up an inherent flaw. it's due to how they represent new palyers (draftees). they think potential should change alot instead of hiding it better - which sounds more realistic: the ineptitude of scouts or that players magically change their genetic code over time? we are poor at scouting player in real life, not that they get better or worse over time as far as their potential or ceiling.. whether they reach that ceiling is another concept that's mostly exculsive of this one.

any one of us can go out and improve our reaction time from what it is now... but we will hit a ceiling. that is our potential when we have exhausted every possible way to improve in that aspect. the ceiling doesn't move up without cuase. unless you change your genetics and nervous system in your body you aren't changing your potential.

potential doesn't indicate that they will improve. you've built this up as a truth, but it's not. There's a general pull at "younger" ages and a general pull down at "older" ages. no guarantees that they have to reach it -- especially as they age. there are mutliple factors at play and when they are crunched a +/- or no-change results in various current ratings at specific intervals of time in the game.

you are thinking of Potential as their potnetial that season or that game... it's much broader than that. potential covers their career's time (life), not any one season.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by BigRed75

See, I read it as the exact opposite of the previous three. If his current ratings are below his potential, that means he still has room to "grow", which for someone his age means that he has the ability to recover his previous ability. But if his current ratings are above his potential, it means that he's playing above his head and is due for a downward adjustment in ability, so beware.

nothing is imminent due to this cur > pot configuration. they maintain this during prime years until negative effects like TCR resulting in a reduction or age hit them with the ugly stick.

it normal for successfult and well-rated palyers to be 5-10 over potential in the editor when better palyers are in their prime.

The general rate of change of their raitngs at any point is like morale - a bucket. all the factors are weighed and curnched and result in no change or change... during certain parts of a career it's more likely a consistent net positive... then slowly reduces and start going the other way at faster rates over time.

when it's a general postive change over time, you will likely see potential > current. there's no direct way to know if it's in decline or rising. you will be fooled be other factors at play. so, if a player that maintains cur>pot for a year or two and in the right age range, then those things start to dip, it;s just one more *possible* sign that they are over that veritable hump and in decline. nothing is certain from this one behaviour. dont' look at it as a 1:1 relationship. e.g. i am WAY more concernd when current drops below potential by ~5-10 points or more (1-100 scale)... still no gaurantee that they can't maintain that new lower level for a long time. that can and does happen.

Law of Independent Results each time they crunch the numbers!

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by moberegger

Welllll crap! Haha.

When he was raking at the start of the year, I extended him for ~12 million AVG (don't remember the exact number, but it wasn't much more than he is making now.) He also has 10-5 rights, so I can't trade him.

Oh well. Just part of the game, right? Live and learn!

never make a decision based on the start of a season or any small stretch of games.

the 10/5 things comes into play when doing contracts. always pay attention to it... essentially those guys are destined to be compensation draft picks. don't sing them if you won't get that at least.

when i sign a long-term deal, i know whic is the last year that i can trade them before they can veto it. it's actually great to be forced to trade an older player for this reason... it eliminates the emotional attachment and clinging to them for too long. I have no intention of keeping a player for an entire 7-10 year contract except in very specific and rare situations.

context matters.. nothing is black and white.. there is only grey for any tough decision. know all your options. any contract that goes into the 30's needs to have multiple "outs." do not limit your options in these situations. The right way to do things typically just means it gives you the most possible choices later on, because in most baseball situations it's more likely 1 of many things pans out than 1 of few.

(* one things that deviates from that would be prospects... rather have 2 76-80 / 80 than 100+ 21/80, obviously, but roster management choices you want many)