General thoughts - how should we should view potentials?

[CBLCardinals]

In general, the topic of “potentials” is quite fascinating to me. Do we believe potentials should be the absolute highest a player can ever achieve (something like 90% percentile outcome) OR should potentials be more like 50% percentile “realistic” outcome for a player? Depending on how you answer above, could greatly skew where you believe potentials should, or should not be.

Let’s take Aaron Judge. In this career, he has hit 257 HR in 3005 AB. From a rate perspective, he is hitting 47 HR per 550 AB. In his historic 2022 season, Judge hit 62 HR in 570 AB, a rate of 59.8 HR per 550 AB.

Should his potential be a player hitting 47 HR consistently, or should his potential be 59.8 HR?

Obviously, both are top end elite power, but should the outlier be his potential, or should what we expect in any give season (50% percentile) be his potential? I’m certain options vary quite differently….

ZIPS/Steamer and other projection systems I believe use 50% rates for projected stats in each season which equates to OOTP current ratings.

Prospect sites seem to do a mix, but lean heavily on realistic outcomes versus 90% percentile. Take Baseball America…they give a potential overall rating for a player, but then tie in a risk factor of how likely this is to achieve from Low to Extreme.

What does a 55 “extreme” even look like in OOTP terms? I’d imagine they probably would be a 45 realistically. The less risk probably equates to more certainty and thus a more sound potential projection. Jackson Holiday seems a more certainty versus some random 18 year old “loud tools” dude in rookie ball.

Fangraphs seems to be the most conservative, especially on FV ratings for prospects.

Excited to hear other opinions…

[Markakis2014]

I feel that GM games are at their best when a potential rating is the 75th percentile outcome for that player. A place they could reasonably get to, but still will likely fall short of.

[GCheekEnergy]

As I first started reading the original post, I thought to myself "Well, potential is best case scenario. Not much to think about." But I really enjoyed reading the entire post, which I think contains extremely interesting nuance. Please correct me if I am wrong (I am extremely new to OOTP in general), but the way I see it, this question directly relates to a preference for a scouting director in our sims. The way it was explained to me, scouting directors with "highly favor ability" look for that more realistic outcome, while directors with "highly favor tools" look for those extreme examples.

I believe my own personal preference here actually reveals a lot about my personality and how I view the world. It seems clear to me that there is no 100% correct answer here, a truth that exists outside of our own minds. It rocks that we have the ability to view the prospects and players in our sims through the lens of either extreme, or something in the middle. My first (somewhat dismissive) opinion that I revealed in the first sentence of this reply should make it obvious that I tend towards the "highly favor tools" scouts.

I think that since I gravitate towards viewing the outliers (the Judge 62 HR-type seasons) as "potential", I can learn a lot by attempting to use "highly favor ability" scouts. It forces my brain to adapt and consider what I'm looking at, since the data is presented in a way that is not as intuitive to me.

Great post imo. Cheers

[Ktulu]

From a gameplay perspective lower/conservative potentials isn't "fun" because you end up with a whole bunch of players who all look the same. It's basically up to "luck" for players to exceed that conservative potential vs "luck" of falling short of the highest ceiling conceivable for x player

From a realism perspective conservatism is the name of the game.

So the issue is how to balance the two.

One thing OOTP doesn't do is include risk factors. That would probably be the best way of bridging the gap.

[koohead]

I don't have a good answer to your question on Potential but for the BA point, it would be great if 55 Extreme were handled in OOTP as 55 with a random change factor of 255, while a 55 Low would be a 55 with a random change factor of 50. that is kind of how I interpret BA scouting reports when I read them...the volatility of the players development curve

[uruguru]

My general thoughts is that potentials don't exist. Straight up, they don't. This was the entire premise of the movie "Moneyball", and one thing it definitely got right. OOTP obviously needs potentials in the historical games so that historical players develop in line with reality.

But fictional leagues with fictional players? It would be nice if there was an option where potential = actual and teams relied on blind TCR, player personalities, and their development system to turn their youngsters into stars.

[Ktulu]

Originally Posted by uruguru

My general thoughts is that potentials don't exist. Straight up, they don't. This was the entire premise of the movie "Moneyball", and one thing it definitely got right. OOTP obviously needs potentials in the historical games so that historical players develop in line with reality.

But fictional leagues with fictional players?

That's nonsense. Any baseball fan can look at a 21 year old player and see how good they currently are and extrapolate that into how much better they could be down the road.

Whether that opinion is right or wrong is irrelevant, the concept of actual current ability and potential future ability absolutely exists.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Ktulu

That's nonsense. Any baseball fan can look at a 21 year old player and see how good they currently are and extrapolate that into how much better they could be down the road.

Whether that opinion is right or wrong is irrelevant, the concept of actual current ability and potential future ability absolutely exists.

Yes, the "concept" of potential future ability exists. But potential future ability actually does not exist. What you are talking about is the subjective opinion of baseball scouts, and they are famously wrong more than they are right. You just don't remember the wrongs.

You are talking about evaluating players on their actuals ("how good they currently are"), which is my point.

1/3rd of all first-round picks never make the majors, not even for a cup of coffee in September. Half of all second-round picks miss the mark, too.

And those numbers are inflated because of the rise of college baseball, where players are older and more developed by the time they are drafted, which greatly reduces the error in projections.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Yes, the "concept" of potential future ability exists. But potential future ability actually does not exist.

Unless you believe that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, and that time is merely a dimension through which we move, much like how we move through space.

[Ktulu]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Yes, the "concept" of potential future ability exists. But potential future ability actually does not exist. What you are talking about is the subjective opinion of baseball scouts, and they are famously wrong more than they are right. You just don't remember the wrongs.

You are talking about evaluating players on their actuals ("how good they currently are"), which is my point.

1/3rd of all first-round picks never make the majors, not even for a cup of coffee in September. Half of all second-round picks miss the mark, too.

And those numbers are inflated because of the rise of college baseball, where players are older and more developed by the time they are drafted, which greatly reduces the error in projections.

Future ability in anything absolutely exists. The fact that we as humans cannot accurately predict that future ability is irrelevant. But that conceptual debate is pointless...

Of course what we are talking about is scouts predicting the future ability of baseball prospects and how that translates into how a video game should represent that. Saying that "potential doesn't exist" in both contexts is just flat out wrong. If you want to play without "potential" ratings you can already do that. Changing the game design to be completely random without a target potential would be bad game design, both under the hood and as what's presented to the user.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Ktulu

Future ability in anything absolutely exists. The fact that we as humans cannot accurately predict that future ability is irrelevant. But that conceptual debate is pointless...

Of course what we are talking about is scouts predicting the future ability of baseball prospects and how that translates into how a video game should represent that. Saying that "potential doesn't exist" in both contexts is just flat out wrong. If you want to play without "potential" ratings you can already do that. Changing the game design to be completely random without a target potential would be bad game design, both under the hood and as what's presented to the user.

I tend to agree more with the way FM models potential. Potential doesn’t change because potential is potential. A player either lives up to it or he doesn’t.

[koohead]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Unless you believe that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, and that time is merely a dimension through which we move, much like how we move through space.

Thanks Kurt

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by koohead

Thanks Kurt

I don’t get the reference. Who’s Kurt?

[koohead]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I don’t get the reference. Who’s Kurt?

Sorry. Kurt Vonnegut. Slaughterhouse Five.
"“All moments, past, present, and future, always have existed, always will exist…"

[jksander]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Unless you believe that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, and that time is merely a dimension through which we move, much like how we move through space.

I f---ing LOVE the direction this is going ...

[Ataraxzy]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Unless you believe that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, and that time is merely a dimension through which we move, much like how we move through space.

Fun fact: this is the default view of physics. It's called the Block Universe.

[Pdubya64]

I am most interested in seeing how the larger range in player ratings ends up affecting the overall feel and "rightness" of the OOTP simulation. I am hopeful that it gets us just that little bit closer to suspension of disbelief.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Pdubya64

I am most interested in seeing how the larger range in player ratings ends up affecting the overall feel and "rightness" of the OOTP simulation. I am hopeful that it gets us just that little bit closer to suspension of disbelief.

I’m not sure that it will make too large of a difference in terms of MLB-level contexts. At least superficially, the 400-550 range for MLB talent and above would seem to be roughly the same granularity (150 point scale) as that level was under the old system (i.e., 100-250).

[PSUColonel]

Has anyone noticed you cannot seem to turn off relative ratings in the overview options? Wondering if this is intentional or a potential bug??