Too many U19 prospects in the Top100 list?

Gordonzolar · 08-25-2022, 03:29 PM

I just finished my second season with the Pirates.

The current real life Top100 prospects according to mlb.com are of the following ages:

16 years: 0
17 years: 1
18 years: 5
19 years: 14
20 years: 18
21 years: 20
22 years: 17
23 years: 19
24 years: 5
25 years: 1

This obviously makes sense. The older the prospect, the better you can predict his talent and ceiling.

However in my game it looks as follows:

16 years: 11
17 years: 8
18 years: 11
19 years: 9
20 years: 14
21 years: 28
22 years: 14
23 years: 4
24 years: 1
25 years: 0

the top 3 prospects are 16, 18 and 16. the top 20 consists of 4x16, 5x17 and 3x18 year olds.
I find this to be very dissatisfying and unrealistic. Those U18 players sure have a lot of potential, but they are so far away from the big leagues that it does not make sense to me to rank them this high. A lot of them will flame out eventually.

Anyone else having this issue?

Or is this more of a problem of the AI calling up a lot of their 20-24 year old prospects, thus becoming ineligible?

Marinersfan51 · 08-25-2022, 03:59 PM

Most IRL prospect lists either don't consider or are extremely hesitant to include players still at the complex level. The in-game prospect lists include those players, which is where the age discrepancies come from.

The in-game lists also seem to weight the 90% outcome more heavily compared to most actual prospect lists which try to balance the most likely outcome with the best outcome, which is what rewards proximity to the big leagues.

I think I would prefer something closer to the IRL model (which could be as simple as not considering complex level players for the lists). It is weird to see a player spend like four years as a top 10 prospect and never make it past AA.

Sweed · 08-27-2022, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

Most IRL prospect lists either don't consider or are extremely hesitant to include players still at the complex level. The in-game prospect lists include those players, which is where the age discrepancies come from.

The in-game lists also seem to weight the 90% outcome more heavily compared to most actual prospect lists which try to balance the most likely outcome with the best outcome, which is what rewards proximity to the big leagues.

I think I would prefer something closer to the IRL model (which could be as simple as not considering complex level players for the lists). It is weird to see a player spend like four years as a top 10 prospect and never make it past AA.

Agree with all of this, especially the bold. In my game a team just signed a 16 or 17 yr old(?) international player. After the draft and signing phase the prospect list updates. This player? Yeah, he is now the #1 prospect.

Not a gamebreaker but.. it is a bit of a hit on the reality scale.

Please Markus or Matt, exclude complex players or, and I hate suggesting this, add another checkbox so the user can decide.

WyattGOAT · 08-27-2022, 06:45 PM

I just signed a 16 y/o IFA with 80 potential and he was instantly the #1 prospect in baseball. This definitely needs tweaking

billyray1984 · 08-29-2022, 10:59 AM

The top 100 prospect list is just borked with IFA on. For IFA, their ceiling is usually higher than any draft prospect and the list loves sky high ceiling guys with no floor even though they are 5-8 years away from the majors. I'm not complaining since in modern day MLB and with trading difficulty maxed out, IFA are pretty much the only way to try to stay on top once your team starts to have success.

This is a point that would need major tweaking in future versions, but I'm not so sure how it could be tweaked without completly revamping how IFA are created or without putting a hard cap on the number of 16, 17 or 18 year olds who make the list each year.

Another thing that bugs me is starting pitchers making the list even though their breaking pitch never developed. Each year, you have a couple of 24 year old sp who are still getting shelled in A+ who are on the list even though they are woefully underveloped two pitches pitchers.

08-25-2022, 03:29 PM	#1
Gordonzolar Bat Boy Join Date: Aug 2022 Posts: 10	Too many U19 prospects in the Top100 list? I just finished my second season with the Pirates. The current real life Top100 prospects according to mlb.com are of the following ages: 16 years: 0 17 years: 1 18 years: 5 19 years: 14 20 years: 18 21 years: 20 22 years: 17 23 years: 19 24 years: 5 25 years: 1 This obviously makes sense. The older the prospect, the better you can predict his talent and ceiling. However in my game it looks as follows: 16 years: 11 17 years: 8 18 years: 11 19 years: 9 20 years: 14 21 years: 28 22 years: 14 23 years: 4 24 years: 1 25 years: 0 the top 3 prospects are 16, 18 and 16. the top 20 consists of 4x16, 5x17 and 3x18 year olds. I find this to be very dissatisfying and unrealistic. Those U18 players sure have a lot of potential, but they are so far away from the big leagues that it does not make sense to me to rank them this high. A lot of them will flame out eventually. Anyone else having this issue? Or is this more of a problem of the AI calling up a lot of their 20-24 year old prospects, thus becoming ineligible? Last edited by Gordonzolar; 08-25-2022 at 03:34 PM.

08-25-2022, 03:59 PM	#2
Marinersfan51 All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 777	Most IRL prospect lists either don't consider or are extremely hesitant to include players still at the complex level. The in-game prospect lists include those players, which is where the age discrepancies come from. The in-game lists also seem to weight the 90% outcome more heavily compared to most actual prospect lists which try to balance the most likely outcome with the best outcome, which is what rewards proximity to the big leagues. I think I would prefer something closer to the IRL model (which could be as simple as not considering complex level players for the lists). It is weird to see a player spend like four years as a top 10 prospect and never make it past AA.

08-27-2022, 06:45 PM	#4
WyattGOAT Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 159	I just signed a 16 y/o IFA with 80 potential and he was instantly the #1 prospect in baseball. This definitely needs tweaking

08-29-2022, 10:59 AM	#5
billyray1984 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 216	The top 100 prospect list is just borked with IFA on. For IFA, their ceiling is usually higher than any draft prospect and the list loves sky high ceiling guys with no floor even though they are 5-8 years away from the majors. I'm not complaining since in modern day MLB and with trading difficulty maxed out, IFA are pretty much the only way to try to stay on top once your team starts to have success. This is a point that would need major tweaking in future versions, but I'm not so sure how it could be tweaked without completly revamping how IFA are created or without putting a hard cap on the number of 16, 17 or 18 year olds who make the list each year. Another thing that bugs me is starting pitchers making the list even though their breaking pitch never developed. Each year, you have a couple of 24 year old sp who are still getting shelled in A+ who are on the list even though they are woefully underveloped two pitches pitchers.