Player ratings almost always drop

[BubbaDbone]

Maybe my scouting director is too tough. Maybe my coaching/player development sucks. Maybe the player sucks. Maybe I suck. But virtually all of the players I have "developing": are mostly "undeveloping". My 5-star drafft pick becomes a 2-start routinely. I don't believe I have had a single player improve on their metrics over a 3-4 year season span. VERY FRUSTRATING. Any ideas would be MOST HELPFUL.

[Pelican]

I share your pain. So does every MLB organization. They invest money in signing and training these sure things, and only a handful ever make it to the Show. So I doubt you are doing anything wrong. The game is performing as it should. Wait 'til a guy you scouted and drafted breaks through. You'll immediately forget all the guys who failed.

One thought is that you can shorten the path, and have a more reliable assessment, if you draft older players. I tend to focus on guys in college, especially from the better leagues like the SEC, rather than teenagers who have only faced high school opposition. You can be confident that a college star is close to being ready for the major leagues. Of course, the downside of this approach is that you miss some tremendous talents out of high school who will never go to college.

From what you have said, I can't tell if you are doing anything wrong. I doubt it. Your approach seems sound. If you have good scouts and coaches/managers, you will see a return on investment at some point.

One other idea would be to use the development lab feature to train your best prospects in a new skill, like a new pitch, of fielding a new position, or bunting or stealing. Even draft studs can have weaknesses, and this is a chance to address them in an intensive environment. It won't make bad guys good; but it can definitely make good guys better, and more versatile. I wish it could prevent game injuries!

[Jasper70]

Originally Posted by BubbaDbone

Maybe my scouting director is too tough. Maybe my coaching/player development sucks. Maybe the player sucks. Maybe I suck. But virtually all of the players I have "developing": are mostly "undeveloping". My 5-star drafft pick becomes a 2-start routinely. I don't believe I have had a single player improve on their metrics over a 3-4 year season span. VERY FRUSTRATING. Any ideas would be MOST HELPFUL.

One thing to consider is move Rookie ball back to a June start rather than May. Missing that entire season after the draft doesn't help.
Another thing to look at is the draft class of 2023/2022 (pre OOTP25, read the player histories to figure out which draft). How are they developing compared to your drafts?

[mytreds]

Wasn’t there already on thread about this? About ‘25 not developing players as well as it used to?

[Matt Arnold]

Some of this is the nature of potentials. They generally represent an optimistic view of most players. Otherwise you would end up with almost nobody with a potential above about 2 stars, because the vast vast majority of players never make it.

[OzzieFan]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Some of this is the nature of potentials. They generally represent an optimistic view of most players. Otherwise you would end up with almost nobody with a potential above about 2 stars, because the vast vast majority of players never make it.

In both of my 5 - 6 year saves ... so far I don't think I have had a single player become anything. If not for free agent signings of older players, I couldn't field a proper team.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Some of this is the nature of potentials. They generally represent an optimistic view of most players. Otherwise you would end up with almost nobody with a potential above about 2 stars, because the vast vast majority of players never make it.

My understanding from previous developer posts was that OOTP used rather conservative potential ratings; more like median outcome than upside outcome (similar to FG or BA methodology). These posts were in fact generally in response to comments that felt the potential ratings should be more "really good, if not best, case scenario". I understand both arguments and am not advocating here for one or the other. (though I would say better than an "either / or" binary decision would be one that offered measures of both expected median outcome and volatility). I am curious, however, if you are saying that the system has changed to a more "aggressive" evaluation of potential in v25.