a historical draft question

[etothep]

if i start a game in say 1994, are the draft ratings for the players somewhat based on how the players did in real life or are there certain players who werent good who are rated highly & some players who were good rated poorly?

i ask cause i just started a 94 game & looked at the draft from the bottom up & saw...
eric byrnes listed as 55/68
sidney ponson as 52/76 (i only mention this as he was heavily hyped by the Os)
jose guillen 60/78
aubrey huff 57/79

whereas at the top I saw...
5 pitchers I had never heard of rated from 50/93 to 65/94
alex sanchez as 54/93
esix snead 55/91
many others w/ peaks over 90


just wondering how the players' ratings are generated by the game? if i know a certain player is good, or at least serviceable in real life, and is rated as 50/70 in the draft, will he be prone to, or likely to, grow in the minors or is there a random effect in the game when generating the drafts so that some players are bound to be crappy & some given a shot of greatness when in real life they never even got a starting job in the majors?

[ronnccox]

The ratings seem to be based on what each player's potential was perceived to be at the time. I've found that if I invest heavily in the farm system, they usually reach their peak (barring injury, randomness, etc.), but the guys that we know were studs in real life exceed their overall/peak quickly, which leads to an unbalanced draft since all I have to do is scroll down and snatch them from the 50/64 pile.

It's a catch 22. I like that my knowledge of the game lands me the studs, but it's cheating since my scouts have a time machine, which if it were me I'd use for things other than signing baseball players but whatever.

The only way to avoid this is to start in the year 2020 or something. Either way I'm winning the World Series in two years.

[etothep]

The ratings seem to be based on what each player's potential was perceived to be at the time. I've found that if I invest heavily in the farm sytem, they will usually reach their peak (barring injury, randomness, etc.), but the guys that we know were studs in real life exceed their overall/peak quickly, which leads to an unbalanced draft since all I have to do is scroll down and snatch them from the 50/64 pile.

It's a catch 22. I like that my knowledge of the game land me these gems, but it feels like cheating since my scouts appartently have a time machine, which if it were me I'd use for things other than signing baseball players but whatever.

The only way to avoid this is to start in the year 2020 or something.

thanks for the answer :)

but what about the players who weren't good or even avg in real life but are rated very highly? do they drop off as they age?

[HoustonGM]

I don't know exactly how it forms the ratings, put how the player's potential was perceived to be at the time certainly doesn't. There's nothing in the database that indicates how a player was perceived in real life.

[ronnccox]

There's nothing in the database that indicates how a player was perceived in real life.

It's just random then? Okay...guess I'll just pretend that's not true so the game feels more realistic. At least the guys who were studs in real life seem to exceed their low ratings quickly. Is this not build into them? Maybe I don't want to know.

[HoustonGM]

The ratings aren't completely random. There is so randomness to it, though. I'm not exactly sure how the historical ratings are calculated. It's more of a question for ohms.

[MeetDaMets]

so far as i can tell,

the biggest difference between an historical player and his
bbm DRAFTEE counterpart, are the background variable ratings such as potential and peak start longevity (and whatever variable it is that determines if they fall short of, reach , or exceed "peak at draft"

with the draftees these ratings seem to be more randomized.

but with historical player already on roster at game begin, these ratings seem to be designed and set (or set to a standard with only minor variance)
such that
player does perform more like (not just like) "real life" then the draftee version .

just my perception.

[etothep]

so far as i can tell,

the biggest difference between an historical player and his
bbm DRAFTEE counterpart, are the background variable ratings such as potential and peak start longevity (and whatever variable it is that determines if they fall short of, reach , or exceed "peak at draft"

with the draftees these ratings seem to be more randomized.

but with historical player already on roster at game begin, these ratings seem to be designed and set (or set to a standard with only minor variance)
such that
player does perform more like (not just like) "real life" then the draftee version .

just my perception.


so if i understand you correctly, starting in 1994 with seattle, i am more likely to have a high rated arod than say i start in 93 and draft him?

[etothep]

also, why is it when i start a game in 1994, most players have horrid defensive ratings and the pitchers dont have control?

for instance, in 1994, there are 45 pitchers w/ control over 80 compared to 176 pitchers w/ control over 80 (42 w/ control over 90) when starting a game in 2007

in 2007, there are 275 players w/ a defense rating of at least 85, 80 w/ a rating of at least 95 compared to 185 players w/ a defense rating of at least 85 in 1994 & only 20 w/ a rating of at least 95


was there really that much of a control issue less than 15 years ago with pitchers? is today really a defensive renaissance in baseball? or is 1994 just some kind of a fluke year in bm08 with the ratings?

[MeetDaMets]

so if i understand you correctly, starting in 1994 with seattle, i am more likely to have a high rated arod than say i start in 93 and draft him?

yes

thats the way i perceive it and
thought that was what i read on one of the help files.

[MeetDaMets]

qualifier to above

with simulation mode OFF

[FRENCHREDSOX]

also, why is it when i start a game in 1994, most players have horrid defensive ratings and the pitchers dont have control?

for instance, in 1994, there are 45 pitchers w/ control over 80 compared to 176 pitchers w/ control over 80 (42 w/ control over 90) when starting a game in 2007

in 2007, there are 275 players w/ a defense rating of at least 85, 80 w/ a rating of at least 95 compared to 185 players w/ a defense rating of at least 85 in 1994 & only 20 w/ a rating of at least 95


was there really that much of a control issue less than 15 years ago with pitchers? is today really a defensive renaissance in baseball? or is 1994 just some kind of a fluke year in bm08 with the ratings?

Depends also whose rosters you are using.If you are using Houston GM's or a specific mod then it would explain the differentiation in the numbers.Most mods have hundreds if not thousands of players more than the default rosters & thus leads to more players with improved ratings.

[etothep]

Depends also whose rosters you are using.If you are using Houston GM's or a specific mod then it would explain the differentiation in the numbers.Most mods have hundreds if not thousands of players more than the default rosters & thus leads to more players with improved ratings.

those glaring numbers are using the default 2007 rosters for bm08

[etothep]

another question....whens a good year historically to change rookie output from just historical rookies to a mix of historical & fictional?