Rookie Scouting

[Clay Dreslough]

Currently in Baseball Mogul, the letter grade ratings reflect a player's CURRENT talent level.

I've been thinking of changing the ratings to reflect POTENTIAL, not current value. This would mean that rookies would show grades equal to what your scouts thought he would be like once fully developed.

Would folks be in favor of that?

Clay

[hamricb]

I am strongly against seeing potential ratings fully replace actual ratings. It gives the scouts MUCH more omniscience than they'd have in reality.

What I propose, is create a new scouting category, called potential. Add it to the 8 current categories (contact, power, speed, eye, etc.) Grade it, something like this:

A: This player is quite coachable, seems to be picking up new skills and strength, and therefore should improve with some more experience.

B: same as A but to a lesser degree.

C: this player could have minor improvements from where they are now, but don't expect much; once a player "peaks," you can give them this rating

D: give this to players beginning to decline slowly, like say a 37 year old Ivan Rodriquez

F: give this to players declining rapidly, maybe a year or less away from being worthless

Of course, fill in the +'s and -'s and you've got a nice scale to work from. If you call any step up in rating an "improvement," (like say C+ to B- is one improvement, C+ to B+ would be three improvements) work something like this for the potential grade:

A+ = 6-7 improvements/year (over all 8 other categories)
A = 5-6 improvements/year
A- = 4-5 improvements/year
B+ = 3-4 improvements/year
B = 2-3 improvements/year
B- = 1-2 improvements/year
C+ = 0-1 improvements/year
C = 0-1 improvements/year
C- = 0-1 declines/year
D+ = 1-2 declines/year
D = 2-3 declines/year
D- = 3-4 declines/year
F = 4-5 declines/year

I've built in these small ranges to allow for some randomness in how much a player develops or declines. Also, you could give the potential rating a total improvement number instead of factoring it annually.

So the system would also take into account the age of the player. A 22 year old 2B might have an A+ in potential, but as they pick up improvements, their potential goes down to a B+ by the time they are 24, the player peaks at 27 and has gained many improvements but then has a C potential grade. Around age 36 the potential grade starts sliding slowly until it hits F and the player just keeps getting worse.

This needs refinement but I think it is closer to making BBMO a better game than what I've seen proposed, IMO. Hope it helps.

[steven0560]

Somehow. You really need to know how good they are at the moment as well, so you don't try using someone way before they are ready. In a way, you already display both though. In the scouts report he usually says what they should become. So actually I guess I'm saying leave it as is. In the real world there is no exact science for figuring out rookies. Why should there be in the BBM world?

[Kyuss]

I agree with Hamricb, in that we need need a way to judge potential. I think adding another catagory(and I realize how rough it would be to rewrite the code) would be the best way to go, and like alll the other ratings it should be based on Scouting rank. That would keep it balanced, where as if you were dead last in scouting, that guy named Brien Taylor who your scouts claim to be the next Pedro, would in reality turn out to be the next Sidney Ponson.

The system Hamricb outlined above is also a pretty good idea as well. Although the improvement scale might be a tad high, I would scale it down a bit.

I am very much against being able to see both potential and current ratings at the same time, as it should always leave something to chance. What I mean is knowing that your C+ hitter will someday down the road be a B+, but never any more than that.
Just my thoughts.

[Schaefling]

I figure the code already works out a player's actual ratings at the moment which probably vary at different times (within a season and from year to year). I also suspect it's already written into the code what a player's ultimate potential is.

I think, therefore, that displaying both makes perfect sense.

I also bet that a player could exceed his potential as well as fall short of his potential. Factors like money spent on farm teams, how early a guy goes to the majors, injuries, etc. would increase or decrease a player's abilty to reach his potential.

Managers need to keep this in mind. Potential is just that - the ability to reach or exceed a certain level if things go just right. Potential is not a guarantee the player will ever be that good.

[John]

This would be cool! BMO would finally be able to tell how long you should put a player in the minors instead of guessing on potenial and rolling the dice.

[khkoenig]

BMO would finally be able to tell how long you should put a player in the minors instead of guessing on potenial and rolling the dice.

What general manager in Major League Baseball knows when to bring up a prospect? Every one of them is guessing on potential and rolling the dice. For every successful pitcher that was brought up early like CC Sabathia, there is a Jared Wright that may have harmed his long-term potential by being brought up early (from a long-time Tribe fan).

[misterblond]

Using clear potential ratings would be a mistake. It is unrealistic and unnecessary. If anything, have the scout give a simple breakdown (in words) of how he thinks the player will turn out.

[williethebasset]

I have pumped a lot of money in scouting to figure out what players are worth trading. I have not had an good prospects come over in trades. I check the scouting and it rapidly declines right after I trade for them.

[JamesBaker]

A Pontential Rating would be helpful. Something as simple as Pontential Rating: A, very similar to a contact rating or a power rating. It would be like a scout's expectation of a player... There's always a Todd Van Poppel though so it would be nice to see a can't miss guy fall on his face now and again.

[edeutsch77]

I think that potential could be shown, but it potential can also be killed by a small injury. Also, I know this is a different thought, but can't players be injured while playing in the minor leagues?

[K_Dub420]

i think that the suggestions for a letter grade potential rating would make a nice addition to the game. But I don't think that players should improve a set amount due to the potential rating, it should be somewhat randomized like real life. A potential rating would also make trading prospects better because a rookie with medicore stats but a very high potential rating would be worth more than a rookie with the same stats without a potential grade. This would also mirror real-baseball more because gm's trade and draft rookies based on possible upside all the time. Just my thoughts.

[malpits]

I really think that the way it is at the moment is the best way, this is because its like real life where you will have to take a chance on a player and find out if they have what it takes. By putting both kind of states on, it will make trading harder than what it is now, but i think it will also take some fun away from the game as I am a GM who likes try out rookies, and to be honest more often than not it will works out.