[ALB123]

Originally Posted by Trav876

Take the reverse example to better understand what I'm asking. Let's say a guy's ratings aren't great, and his potential is low. But you've put him in positions to succeed and his stats are good. Shouldn't his potential then improve because you've helped "make him a better" player?

I'm a little bit confused...What do you mean by "putting him in positions to succeed"?

In real life, if a prospect is a top prospect and they've invested lots into him (high draft, pick, maybe trades, etc.), they'll give him more AB's, more opportunities, etc. This then spurs his development.

In OOTP, does giving guys more AB's tend to help them improve? Obviously not always, because sometimes a guy isn't good enough. But sometimes I'll see a guy tearing it up in the minors, and his ratings & potential still suck. Kind of strange...you'd think potential should at least increase? At least temporarily until he starts sucking.

This is a complex issue - I can't say that I completely understand or agree with how OOTP implements rating increases & decreases, but I do see things in my own organization that usually make sense to me on this topic.

First of all, by default those player ratings, Current & Potential, are in relation to MLB level. So, it is absolutely possible to see a 3B, for example, crushing the ball in Rookie Level but not see much movement at all in his Potential Rating. I use the Stars system, btw. What I believe is happening is your Scouting Director is saying, "The kid had a great Rookie Level season, but I still don't foresee him making it past AA, let alone making it to the majors. So, to me, his Potential is no different than it was before his first game in Rookie Level."

If the player was really kicking butt, I would expect to see his Current overall rating increase. Maybe it will be only a half-star increase. In my personal opinion, this makes perfect sense. Again, it is certainly nice to see a prospect perform exceptionally well in Rookie Level ball, but we need to remember...it's only Rookie Level ball and those initial ratings were applied before the player ever saw a pitch as a minor leaguer.

I've had several cases where I've drafted players who are 4 & 4.5-Star Potential players but only 0.5-Stars Currently. By the end of his first year in Rookie Level, which was pretty good, that player has gone up to a 1.0 or maybe 1.5-Stars in his Current Overall Rating, but his Potential Rating has actually dropped to 3 Stars. Usually, if things go well with his development...like, consistent quality play and the ability to advance each season from Short-Season A to A to High A there are very good odds that you'll see that kid's Potential Rating back up to a 4 or 4.5 Stars. I'd be shocked if I had a single 4-star or higher prospect who's Potential Rating didn't drop at least a full Star on his path to the big leagues.

If not, it seems like this should be a feature if doable, to make it more realistic. Otherwise, it's simply only based on ratings and really doesn't matter what you do with your minor leaguers (you could leave them all in the rookie league on the bench, but so long as their ratings are MLB good, they'd come up to the MLB and do fine. There's less chance to ruin a guy and less chance to make a guy succeed, which is a huge part of real-life development).

What do you mean when you say "their ratings are MLB good"? How does a player get MLB good ratings if you sit him on the bench all season? I don't understand what you're saying here, if you don't mind rewording it to give me another shot, I'd appreciate it.

Ratings definitely help identify talent & skill. There is no question about that, especially when you see 4 to 5-Star rated players. But, I don't think you can run a successful organization based solely on Potential Ratings. I've had too many highly-rated players turn into 2 Star players or get hurt and never live up to expectations.