[Tesla51P]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

You know that people can actually read the posts over there, right? You're not exactly coming off as a winner in that exchange, I'm afraid. No, wait, Michael Harris, the guy that Fangraphs suggests has a 50 FV, is actually an 80!!! I'm laughing right now. Dude's not even a top 10 prospect. He grades out as a future league average player. That's good - most guys can never be league average - but if you think that's an 80 grade, I've got this mountain near Atlanta I want to sell you...

On the other hand you did raise Ronald Acuna... who graded out to a 65. Oops! Sure, he panned out but if you're going to bring up 80 grade prospects, maybe look up and try to find some actual 80 grade prospects. Fangraphs doesn't hand out a lot of those grades at all - maybe they would have for Trout or Pujols if they were in the business of doing so when those guys came up but I'm having a hard time finding anyone - and, I suspect that, like OOTP, they consider guys who turn into 80 players to have been 65-70 grade guys who had 95th percentile-level improvements (or, in OOTP terms, TCR boosts).

OOTP made a point to switch to standard deviations for players precisely because of weirdness like this. 80 prospects should absolutely be rare. The top 2022 graduate - Harris' class (he was #37 lmao) - was Adley Rutschmann, who got a 70 grade. Last year's #1 guy was Gunnar Henderson, a 65. You have to go back all the way to 2021 and Wander Franco to find an actual 80.

I think some people have different expectations of the game. From your posts, I can tell you are more like me and want as realistic of a sim as possible. Others may want the game to be more of a pure game and to see big numbers from their players. I think both are valid ways of playing, and the game should in theory be able to cater to both groups with the plethora of settings that are available currently.