Broken Bat - Discussion Forum: POT inaccuracies

Forum >> Discussions >> POT inaccuracies

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#66278	06/11/2019 6:06:46 pm	Mar 30th, 2041
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9603 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I'm liking the new and deproved POT accuracy. Its making me take a harder look at some POT 12 guys. More opportunity to pick up potential sleeping dragons for teams with extra space in their minors.

#66294	06/12/2019 8:44:20 am	Mar 30th, 2041
Jwrose Joined: 07/07/2016 Posts: 95 Parma Dodgers V.10	My question is is this going to effect players pre change as well?

#66299	06/12/2019 12:00:32 pm	Mar 30th, 2041
Frankebasta Joined: 09/15/2013 Posts: 885 Kodiak Mules III.3	it affetcs players drafted in 2040 onwards

#66307	06/12/2019 8:21:26 pm	Apr 3rd, 2041
allen54chevy Joined: 11/22/2015 Posts: 475 Inactive	FWIW I kept an 11 POT from the first round this year.

#67540	08/10/2019 12:36:00 pm	Jan 15th, 2042
amalric7 Joined: 01/20/2016 Posts: 2238 New York Lancers V.4	Changes afoot. Both my 16 pots, one each drafted in 2040 and 2041, have corrected to 15 pots - and the 2040 one was drafted as a 14 pot, so this fluidity in POT seems to be an ongoing thing. I've also had draftees in the 11-13 POT range (some with the team, some free agents and some on other teams) show fluctuations up and down (one spot). What's everyone else got?

#67542	08/10/2019 1:32:42 pm	Jan 15th, 2042
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Kinda funny we were talking about not seeing changes in another thread, and then there are a bunch of changes. My 8th rounder from '40 started 13, went to 14, and is now back to 13. It's easy to see him as a 14 or top end 13. I had a late rounder from '41 (Calderon blip from 14 to 15. It was hard enough believing he was 14, so we aren't holding our breath. Back to OP, I've long been a big fan of 12 pots, but I don't see uncertain bars working in their favour. Downward risk is great.

#67548	08/10/2019 2:08:10 pm	Jan 15th, 2042
dsz071 Joined: 09/12/2015 Posts: 334 Inactive	I had my future SS drop to 14, which is kind of a bummer. The only other change I saw was the 6th rounder in '41 that I cut. He was a 13 when I drafted him now he's showing 14.

#67550	08/10/2019 2:45:02 pm	Jan 15th, 2042
nemesis Joined: 07/06/2016 Posts: 135 Brooklyn Dodgers III.3	I've had a 14pot and a 12pot pitcher both drop one spot. The former just has "good potential" as his report, which is decent at 14pot but cut-worthy at 13pot. The latter has a nice "strikeout pitcher, major league curveball" report but 11pot pitchers are instant cuts for me. The trouble is if they both correct back to their original pot levels. I could cut both now for roster spots, but then risk cutting two potentially good pitching prospects. I think this is going to be the real legacy of the new draft.

#67553	08/10/2019 3:30:10 pm	Jan 15th, 2042
hurstdm Joined: 01/18/2017 Posts: 576 Murfreesboro Moo Cows VI.5	To add to the discussion, I've got three different minors players that lost a point of Potential: Luis Santiago Evan Hensley Carlos Paredes I didn't draft two of these guys. I snatched them off waivers. This "draft change" actually made substantial changes to the waiver market. What to believe? The old Potential or the new Potential? What else is there for me to believe? Could it shift again? Have any gone up? Again, losing a point in Potential is a pretty large swing in a prospect's eventual SI. It seems like an awfully clunky way to choose to fuzz up team scouting. I still dislike the new draft procedure and would still vote to change the whole thing back. I'd make a Suggestion thread, but I assume there's no chance it'll be cranked back now.

#67555	08/10/2019 4:00:10 pm	Jan 15th, 2042
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Those guys are all good prospects at their current pot. Potential just gets your toe in the door, performance determines your fate. Much like search-by-potential, there is no going back. Once users get accustomed to having more info, it's just a no go returning to a more restrictive system.

#67557	08/10/2019 10:22:59 pm	Jan 15th, 2042
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9603 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I had drafted a POT 14 3B and POT 15 3B least season. Now I have two POT 15 3B... Really wish they had different positions.

#67568	08/11/2019 10:47:42 am	Jan 15th, 2042
amalric7 Joined: 01/20/2016 Posts: 2238 New York Lancers V.4	@Rock - I'd have trained Burrell at SS with minimum 15s in each of the defensive traits, and Baird could play C in addition to 3B and OF. Those guys could basically play anywhere, nice problem to have.

#67580	08/11/2019 8:38:22 pm	Jan 15th, 2042
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9603 Haverhill Halflings III.1	15 range isn't good enough for SS. Baird can certainly play OF, but Amazing in the field will be wasted. Pointless in training him a C when I have Jay Hawes (also POT 15). Its likely the Baird and will mostly play OF unless Burrell is playing 1B.

#67581	08/11/2019 11:00:38 pm	Jan 15th, 2042
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	We rarely have 122 SI guys with 16-17-16 for short. Three 15s might not be perfect for short, but it's more than adequate.

#67589	08/12/2019 9:56:58 am	Jan 15th, 2042
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9603 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Not for me. RNG is critical for SS, I never go as low as 15. I have a backup C/SS right now with 16 Range, but my starter has 17 RNG and my 24 year old rookie has 19 RNG. I have a POT 14 SS in the minors with 18 RNG. I would never drop as low as 15 Range for SS. Arm, Fielding, and Range don't have equal value for each position. Its not a good idea to treat them as equals.

#67590	08/12/2019 10:23:42 am	Jan 15th, 2042
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	Of course they're not equal, but they're all important at short. I'm playing a 12-16-14 guy there now. With hitting being equal, I'd rather have 15-15-15. You can only play what you can get. An even better illustration of that is that I played a guy there last season for 33 games with 12-14-13. We're limited by dumb luck in who we get to play. As I said over in the Legends thread, that's why I think Novi's Lee from last year's draft may be the best draft pick ever. Shortstops are easily the most difficult position to find and he got an immediate All Star. Meanwhile, many of us are struggling to find merely a serviceable short. Updated Monday, August 12 2019 @ 10:41:56 am PDT

#67592	08/12/2019 11:33:06 am	Jan 15th, 2042
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9603 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I don't disagree they are hard to find. But SS is the one position I prioritize defense over offense. I would consider 12-14-13 to be a very poor shortstop (ignoring any actuals over scouting inaccuracies). I'm not going to shoe horn a player into SS just because he is a POT 15. And to me 15-15-15 is unacceptable at SS.

#67744	08/19/2019 10:46:57 am	Mar 6th, 2042
BUDude Joined: 05/05/2019 Posts: 54 Inactive	Part of the fun of baseball is having to make decisions like that. Obviously, I want my SS to be the best defensive player on the team, but I'm nowhere near as picky as Rock is. But maybe that's why I've never achieved that level of success either.

#67757	08/20/2019 4:59:15 am	Mar 8th, 2042
Holmes Joined: 11/07/2013 Posts: 1175 Inactive	Hurstdm, as I already wrote in our league thread, I had one player drop from 15 to 14 and five players drop from 13 to 12. That turns at least two of them into non-prospects...

#67789	08/21/2019 6:45:27 pm	Mar 12th, 2042
Brewnoe Joined: 03/25/2014 Posts: 818 Fall River Naughty Dawgs IV.5	I don't disagree they are hard to find. But SS is the one position I prioritize defense over offense. I would consider 12-14-13 to be a very poor shortstop (ignoring any actuals over scouting inaccuracies). I'm not going to shoe horn a player into SS just because he is a POT 15. And to me 15-15-15 is unacceptable at SS. There was (an early) season or 2 that i would have taken 15-15-15 in a sec ... see Chad Glad you missed (or weren't looking for) "Old Weird" Harold Nielson (amazing-16-16) ... also glad i might not need to play his 12 pot butt for long if a certain (outstanding-17-13) guy can learn. ... Have a strategy, but be flexible Speaking of pure SS ... can you imagine inheriting a team with someone like Carlos Corona ?? ... hope someone teaches him well

#67799	08/22/2019 6:16:45 pm	Mar 14th, 2042
Jwrose Joined: 07/07/2016 Posts: 95 Parma Dodgers V.10	My main SS has an 11 range, which is 1pt above average guys, and had a fld% of .978 at SS in 105 games. Combined with his hitting I'll take that everyday.

#67802	08/23/2019 3:18:12 am	Mar 14th, 2042
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9603 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Range has nothing to do with fielding. Range impacts how many balls your entire team gets to. Less team range means more balls find gaps. And the SS Range is weighted heavier than other positions. Higher Range at SS means less balls dropping into play in the OF.

#67842	08/23/2019 10:12:39 am	Mar 14th, 2042
Jwrose Joined: 07/07/2016 Posts: 95 Parma Dodgers V.10	I know that but I'll take the minus for the pluses.

#67935	08/27/2019 2:02:56 pm	Mar 25th, 2042
ImASurvivor Joined: 06/18/2019 Posts: 9 Inactive	http://brokenbat.org/player/231811 This guy looks for a candidate to have a pot bump, only 18 and already 80+SI but 12 POT and his scouting report claims to predict his stats will improve above the 103 threshold for 12 pots.