Broken Bat - Suggestions: Renovations of descriptive potential

Forum >> Suggestions >> Renovations of descriptive potential

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#74053	05/29/2020 8:29:37 am	Sep 12th, 2045
El jefe Joined: 04/21/2017 Posts: 221 Urbana Cubs II.1	I'll preface this with things may already work this way, so could be a useless suggestion. Perhaps part of the issue with the draft system is that "above average" potential players are immediately disregarded by many users. Would it be possible to implement a changing scale of descriptive potential based on the level the prospect is currently playing? I would expect high school players are perceived as higher potential initially given more development time than a college senior. However, that high school player may not progress as anticipated over time. Let me draw an example: Player A - 17 yo HS Senior w/ SI of 50 and POT of 13 Player B - 22 yo College Senior w/ SI of 95 and POT of 13 Assuming a "real" POT of 13, both players currently are probably designated as either "good" or "very good" potential. My proposal would be for "above average", "good", or "very good" to be representative of the remaining potential that player has. So since Player B has already realized substantial potential through his college years, perhaps his remaining potential is only "above average", while Player A would still be "good" or "very good" but will evolve over time based on how he develops.....stagnant development may lower the threshold to "above average" remaining potential sooner since he will not turn out as originally anticipated, than if he were to develop as expected. Might be a little confusing to follow but the basic idea is a sliding scale based on (1) actual development according to plan, and (2) remaining potential that can be achieved. The benefit here is more critical thinking when it comes to drafting players. You won't be as likely to dismiss Player B because "above average" could just meant he's closer to his full potential and may still end up with a SI much higher than Player A's "good" or "very good". Thoughts?

#74055	05/29/2020 1:05:43 pm	Sep 12th, 2045
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9592 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I think this would convolute things a lot. I like the Overall Potential as it is right now because I find it a valuable datapoint in player evaluation. I'm sure I would figure out how to use it in your system as well, but it looks like it would be more difficult. I certainly wouldn't disregard a player just because they have "Above Average" potential. There are enough examples of really bad players with "Very Good" potential, that it is obvious build is more important. An "Above Average" guy with an optimal build can easily be better than a "Very Good" guy with a poor build. Player evaluation is an essential part of the game. Anyone who blindly throws away an "Above Average" player is probably not going to do well in the long run. Updated Friday, May 29 2020 @ 1:07:02 pm PDT

#74059	05/29/2020 2:05:20 pm	Sep 13th, 2045
wuggla Joined: 05/10/2013 Posts: 1058 Colorado Springs Vultures VI.28	Kinda got what your saying on scouting reports change with potential changing also???

#74076	05/30/2020 8:47:56 am	Sep 14th, 2045
El jefe Joined: 04/21/2017 Posts: 221 Urbana Cubs II.1	correct, Wuggla. Changes based on how the player is actually developing and changes based on remaining potential left

#74079	05/30/2020 9:58:15 am	Sep 14th, 2045
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9592 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Currently Overall Potential maps pretty tightly to a real scouting report (just like the rest of the scouting line). This would be turning Overall Potential into something much less real.

#74096	05/31/2020 10:59:08 am	Sep 18th, 2045
wuggla Joined: 05/10/2013 Posts: 1058 Colorado Springs Vultures VI.28	I remembered old draft days when all we had was the scouting reports. Changes never acured to them. If possible this would make drafting harder not easy to do.

#74128	06/02/2020 11:48:28 pm	Sep 30th, 2045
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator	I'm still trying to follow how this works. Steve