Broken Bat - Help: Prospect Ratings

Forum >> Help >> Prospect Ratings

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#29846	01/29/2016 11:43:51 am
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	From the Rules: Scouting Report: a report with information about the prospect's skill set and ability to improve. Also may include an assessment of the prospect's overall potential.

#29851	01/29/2016 12:33:28 pm
Crazy Li Joined: 01/25/2015 Posts: 879 Inactive	Your quote is for the report as a whole, not the potential section of the report. Potential in the report has to relate to the potential on the card in some way, otherwise it wouldn't be called that. I think it's just more variable than other areas. Your theory would make potential reported entirely differently than everything else where other skills indicate a range of possibilities, not how likely the player is to reach that possibility. This in itself has nothing wrong with it except, we would be seeing a ton of players with good or better reports who are below 11pot because they can certainly reach their potential easily.

#29860	01/29/2016 2:12:39 pm
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	My quote was to illustrate the fact that the two sentences in the rules regarding scouting reports say basically the same thing. Anything we think we know, we probably don't know.

#29864	01/29/2016 3:34:59 pm
Crazy Li Joined: 01/25/2015 Posts: 879 Inactive	Either I don't understand you or you're misreading the excerpt. To be clear, it's not implying that the potential indicator in a scouting report sometimes is an assessment of the overall potential. It is saying that the report (as a whole) gives information on a player's skills and sometimes included in that is an assessment of their potential. As not all scouting reports mention potential. So I don't see how the manual suggests anything that says "very good overall potential" isn't talking about a player's potential.

#29878	01/29/2016 4:46:54 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9602 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I'm almost positive that "overall potential" and POT have no derivation from each other. I treat them as two separate indicators. My belief is that "overall potential" is tied to build, while POT is just a sum of SI. My guess is that the "overall" rating is also tied to position, but I'm not sure about that one. I also think that the scout's "overall potential" algorithm is not flawless. I have guesses about things that I think they overrate (Stamina, Speed, etc.) compared to my own evaluation weightings, so I balance those when I evaluate a player and consider the "overall potential" grade.

#29885	01/30/2016 1:08:57 am
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	My point to Crazy was to assume at his own risk. Speculation is half the fun of this game, but anything beyond that is putting yourself out on a pretty thin limb.

#29894	01/30/2016 7:21:21 am
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Always interested in other people's theories. Did a little looking to try and explore Rock777's a bit. I did a search for all (on a team, waivers or FA) C 19 and under with a potential floor of 12. I choose C b/c I feel C has an easy connection between physical skills and position, and that overall player quality is more transparent. I sorted by salary, though all the 12 pot guys had the minimum. The search yielded 101 19 or under C with 12 overall potential. - 8 were very good - 68 were good - 25 were above average (These numbers are basically %). I did not see a connection between potential and current SI. The very good guys were spread throughout the list (positions 14, 16, 20, 29, 31, 58, 84, 86). There 12 above average in the top 50, and 12 in the bottom 50 (#51 was above average). Here are the 8 very goods (listed in order of current SI): 1. http://brokenbat.org/player/119605 2. http://brokenbat.org/player/111959 3. http://brokenbat.org/player/121425 4. http://brokenbat.org/player/120497 5. http://brokenbat.org/player/120849 6. http://brokenbat.org/player/120714 7. http://brokenbat.org/player/119268 8. http://brokenbat.org/player/120029 Of those, only #7 strikes me as a good C prospect. Most of those guys have DH as their best position, or are not prospects at all. I did see lots of good catching prospects, and good prospects in general. But I couldn't see any connection between the potential comment and my evaluation of their future. Some of the best were above average. (Bias alert: I have a player in my minors who fits this criteria - 19 or under 12 pot C). I was a little surprised by the number of above average guys. Was a little higher than I would have predicted. When I get more time, think I will repeat the experiment looking at SS and see if there is a similar distribution of very good, good and above average. From what I've seen so far, I would still advise that the potential statement's sole purpose is to provide information for the draft, and that once you can see the potential bar, the comment serves no more purpose. Edit: that is indeed the player ID for #2, though something strange is up there. The player is Enriquez from the St. Paul Killer Bees Updated Saturday, January 30 2016 @ 7:26:55 am PST

#29897	01/30/2016 8:54:09 am
Spoonerific Joined: 01/17/2013 Posts: 339 Inactive	I'm not sure who said [meaning I'm too lazy to search] but I am of the suspicion that the scouting note on potential ties into trainable more than it does POT. This is merely a hypothesis at the moment but I want to go study some players and see if there is a correlation when I have the free time to do so.

#29951	01/31/2016 11:18:32 am
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9602 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Yep. That is my assumption as well. Its how good a player (my theory is based off current primary position) the guy is. Seca - The problem is that you are weighing defensive ratings very high. We have no idea how the "overall potential" weightings work. A catcher whose BC and PD break some invisible barrier (14?) is likely to be weighted higher than a catcher who has a good arm. But a catcher whose Arm breaks some barrier (16?) may be given more points then a 2B with the same exact SI potential. My belief is that while POT is just a summation of SI, "overall potential" is a weighted score based on position. But you need to remember that batting abilities could very well hold greater sway than defensive abilities. You can't just look at the catcher Arms and determine its not weighted by position, because there are a lot of other weightings in play. Taking the top guy on your list these are the plusses and minuses I see (N means neutral): ++ Well developed for age ++ Hitting projects to 17 N BC projects to 12 ++ PD projects to 18 + Power projects to 14 N Speed at 11 + right handed catcher + 9 Fielding for Catcher ++ 13 range (a lot) for catcher -- 6 arm is really bad for a catcher N Stealing gene N other hidden rating Now any or all of those factors could be used in the weighting of overall potential. It may or may not weigh some factors based on position. I'm guessing it does, but its pretty hard to tell given all the factors involved and the fact that we can't weightings. Also, we don't know if this is working off their real abilities, or their scouted abilities (which can be 20% off). Its also even possible for the batting weighting to be based off the average for a position. So for instance a SS with good batting ratings may get extra in their score compared to an OF with good batting ratings. Updated Sunday, January 31 2016 @ 11:32:42 am PST

#29952	01/31/2016 11:42:10 am
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9602 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Here is an example of an above average Catcher on my squad. Here again are +/-: - Was a little underdeveloped for his age + Hitting will probably max around 16 - Bat Control will max around 10 N PD will max around 13 + Power around 14 - Speed is low + Fielding is a lot for C + right handed catcher N Range is fine for a C ++ Good arm N Hidden ratings So despite having a really good arm, he is not the best prospect because he was a bit underdeveloped at the start, and his hitting ability is just average. Low speed and pretty bad BC means his OBP will be sub-par. To me he is a great backup C, but I can see why he wouldn't be rated as a good prospect overall, especially if some of those values have been over scouted. Updated Sunday, January 31 2016 @ 11:42:41 am PST