Why prospect progression needs work

[mhagf4]

This is an outstanding article done by someone at RoyalsReview.com. Essentially, it breaks down the success and failure rates of Baseball America's top prospects. If you look at this article, you'll see why this game, in the interest of realism, needs to make a change to the way "prospects" progress. When you see that in real life, over 2/3 of top 100 guys "fail", yet in the game "A" players become successes every time, you'll see that a change is needed.

Very interesting stuff.

The Conclusion section from the article:

I think several conclusions are warranted, at least for the period of the study (which includes a great many current major league players).

• About 70% of Baseball America top 100 prospects fail.
• Position player prospects succeed much more often than pitching prospects.
• About 60% of position players ranked in Baseball America’s top 20 succeed in the majors.
• About 40% of pitchers ranked in the top 20 succeed in the majors.
• About 30% of position players ranked 21-100 succeed in the majors (with the success rate declining over that ranking range from about 36% to about 25%)
• About 20% of pitchers ranked 21-100 succeed in the majors (with the success rate declining over that ranking range from about 22% to about 15%)
• The success rate of prospects (both position player and pitchers) is nearly flat and relatively undifferentiated for players ranked 41-100, and especially those ranked 61-100.
• Corner infield prospects and catchers are the most likely to succeed in the majors, but outfielders, third basemen and shortstops are the most likely to become stars. Second basemen and pitchers are the least likely prospects to succeed in the majors or to become stars.
• Prospect success rates have not improved much over time and there is little data to support the contention that prospects are more likely to succeed now than they have in the past.

http://www.royalsreview.com/2011/2/1...-mlb-prospects

[nomo17k]

Very interesting article.

One thing is are you talking about the prospects in the franchise mode or RTTS? I tend to think casual players want to see their RTTS players progress fast enough so that they can continuously have a sense of accomplishment. For selling to a mass market there probably needs to be a compromise between giving real life feel (which is often just filled with bitterness) and the gaming factor... I don't know.

On the other hand, I'm loving the prolonged mediocrity of my RTTS player (still hitting .240 at AAA after 4 years, LOL), as I feel that reflects more of the current reality of myself, and it will make it much more gratifying if I make it to the show in the end.

So I personally agree and prefer if it's harder to see how players progress.

Perhaps there should be a way to make it difficult to know the potential of players. I've never been fond of rating system in games that directly ties them to performance. When people scout, they can only come up with subject measures of players' abilities, and they are often incorrect.

[bayman]

You do realize that to match these percentages the game would have to have the exact same amount of minor league teams as real clubs have right? And please don't say "well then do that" as if it's that easy to include.

[mhagf4]

I don't necessarily like the hidden potential idea, but I would like to see a player's potential fluctuate more, based on how he is handled in the minors. Rush him to quickly, or leave him down too long...it affects his potential.

Also, I'd like to see players potentials and progression be more tied to training. Think about how a player actually progresses. Let's say you have a guy who has a lot of raw power, speed, and arm strength. However, he has no pitch recognition, or plate discipline. If he is 20 years old, he might be a damn good prospect. But if you don't "train" him in the right areas, he'll turn into the next Jeff Francouer.

For a pitcher, you might have a guy who throws 95, is big, and has a sharp breaking curveball. That kind of guy would be a top prospect. But, if you don't train him in his command, or develop his 3rd pitch, he'll be a middle relief guy at best.

I think these kind of training, and prospect handling, with a little bit of random variability would make the progression system much more realistic.

[mhagf4]

Quote: Originally Posted by bayman

You do realize that to match these percentages the game would have to have the exact same amount of minor league teams as real clubs have right? And please don't say "well then do that" as if it's that easy to include.

These percentages are based only on Baseball America's top 100 list. Thus, all A and B type prospects. When is the last time you had an A prospect turn into a turd on this game? In real life, they do over 50% of the time.

[bayman]

Quote: Originally Posted by mhagf4

These percentages are based only on Baseball America's top 100 list. Thus, all A and B type prospects. When is the last time you had an A prospect turn into a turd on this game? In real life, they do over 50% of the time.

I understand exactly what you said. I also agree that there are not enough busts in the game. However, I also understand math and that matching these percentages based on the total amount of players in a minor league system in the game is impossible. In real life when a top 100 guy fails he may be "replaced" with a guy from like the 7th minor league team which can't happen in this game. I never said there wasn't an issue, but blanket statements that are not realistic is not the way to improvement.

[maddguuns]

Quote: Originally Posted by bayman

I understand exactly what you said. I also agree that there are not enough busts in the game. However, I also understand math and that matching these percentages based on the total amount of players in a minor league system in the game is impossible. In real life when a top 100 guy fails he may be "replaced" with a guy from like the 7th minor league team which can't happen in this game. I never said there wasn't an issue, but blanket statements that are not realistic is not the way to improvement.

I'm not going to jump all over you here, but basic math shows that the Show could institute these exact percentages, if they wanted. The top 100 represents 30 team's prospects over multiple drafts. At any give time, in the game, the minor leagues have upwards of 75 players.

And besides, who cares about percentages? That isn't the problem. This can be done easily, based on the numbers the game already uses. With 5-ish rounds fo the draft, each draft adds approximately 150 new players to the game (per year in franchise mode). With some time and creative programming, there is no reason the Show could not mimmick the star-to-bust ratios of real life.

What is being said in the thread, is that it would be nice to draft guys based on attributes, and see what happens when they are mismanaged in the system or injured, or even underdeveloped.

In fact, NFL Head Coach '09 does this to an extent. When a player gets drafted, he has a non-static potential rating. With injuries and bad performance comes a drop in the potential rating. In many cases, misused players never play up to their potential.

So, these percentages is not what anyone is after, it's the ability to see that 144th pick in the draft out play his initial ratings and become a star or that 3rd pick in the draft go the way of Antone Williamson.

In all honesty, my math sees this being a fairly easy modification. I would like to see your math if you think it can't be done.

[vegaas]

This would be good as long as we also got the players drafted in the later rounds that have the potential to become stars.