I got a beef with the dynamic potential system

SDS

As we all know, MLB The Show has a dynamic potential system where player potentials can go up or down based on their performance on the field.

However, I've got a little beef with it since it doesn't always make a lot of sense.

I'm doing an Orioles rebuild franchise, and there's a couple guys who I don't think have been done right by this system.

Anthony Santander has quickly become one of my most reliable assets, but his potential still sits at only 76. In four seasons he's slashed:
.250/.299/413
.267/.320/.439
.265/.330/.403
And then the big year came:
.318/.373/.516

A massive 4th season (6th in service time) at age 28, and yet no potential change to show for it. Solid performances in those first three seasons coupled with a huge 4th season would seemingly indicate a potential change.

On the prospect side of things, I drafted a kid by the name of Delmon McClure in the 5th round of the 2020 draft. He only had 69 potential, but throws absolute gas (97mph fastball and 91mph slider) and was only 18 so I wanted to see if I could bust that potential cap. His first season was decent, but not outstanding. However, his next two seasons he was on "fire" most of the season as my AA closer. Yet no potential changes at all. I'm not saying he should suddenly be an "80", but a couple points would make sense.

On the flip side of things, there's a couple guys I thought should lose potential and haven't. I pushed Ryan Mountcastle too quickly into the majors and he's sputtered to a career .234/.311/.383 in about 3 and a half seasons of service time, yet he's still an 83 potential. Another example is Austin Hays. In my first two seasons he slashed .237/.296/.402 and .229/.288/.377 with no potential drop. However, his last two seasons he slashed .251/.315/.429 and .265/.317/.488 and is now 28 years old. My thought is that a more efficient system would have dropped his potential during those first two season, but then maybe raised it after that 4th season. His first two seasons had him looking like a defense first regular OF, which shouldn't correspond with an 88 potential. The poor performance on the field should drop his potential, and the more he struggles, the more rapidly it should drop. Unless he turns it around (which he eventually did), his potential should eventually meet his current overall (he shouldn't get worse than he his, but he shouldn't get better).

Right now I think the potential system still acts too rigid and linearly. It's not fluid like real life potential is for players where sometimes top prospects crash and burn and unknown guys turn into all stars (the example I always use for this one is Willson Contreras for the Cubs).

Anyways that's my gripe. Curious to see if others have had questionable experiences with the dynamic potential system as well.

SDS

So, you say your unhappy with potential in this game.

You list some examples of low potential guys becoming All Stars and higher potential guys not planning out.

Then you conclude by saying you want more high potential guys to be busts and more low potential guys to be All Stars.

Sounds like you're getting what you're asking for.

Also, I dont think somebody's potential should go up after their 28 year old season, unless they're Barry Bonds.

SDS

@ViatorLion10 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

As we all know, MLB The Show has a dynamic potential system where player potentials can go up or down based on their performance on the field.

However, I've got a little beef with it since it doesn't always make a lot of sense.

I'm doing an Orioles rebuild franchise, and there's a couple guys who I don't think have been done right by this system.

Anthony Santander has quickly become one of my most reliable assets, but his potential still sits at only 76. In four seasons he's slashed:
.250/.299/413
.267/.320/.439
.265/.330/.403
And then the big year came:
.318/.373/.516

A massive 4th season (6th in service time) at age 28, and yet no potential change to show for it. Solid performances in those first three seasons coupled with a huge 4th season would seemingly indicate a potential change.

On the prospect side of things, I drafted a kid by the name of Delmon McClure in the 5th round of the 2020 draft. He only had 69 potential, but throws absolute gas (97mph fastball and 91mph slider) and was only 18 so I wanted to see if I could bust that potential cap. His first season was decent, but not outstanding. However, his next two seasons he was on "fire" most of the season as my AA closer. Yet no potential changes at all. I'm not saying he should suddenly be an "80", but a couple points would make sense.

On the flip side of things, there's a couple guys I thought should lose potential and haven't. I pushed Ryan Mountcastle too quickly into the majors and he's sputtered to a career .234/.311/.383 in about 3 and a half seasons of service time, yet he's still an 83 potential. Another example is Austin Hays. In my first two seasons he slashed .237/.296/.402 and .229/.288/.377 with no potential drop. However, his last two seasons he slashed .251/.315/.429 and .265/.317/.488 and is now 28 years old. My thought is that a more efficient system would have dropped his potential during those first two season, but then maybe raised it after that 4th season. His first two seasons had him looking like a defense first regular OF, which shouldn't correspond with an 88 potential. The poor performance on the field should drop his potential, and the more he struggles, the more rapidly it should drop. Unless he turns it around (which he eventually did), his potential should eventually meet his current overall (he shouldn't get worse than he his, but he shouldn't get better).

Right now I think the potential system still acts too rigid and linearly. It's not fluid like real life potential is for players where sometimes top prospects crash and burn and unknown guys turn into all stars (the example I always use for this one is Willson Contreras for the Cubs).

Anyways that's my gripe. Curious to see if others have had questionable experiences with the dynamic potential system as well.

Yeah, I follow you there. In my franchises I see guys raking and winning cy youngs in their 2nd year with no potential change. Some guys hitting above .300 and lose potential points for some reason. They need a better system for this.

SDS

@PurpAndGold89 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

So, you say your unhappy with potential in this game.

You list some examples of low potential guys becoming All Stars and higher potential guys not planning out.

Then you conclude by saying you want more high potential guys to be busts and more low potential guys to be All Stars.

Sounds like you're getting what you're asking for.

Also, I dont think somebody's potential should go up after their 28 year old season, unless they're Barry Bonds.

Players aren't "busts" until their potentials show it. Mountcastle could still develop into a possible all star based on his potential despite struggling for three and a half seasons. If you don't have true repercussions for poor play then what is the point of a dynamic system?

And at 28 a guy is just entering his prime usually for baseball

SDS

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with just about all of your points.

  1. Players aren't "busts" because their potential stat reflects it. They're busts when their numbers stink over the entirety of their career.

  2. Mountcastle struggling for 3.5 seasons into his major league career should not prevent him from making an All Star team some day.

  3. Repercussions for poor play are seen on the field, not in the potential stat.

  4. Let's assume your statement that, "at 28 a guy is just entering his prime usually for baseball," is a fact. If that is true, then at 28 your potential stat should be completely irrelevant. At 28, you no longer have potential. You are who you are. They will reach their peak performance now, or soon, will plateau for a year or so, then fall off.

Respectfully,

P&G

SDS

@PurpAndGold89 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with just about all of your points.

  1. Players aren't "busts" because their potential stat reflects it. They're busts when their numbers stink over the entirety of their career.

  2. Mountcastle struggling for 3.5 seasons into his major league career should not prevent him from making an All Star team some day.

  3. Repercussions for poor play are seen on the field, not in the potential stat.

  4. Let's assume your statement that, "at 28 a guy is just entering his prime usually for baseball," is a fact. If that is true, then at 28 your potential stat should be completely irrelevant. At 28, you no longer have potential. You are who you are. They will reach their peak performance now, or soon, will plateau for a year or so, then fall off.

Respectfully,

P&G

1 and 2) Players who struggle for 3+ seasons in this game can eventually become consistent all star because their OVR will continually grow because the potential stays high. I'm sorry, but that isn't something that happens in real life

3 and 4) No offense, but you don't understand how potential works in this game if that's your opinion. Potential drives a player's development. Once a player reaches his "potential", he no longer gains OVR. Players will keep growing linearly towards their potential until they reach it or are too old. Therefore, changes in potential are necessary to keep underperforming players from still becoming all stars. You don't see many top prospects continually struggle for multiple MLB seasons eventually become consistent all stars. Additionally, my point about Santander is that he has clearly outperformed his 76 potential rating on a consistent basis. Therefore, he shouldn't be capped at 76 OVR anymore. And at 28 there's still plenty of potential left in players in real life and in the game (player will keep adding OVR until roughly 32 or 33 years old)

I've tested all of these things in the past, so I can tell you confidently that this system needs some fixing

SDS

Case study regarding number 1 and 2 could be Carlos Gomez. Terrible first 5 years of mlb, with high potential still, then made AS teams. Probably others, but first that comes to mind.

SDS

@pbake12 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

Case study regarding number 1 and 2 could be Carlos Gomez. Terrible first 5 years of mlb, with high potential still, then made AS teams. Probably others, but first that comes to mind.

Alex Gordon also comes to mind.

SDS

@pbake12 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

Case study regarding number 1 and 2 could be Carlos Gomez. Terrible first 5 years of mlb, with high potential still, then made AS teams. Probably others, but first that comes to mind.

Barry Zito and Tim Lincecum could be examples of the inverse.

SDS

@ViatorLion10 said in [I got a beef with the dynamic potential

I've tested all of these things in the past, so I can tell you confidently that this system needs some fixing

Please share with me the findings of your study

SDS

@PurpAndGold89 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

@ViatorLion10 said in [I got a beef with the dynamic potential

I've tested all of these things in the past, so I can tell you confidently that this system needs some fixing

Please share with me the findings of your study

What do you want to know?

SDS

@PurpAndGold89 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

@pbake12 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

Case study regarding number 1 and 2 could be Carlos Gomez. Terrible first 5 years of mlb, with high potential still, then made AS teams. Probably others, but first that comes to mind.

Alex Gordon also comes to mind.

Alex Gordon had a combined 4.8 WAR in his first two seasons, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. He had two bad seasons following that before a 6.6 WAR in his 5th season

SDS

I'd like to see your study.

To be honest, I don't think you understand what potential is. Potential reflects future potential performance.

You want potential to reflect past results. That is not what potential is.

That is all I have to say about this subject.

Take care!

SDS

@PurpAndGold89 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

I'd like to see your study.

To be honest, I don't think you understand what potential is. Potential reflects future potential performance.

You want potential to reflect past results. That is not what potential is.

That is all I have to say about this subject.

Take care!

Potential is the max overall a player can achieve. Players in real life both overachieve their projections and underachieve their projections

Past performance should absolutely adjust a players "max OVR"

SDS

@ViatorLion10 said in

Past performance should absolutely adjust a players "max OVR"

Why?

SDS

@PurpAndGold89 said in I got a beef with the dynamic potential system:

@ViatorLion10 said in

Past performance should absolutely adjust a players "max OVR"

Why?

You realize that "potential" in real life is a guess about how good a player will be right? A lot of times, that can actually be wrong.

So why should a player keep developing like an MVP if he hasn't performed like one?

SDS

I just manually adjust it when necessary. If a prospect is consistently performing well I bump him up to A or B. Haven't really had to bump anyone down as I have found that if they don't perform well, they don't see a ton of benefit from the A. For example I am in year 2025 and had a CF prospect who started somewhere around 74 OVR with A potential. He hung out in the minors for the first few years and has now been in the bigs for the last 2 seasons as a depth player. I think he's up to 79/80 now. ~1 OVR per year is fairly reasonable for that situation in my mind.

Log in to reply