|
I simply feel 24 was kinder with prospect development. The drafts were more robust and it seemed easier to track a moderate progress with your higher picks. I'm purposely using feel/seemed because despite hundreds and hundreds of games in 24, and a few seasons and sims in 25 I can't point to more exhaustive proof.
For myself, I see it as the different tact 25 has taken towards assessing and measuring talent. Many people here have pointed to say, the Fangraphs top 100 prospect list. Look at the FV value of the best people drafted the last couple years and they run up pretty reliably into what I could see as the distribution in 25. A lot of 45s, a lot of 50s, and so on with a 70 value ceiling. It feels more realistic, and yet sometimes less fun.
I did post a couple weeks ago where I ran several, several 10 year sims and if prospects weren't developing, the WAR leader boards should all be existing talents. Instead, there was an extremely reasonable distribution of 'new' players, vets, and young prospects that were already established (your Wyatt Langford types). 3 WAR years were almost exclusively owned by 55+ players except for a few 50 SP (I only play 20/80 scale).
I'm sympathetic to both camps of complaint. There's reasonable evidence there is no "problem", yet my subjective experience is different. Maybe the difference is the greater attention to development altogether, though if anything the Lab feels almost negligible in it's impact to me (given it's measure of success and outcome).
|