Good Players Not Selected in Inaugural Draft?

[simcrazy]

I've done quite a few inaugural drafts, and this has never happened.

After the draft, there are maybe 25 players available above 20/80. Usually there are zero. I didn't do anything different. Teams were on a $90M budget, but I have done that before with no problems. Some of these players have additional potential as well: There is a SS and two MRs with potentials above 60. That's my scouting director, but like I said, this hasn't happened before with my scouting directors.

Has anyone encountered this?

[simcrazy]

This seems quite similar to the issue of good free agents not being signed, as I simmed a couple months and they remain unsigned. Argh.

[Biggio509]

Scouting off? If not these players may not really be better than 20/80 and some of what you thought were 80 guys won't be while some 20s will be stars in the future.

I think the main problem with the inaugural draft is that AAA players demand ML contracts. Strange if you let the AI set up your team after the draft these guys are not on the 40 man and get minor league contracts. If you don't you have a ton of MRs who are AA or AAA level that you have to put on the 40 man because they have contracts. This means a lot of waives and DFAs initially. AI setup seems to put these guys in the minors and just give them minor league deals without the human need to place them on the 40 man and waive them to remove them first. As human trying to set up the org you seem to have a lot more contracts than 40 if you let the AI do a good portion of the draft for you.

[Biggio509]

This might be inadvertently fixed with OOTP 13 in that the pitcher PCM is reworked. If there are not tons of MRs demanding major league min or higher the teams will not be spending a ton on guys who end up in the minors in the initial draft. Still one of the biggest pains of the inaugural draft is poor scouting. I don't budgets matter yet so scouts are often way off in having not scouted anyone and have little info. This makes an inaugural draft with scouting a crap shoot. Within a week a lot of guys you drafted have their scouting changed radically. The big stars are still there but the more marginal starters and back ups can be hugely off and you have to some work with your 25 and even 40 man by ST because a lot of guys don't look as good and a lot look better!

[simcrazy]

I'd buy the scouting explanation, except SO many players are drafted that anyone with a modicum of potential should be selected. Further, I've never seen this before.

A lot of the quality free agents are only demanding a minor league contract.

Generally, I really like the inaugural draft system and it has worked well.

What is PCM?

[Biggio509]

Player creation modifiers. 13 will have reworked the distribution of pitchers so you have more with a chance to start and a lot fewer pure MRs.

[Chicagofan76]

Originally Posted by simcrazy

I'd buy the scouting explanation, except SO many players are drafted that anyone with a modicum of potential should be selected. Further, I've never seen this before.

A lot of the quality free agents are only demanding a minor league contract.

Generally, I really like the inaugural draft system and it has worked well.

What is PCM?

Sim how much of 12 have you played so far? i am waiting for you to complain/point out the fact that so many 5 star quality players remained unsigned after you get some history in your league. I have 4 players who hit over 40 HR in 2005 unsigned in late May of 2006.. Now 2 of them were in Nippon and the other 2 are 2 players 38 or older that were MLB (forgot who the 2 MLB players were)

[endgame]

This is a difficult concept to wrap my own head around, let alone articulate- and I have had many exchanges with Markus and others concerning these values and perceptions -but I'll give it this brief attempt, as I've come to terms with it at heart.

Inaugural draft players are 'in process' and cannot surgically be assigned value because there is no league yet. Once it's established and histories begin (for stat values to come into play) the ratings and assignment of values have a context. Although not uncommon, they'll still remain the exception rather than rule, players will suddenly be rated lower or higher in their new context.

In a perfect world, I'd prefer that context be orignated in the value of the entire draft pool, but as it is, it's an approximate valuation at best until the league is established with players that determine that context. FWIW

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by Chicagofan76

Sim how much of 12 have you played so far? i am waiting for you to complain/point out the fact that so many 5 star quality players remained unsigned after you get some history in your league. I have 4 players who hit over 40 HR in 2005 unsigned in late May of 2006.. Now 2 of them were in Nippon and the other 2 are 2 players 38 or older that were MLB (forgot who the 2 MLB players were)

That's not good. Did you complain about that?

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by Biggio509

Player creation modifiers. 13 will have reworked the distribution of pitchers so you have more with a chance to start and a lot fewer pure MRs.

I hope this is done carefully. I guess we'll see how it works.

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by endgame

This is a difficult concept to wrap my own head around, let alone articulate- and I have had many exchanges with Markus and others concerning these values and perceptions -but I'll give it this brief attempt, as I've come to terms with it at heart.

Inaugural draft players are 'in process' and cannot surgically be assigned value because there is no league yet. Once it's established and histories begin (for stat values to come into play) the ratings and assignment of values have a context. Although not uncommon, they'll still remain the exception rather than rule, players will suddenly be rated lower or higher in their new context.

In a perfect world, I'd prefer that context be orignated in the value of the entire draft pool, but as it is, it's an approximate valuation at best until the league is established with players that determine that context. FWIW

I have noted players changing value once they are placed on a team after each and every inaugural draft and I am totally cool with that. It makes sense.

But this is like the 20th ID I've done and never seen this before - players of value remaining unsigned even though they are only demanding a minor league contract. I have now started the season and played a couple game and the AI is still ignoring them. It's concerning. I am not signing them out of principal.

[simcrazy]

Shouldn't the AI be smart enough to know to sign a player who costs virtually nothing that has value?

[Cooleyvol]

You've not addressed cap issues (if there is a cap). That could hinder signing players.

In addition, you've stated that this has only happened once in 20 drafts. Is it possible that some setting is different in this league than in the others. Something has to have changed for an issue to occur once in 20 attempts. If there was a true 'bug', don't you think you would have seen this in each and every draft?

[endgame]

Originally Posted by simcrazy

Shouldn't the AI be smart enough to know to sign a player who costs virtually nothing that has value?

Well, let me tip the apple on its end at the risk of posing only conjecture: what if the AI knows or believes the player doesn't possess real value?

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

You've not addressed cap issues (if there is a cap). That could hinder signing players.

In addition, you've stated that this has only happened once in 20 drafts. Is it possible that some setting is different in this league than in the others. Something has to have changed for an issue to occur once in 20 attempts. If there was a true 'bug', don't you think you would have seen this in each and every draft?

There was a $90M budget for drafting teams, but some of these players require only minor league deals, which don't count against that.

I did not set up the league any differently - I don't change much from the default settings, just DH in both leagues. That's why this is so puzzling.

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by endgame

Well, let me tip the apple on its end at the risk of posing only conjecture: what if the AI knows or believes the player doesn't possess real value?

I certainly considered that, but whereas all players 21+ overall OR 21+ potential were all taken in the ~20 other drafts I did, it doesn't appear to be that. Maybe if it were a player or two, but this is more like a couple dozen.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by simcrazy

I certainly considered that, but whereas all players 21+ overall OR 21+ potential were all taken in the ~20 other drafts I did, it doesn't appear to be that. Maybe if it were a player or two, but this is more like a couple dozen.

Certainly, a situation of interest, and I'm frankly uncertain as to cause, but curious regardless. I suppose, in 20+ IDs, it's possible this creation yielded a surplus of good>better quality players. Cooleyvol, I think, hinted that perhaps a setting changed in this particular ID. I wouldn't rule that out. What's your confidence level- use the editor, if you're inclined -that these players actually do provide for an upgrade to existing teams and, if scouting is on, do these teams possess scouts who could recognize that potential? Finally, can you quantify what 20+ and 21+ actually translate to? Are they 27's, 35's, or all just over 20?

[simcrazy]

Originally Posted by endgame

Certainly, a situation of interest, and I'm frankly uncertain as to cause, but curious regardless. I suppose, in 20+ IDs, it's possible this creation yielded a surplus of good>better quality players. Cooleyvol, I think, hinted that perhaps a setting changed in this particular ID. I wouldn't rule that out. What's your confidence level- use the editor, if you're inclined -that these players actually do provide for an upgrade to existing teams and, if scouting is on, do these teams possess scouts who could recognize that potential? Finally, can you quantify what 20+ and 21+ actually translate to? Are they 27's, 35's, or all just over 20?

I always use the same settings, which is default 2011 settings except DHs in both leagues. The surplus would make sense, except there are hundreds of less desirable players rostered. Using the editor, there are a couple of MRs with mid 5's ERAs - certainly not stars, but they just require a minor league deal and have additional potential while there are MRs rostered at AAA with mid 6 ERAs (again, using the editor) with no additional potential. There is scouting. There are 4 MRs available with 57/57 (actual/potential both out of 80), 56/73, 49/73, 49/51. There is a SS available (terrible editor stats because he is not ready yet) at 21/43 (would be a nice defensive SS and maybe put up .290/.330/.330 if he develops) and a SP at 32/57 who is 20 but editor says he could put up a 5.88 ERA right now.

I didn't know what Chicago told me in this thread - this result isn't surprising, and 1,000 times less severe - that stars sometimes go unsigned as seasons are played out. In that context, this certainly isn't surprising, but strange that only happened 1/20 times - like I said, in the other ~19 cases, what was left after the draft was players not even at 21 actual OR potential.

[Biggio509]

Originally Posted by endgame

This is a difficult concept to wrap my own head around, let alone articulate- and I have had many exchanges with Markus and others concerning these values and perceptions -but I'll give it this brief attempt, as I've come to terms with it at heart.

Inaugural draft players are 'in process' and cannot surgically be assigned value because there is no league yet. Once it's established and histories begin (for stat values to come into play) the ratings and assignment of values have a context. Although not uncommon, they'll still remain the exception rather than rule, players will suddenly be rated lower or higher in their new context.

In a perfect world, I'd prefer that context be orignated in the value of the entire draft pool, but as it is, it's an approximate valuation at best until the league is established with players that determine that context. FWIW

I think this is one part of realism that can be improved there has never been a professional league in history that did not spring up from amateur leagues. What I am getting as why can't the game generate previous stats for a player like it does in the draft? There could be a fictional set of teams to name them by or just everyone played for indie or amateur. This cold no stats first look from your scouting staff is completely unrealistic.

That being said it should be a pretty low priority. These things tend to straigthen themselves out after a year or two. At least they do when I have used real pay roll data adjust for rebuilding teams who have spent a heck of lot more in the past. I use no real formula for that but I look at a five year average and adjust up for teams who have dismantled and rebuilt and like Houston is doing now. Sometimes just use current payroll if the team has been on an upward tending trend for some time like Phillie. That probably puts a lot more money into the draft. The Yanks with 260 million more than make up for the 45 million of the smallest teams. With extra dough I just don't see this happening.

If it really bugs you it is easy to go comiss and assign these players to a team with budget available. Still they will likely be signed soon enough.

The only other comment I have on this is the game has a hard time balancing the right number of players at times. Sometimes you have way too many free agents and sometimes not enough. The not enough mostly applies to my 19th century sims though when the league suddenly goes from 8 to 12 teams or 16 to 20 when the AA expands in 1884, especially if you create the UA and assume that they would take less than professional caliber players and guys not reserved by the NL and AA teams. Then you can't just trust add league.

This could be part of the problem you are seeing sometimes there are a boatload more players than available slots. It is not always the scrubs that are left but sometimes 4A players who just don't have a spot in the majors or AAA but are a little too good for AA. I think that is harder to test you would have to look at all the AAA rosters and see if the guy is not good enough to replace anyone at AAA at that time. With scouting on you don't really know. With it off you may just be evaluating the player differently than the AI.

I guess one question I have that could help to see what is happening here is what do your AAA teams look like. Are they full of guys who could be in the majors or do they have a lot of not ready for AAA guys? In the former it would point to simply over creating ML ready players to a point where there are not enough slots available. The later might indicate poor AI. Due to roster limits there is a point where demand gets real close to perfectly inelastic, granted there is still some substitution of I could trade of a utility man for a guy who just plays 3B for instance, but at some point you can just have too many players and not enough valid slots. The game uses sabremetric PCMs to place guys in the minors and won't sign so many ML ready players that it has major league players in A ball. In fact it promotes these guys sometimes way too quickly. The AI like the human has some demand for AA and A players with a future over marginal major leaguers. This could be also be a function of how many good prospects there. The AI for the minors over time has come to favor prospects more over ML ready guys there is not a 40 man spot for.

Not saying 100% sure it is the problem but I am leaning towards way too players created, since I have historically seen some pretty darn big FA pools in my leagues, over the finances aren't right. There is a point of satiation in the game and no amount of money will get guys who can't make the 40 man signed over prospects for the future. Just because they have stars and lot like they have good ratings does not mean they beat out anyone on the 40 man or in AAA.

[Biggio509]

Granted I am in 1892 in my quasi-historical league with fictional players but I did a check. It is the first day of preseason and I created some indie minors from which I am doing a sort of draft with by assigning the 400 + FA to teams for year 1. A couple of things I noticed.

1. They were a handful of high star free agents unsigned. However, these guys had little playing time. They certainly would not make my squad. First indication the problem is not money but over creation.
2. Some of these guys had not played since the PA in 1890 meaning teams did not want them.
3. Most importantly there were teams with budget available who could sign these "stars". Yet on every team that could they were stocked at that position.
4. Most of these guys were 1B only the least useful player. Anyone can develop stats to play 1B so to marketable you have to be well above average like a 5 star guy to sell yourself. The second most were OF which are other positions that seems to generate a lot of good hitters.
5. Has been the case since at least OOTP 6 pitcher particularly reliever was the most supply of players.

My conclusion from a completely unscientific small sample sized test is that there are too many "good players" being created by the game. The AI is actually make good decisions like I would of not signing this guy paying him and putting him of the reserve roster. The same logic applies in the inaugural draft although the AI has a cheat to not put these guys on the 40 man it doesn't draft as if it knows that. So a guy that will cost money that is unneeded goes unsigned. There wasn't a team I could find in my test that I would signed any of these guys for giving contract demand and what they had in the org at the time. Again this is anecdotal but I am starting to think it is not finances at all but too many guys rated at what we think should be ML ready levels.

That being said the AI might really need these guys to sign if they are stocking on prospects and need some one who can play now because of an injury. I think this is important because playing in historical leagues and trying to run free agency has often left the AI with really screwy decisions when there are just enough players. One or two teams providing an extra back up catcher screws up a team or two who doesn't have a C or SP for that matter. I have had some real problems in leagues when I tried to delete all new gens and create just enough players. The AI doesn't do well in a sellers market come to think it probably shouldn't the market for athletes of all types has been historically a buyer's market with the exception of elite players. Well at least from the 20th century onward with all the minor leagues producing potential MLB talent.