Draftees Potential Dropping Right After Draft

[BGDisBatman]

I just finished a standard league draft. I thought I did pretty well...got several of the prospects I was hoping to get. One week after the draft I did another round of scouting on my top prospects, and NEARLY ALL my draftees dropped in potential by either 5 or 10 potential points.

I have my scouting system set as 20 to 80 in increments of 5. I always make sure to scout all the draftees on my shortlist just weeks before the draft and the potential picks in the first few rounds just a few days before in order to get the most up-to-date scouting.

Sure, it's frustrating when 3, 4, or even 5 draftees drop right after the draft, but I've never seen almost all of them drop off just days after. Has anyone run into this before? Really frustrated

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by BGDisBatman

I just finished a standard league draft. I thought I did pretty well...got several of the prospects I was hoping to get. One week after the draft I did another round of scouting on my top prospects, and NEARLY ALL my draftees dropped in potential by either 5 or 10 potential points.

I have my scouting system set as 20 to 80 in increments of 5. I always make sure to scout all the draftees on my shortlist just weeks before the draft and the potential picks in the first few rounds just a few days before in order to get the most up-to-date scouting.

Sure, it's frustrating when 3, 4, or even 5 draftees drop right after the draft, but I've never seen almost all of them drop off just days after. Has anyone run into this before? Really frustrated

Took me ages to wrap my head around how to read scouting and also how to frame my scouting expectations and recruiting approach.
What level of scouting accuracy were each of your draftees at when you picked them? Average, High, or Very high?

Its not so much about having the most up to date report, although that is part of it, its about the level of accuracy (relative to your scouts overall archetype tools/ability and their ability levels) of your scouts assessment. Anything less than Very High and you WILL see variation as soon as your scouts gets his assessment of them up to Very High.

And also apologies in advance if I've misunderstood, I'm definitely not trying to come across as patronising Hope this helps somehow.

[BGDisBatman]

Originally Posted by Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

Took me ages to wrap my head around how to read scouting and also how to frame my scouting expectations and recruiting approach.
What level of scouting accuracy were each of your draftees at when you picked them? Average, High, or Very high?

Its not so much about having the most up to date report, although that is part of it, its about the level of accuracy (relative to your scouts overall archetype tools/ability and their ability levels) of your scouts assessment. Anything less than Very High and you WILL see variation as soon as your scouts gets his assessment of them up to Very High.

And also apologies in advance if I've misunderstood, I'm definitely not trying to come across as patronising Hope this helps somehow.

I always make sure whoever I have on my draft shortlist that the scouting accuracy is "Very High".

Even if they're already at "Very High" a couple days leading up to the draft, I still scout them just to make sure. But somehow right after the draft nearly all other potential ratings dropped immediately

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by BGDisBatman

I always make sure whoever I have on my draft shortlist that the scouting accuracy is "Very High".

Even if they're already at "Very High" a couple days leading up to the draft, I still scout them just to make sure. But somehow right after the draft nearly all other potential ratings dropped immediately

Gotcha..have you done anything either by design or by accident with settings?
I somehow.. i still swear i didn't...(but i know i must've) checked a box removing development... and on another occasion i fat-fingeredly set pitcher dev speed from 1.030 to 1030 for about 6 months before i realised!!!

[Sweed]

I think it has to do with OOTP creating a draft pool with players that are artificially rated too high because some found realistically rated classes to be "not fun". A few versions ago OOTP had realistic draft classes and a vocal group complained there weren't enough highly rated players. They were shown the classes were realistic and then came the "but it's a game and should be fun" posts.

OOTP then made classes "look fun" so the user could get excited about that 30/70 SS they just drafted with the 15th pick. The trade off is all of these players cannot actually be this skilled or all balance goes out of the game. Meaning a lot of guys have to regress to become normal average MLB/MiLB players.

I import my game from version to version and play slowly, ie manage every inning of every game. I just had my second v26 draft and was shocked at how many guys had 65+ overalls. There were way too many being 70+. My draft shows eleven 80 overalls and eleven more 70+ overalls. A quick google search gave me this,

the 2025 MLB Prospect Handbook, only 13 players were identified as having at least one individual tool rated with an elite 80-grade potential. It is extremely rare for a prospect to receive an 80 overall potential rating.

And my OOTP draft class has eleven? Huh?

The only saving grace was I knew enough of these guys would not pan out and I will end up with a normal balance of skilled players. I didn't draft high enough to get any of the 80's, but the AI teams that did are in for a rude awakening.

The only thing you can do is what you are doing. Scout them to very high and then take the time to look deeper into the ones you like at individual skills and personality plusses/minuses as this might help narrow down who might be a bust. This was the path to success in previous versions when the classes were more realistic.

My 2 cents.

For clarity my game is played with default settings for player creation, progression, aging, etc. etc. etc.

[tejdog1]

I prefer it this way, honestly. It is not fun drafting that 45 FV guy at pick 22. Even if it's hella realistic. Let me draft my 25/70 FV at pick 22, but drop 10 points a year in, 10 points a year in, 10 points a year in and end up 40/40.

[jcard]

In any event, the immediate post-draft decline in scouted ratings is unrealistic. No data warranting such a reappraisal could possibly have been acquired in so brief a window.

[BGDisBatman]

Originally Posted by jcard

In any event, the immediate post-draft decline in scouted ratings is unrealistic. No data warranting such a reappraisal could possibly have been acquired in so brief a window.

Yes, this! If the prospects are artificially inflated, that's fine, I can deal with that.

But if I heavily scout 200 prospects for 4 months, and maybe only a handful of them have a potential ratings change of any consequence then it is absurd that 15 out of 20 of my draft picks drop in potential by 10 or more points just days after I draft them. That's the frustrating part

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by BGDisBatman

Yes, this! If the prospects are artificially inflated, that's fine, I can deal with that.

But if I heavily scout 200 prospects for 4 months, and maybe only a handful of them have a potential ratings change of any consequence then it is absurd that 15 out of 20 of my draft picks drop in potential by 10 or more points just days after I draft them. That's the frustrating part

I hear what you are saying, but and maybe it doesn't equate as much to baseball as it does some other sports. But i have seen in Australian Rules Football ( it's top tier competition is called the AFL) where after a recent draftee's first few training runs with the team upon joining the club have triggered a lot of supporter and industry chatter/question about whether they need to revise their ceiling now they've seen them training at this top tier level.

Then again AFL prospects are drafted at 17 and a half and most have debuted at senior level by the time their 19 yr rolls around.

The amount of complete draft revisions and flameouts in AFL is huge due to the young age they're drafted in. Much of the potential doesn't survive contact with adulthood and being tested in a high level of competition against bigger bodies.

So i kinda expect high volatility and i take note of the volatility indicator in OOTP as well as a factor for consideration when i'm looking at a few prospective players at a draft pick. Often as a tie breaker i'll go the one with the lower development risk.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by BGDisBatman

Yes, this! If the prospects are artificially inflated, that's fine, I can deal with that.

But if I heavily scout 200 prospects for 4 months, and maybe only a handful of them have a potential ratings change of any consequence then it is absurd that 15 out of 20 of my draft picks drop in potential by 10 or more points just days after I draft them. That's the frustrating part

I suppose one could argue it's best to know asap rather than being played for a fool over a long period of time.

The problem is game design, it is working as intended. If they weren't artificially inflated you wouldn't have to deal with anything. I did forget to mention that starting last year(?) they added "Development Risk" to player cards. I'm guessing this was the developer's way of trying to give you some type of heads up on who is most at risk to decline?

In any case it is what it is unless they go back to realism.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

I prefer it this way, honestly. It is not fun drafting that 45 FV guy at pick 22. Even if it's hella realistic. Let me draft my 25/70 FV at pick 22, but drop 10 points a year in, 10 points a year in, 10 points a year in and end up 40/40.

I'd say a user should be excited to draft a 25/50 or 25/55 player at pick 22. A 50 or 55 is a very good player. I haven't done any research but so not sure if 55 at pick 22 is inflated compared to real life or not. I do believe it is much more palatable than a 70 at pick 22 in a game that tries to present a realistic baseball world.

I actually think the new expanded ratings scale (to 600+) alleviates a lot of the complaints about the old realistic scale. IE "there's too many 45's" and I have to work too hard to sort them, or they "are all the same" and I can't tell who is better or who to pick. With the new 600 scale nuances are much easier to see and can be quickly sorted by using the 20/80 scale by 1's. That list of one hundred 45's now is sorted to anywhere from 41-49 giving you a heads up on which 45's your scout rates as marginally better or worse. Then add in your scout has also evaluated a player's "Development Risk" factor and that crowded middle of the draft pool is no longer confusing. Fog of war is still there. Booms and busts are still there.

I should be excited looking at a 70 Potential player. See where he's drafted, how he develops, and if he reaches that high expectation in MLB. Instead in my game I get 22 guys rated 70+. The hype means next to nothing. The only way to look at the most recent draft is to check it in two or three seasons on the draft history tab, sort by overall, and maybe the 70+ players will have been trimmed down from twenty plus to the one or two that were ever going to have a chance of being "that guy".

[Jasper70]

Originally Posted by BGDisBatman

I just finished a standard league draft. I thought I did pretty well...got several of the prospects I was hoping to get. One week after the draft I did another round of scouting on my top prospects, and NEARLY ALL my draftees dropped in potential by either 5 or 10 potential points.

I have my scouting system set as 20 to 80 in increments of 5. I always make sure to scout all the draftees on my shortlist just weeks before the draft and the potential picks in the first few rounds just a few days before in order to get the most up-to-date scouting.

Sure, it's frustrating when 3, 4, or even 5 draftees drop right after the draft, but I've never seen almost all of them drop off just days after. Has anyone run into this before? Really frustrated

Are you drafting just by Potential?

Questions
1. What is the criteria you use in the draft?
2. What specific stats are you using to look at College vs HS players batters vs pitchers?

Scouts look at the draft as as pre-draft optimism. Once drafted, your scout will treat them as actual players just like everyone else because now they have actual data/stats to examine.

[Pelican]

I use ratings of 1-100, so the changes I see are more nuanced. One thing to remember is that the guys you drafted are playing with wood bats, possibly for the first time. That could take some hitters (typically, power hitters) down a notch or two. In theory, it should actually improve the ratings of pitchers - but that does not seem to happen. In the field (see below) there will also be an adjustment.

I'm not suggesting that OOTP incorporates the "wood bat fall-off" as a factor. Only that IRL some hitters lose distance and exit velocity. Guys making good contact should be fine. But some changes in ratings as a draftee adjusts to pro ball, even at low levels, should be expected.

As an aside my own personal experience is the reverse. I played in high school with wood bats. (Metal bats did not exist.). Years later, after playing beer league softball, I played in a baseball league, metal bats, your teammate pitches to you. I, who never had much power, was astounded at the extra fifteen or twenty feet on a line drive. Playing the OF, I had to move back, and it took awhile to judge the flight of the ball based on a "ping" instead of a "thwack". I hope MLB never goes to aluminum (or composite) bats. It does add to a scout's job to predict how a prospect will be affected (if at all) by the switch.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I use ratings of 1-100, so the changes I see are more nuanced.One thing to remember is that the guys you drafted are playing with wood bats, possibly for the first time. That could take some hitters (typically, power hitters) down a notch or two. In theory, it should actually improve the ratings of pitchers - but that does not seem to happen. In the field (see below) there will also be an adjustment.

I'm not suggesting that OOTP incorporates the "wood bat fall-off" as a factor. Only that IRL some hitters lose distance and exit velocity. Guys making good contact should be fine. But some changes in ratings as a draftee adjusts to pro ball, even at low levels, should be expected.

As an aside my own personal experience is the reverse. I played in high school with wood bats. (Metal bats did not exist.). Years later, after playing beer league softball, I played in a baseball league, metal bats, your teammate pitches to you. I, who never had much power, was astounded at the extra fifteen or twenty feet on a line drive. Playing the OF, I had to move back, and it took awhile to judge the flight of the ball based on a "ping" instead of a "thwack". I hope MLB never goes to aluminum (or composite) bats. It does add to a scout's job to predict how a prospect will be affected (if at all) by the switch.

Thanks for sharing, that's new and interesting baseball details and insight for me who has grown up in a non-baseball environment.

[cmp66]

I would also focus on actuals in addition to their potentials. Two players at roughly the same age with different actuals have much different chances to develop into solid players.