2012 MLB first-year player draft pool

[da commish]

I'm at the first-year player draft in my v13 2012 season using the New Major League Game setup and and noticed that the player pool is stacked with 4 and 5 star potential prospects. This includes the real players like Buxton, Appel, etc. plus fictional players. I have scouting set to 100% accurate since the pool looked so deep and extremely talented. I even went into commissioner mode to the player editor to verify those star ratings are legit and they are. I counted 34 5-star, 30 4.5-star and 30 4-star players in the pool. This is much deeper and more talented than what I had seen in v12 first-year player pools. This is great for me since I am plyaing the Twins and we have 5 of the first 72 picks. Has anyone else run across this or have I just hit an unusually deep and talented pool?

[PSUColonel]

This definately sounds like a bit of a problem.

[Bigrod]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This definately sounds like a bit of a problem.

Nope, Markus tweaked it that way for 13. However it may possibly be looked at as some beta people think it's a bit to high now.

[allstar4]

The same thing occurred in the first MLB 2012 game I played, so many good prospects were in the draft. The problem is that in the real MLB player set the game comes with, a really good player might have 13s and 14s (out of 20) for their contact/eye/power etc. but the new created players are more in line with what you'd see in a fictional start, where more of the scale is used and lots of players have ratings in the 15-19 range.

I started a new game and put the player creation modifiers down to .90 or .92 depending on the attribute and things looked better, though the newer players do seem to take over rather quickly still.

[Bigrod]

delete

[Basebrah]

I'm running into this as well. I'm going to have to go edit some of these players but does anyone know the breakdown of a avg draft? How many 5 star pot,4,3 etc..

[Marinersfan51]

I believe this is because the real players are all highly rated and the game generated players are at the normal proportions around the real players.

[Perceptor]

How many RL prospects made it into the draft pool out of curiousity?

[da commish]

Originally Posted by Perceptor

How many RL prospects made it into the draft pool out of curiousity?

I'm not sure, but I've seen many of the top prospects in there. I'm going to go through the draft pool and see how many are in there and then delete some or many of the fictional prospects to get the pool down to a more reasonable quality level. Right now it seems like there are just way too many potential stars in the pool. I ran one draft and Appel went #12, Giolito went #17, Buxton went #25, Zunino went #38, etc. All seem way lower than where they should be because of all the high level fictional prospects in the pool.

[da commish]

I went through a top 100 list from Scouting Baseball and found 54 of that list's top 100 in the 2012 draft pool that rated at least a 1.5-Star. But of the 34 5-Star, 30 4.5-Star and 30 4-Star prospects in the pool, only 2, 4, and 12, respectively, were real prospects from this top 100 list. That means that up to 32, 26, and 18 are fictional. That really inflates to depth and talent level of the draft pool. I'm going to keep seaarching for the others in the top 100 list to see if they are in the pool as 1-Star or lower.

[Perceptor]

Good to know. Thanks. Looking forward to the draft in any event.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by allstar4

I started a new game and put the player creation modifiers down to .90 or .92 depending on the attribute and things looked better, though the newer players do seem to take over rather quickly still.

Yes, right now I suspect the MLB set will play best with lowered PCMs. I haven't had a chance to do many tests, so the above is useful. It's more or less always going to be true no matter what you do that fictional players overtake your league after a few years, but the longer that can be postponed, the better I think. Based on my first MLB roster set trial runs, I had been thinking of using 0.90 PCMs, but given the above, I might try 0.85 instead. If anyone else has done any tests at other settings, it would be interesting to hear people's impressions.

[da commish]

I ran several test games at lower player creation modifiers (.8 and .85) and got more reasonable pools of players (e.g., 4 to 6 5-star, 7 to 19 4.5-star, and 14 to 25 4-star). I also ran some at .9 with 10-11, 17-20 and 26-29 players at those star levels - still kinda high. The real players didn't seem to be affected by the changes in the PCMs. They are still at about the same level they were with PCMs at 1.0. So now I have to decide whether to prune the current pool of players or start a new game with lower PCMs. I'm leaning toward the latter cuz going through the pool seems like alot of work.

[phightin]

Noticed this as well with my 2012 draft class. Just another facet I'm not thrilled about right now that destroyed the time I've put into the game so far. Would not doing anything about the class and just letting it play out completely destroy and unbalanced your current game? Seems like OOTP 13 is the best overall platform they have come out with so far, but the glitches are rampant this year.

[da commish]

Originally Posted by phightin

Noticed this as well with my 2012 draft class. Just another facet I'm not thrilled about right now that destroyed the time I've put into the game so far. Would not doing anything about the class and just letting it play out completely destroy and unbalanced your current game? Seems like OOTP 13 is the best overall platform they have come out with so far, but the glitches are rampant this year.

I think leaving the pool as is would adversely impact future seasons as there are just too many high prospects. I don't think it would destroy it but it would make it more unrealistic having 30+ Buxton/Appel level players instead of 4 or 5 or so.

[phightin]

Originally Posted by Bigrod

Nope, Markus tweaked it that way for 13. However it may possibly be looked at as some beta people think it's a bit to high now.

Can this be confirmed? Really do not want to destroy or unbalance my current game.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by da commish

I ran several test games at lower player creation modifiers (.8 and .85) and got more reasonable pools of players (e.g., 4 to 6 5-star, 7 to 19 4.5-star, and 14 to 25 4-star). I also ran some at .9 with 10-11, 17-20 and 26-29 players at those star levels - still kinda high. The real players didn't seem to be affected by the changes in the PCMs. They are still at about the same level they were with PCMs at 1.0. So now I have to decide whether to prune the current pool of players or start a new game with lower PCMs. I'm leaning toward the latter cuz going through the pool seems like alot of work.

The real life players (Buxton, Giolito, Appel, etc) are pre-coded, so no change to PCMs will affect them.

Markus said that he wanted to make draft pools look better so the draft stayed interesting past the first round or so, but that there would be a corresponding increase in the possibility of a decent-looking pick not working out. So the implementation now isn't a bug, and shouldn't affect your overall talent level long-term. The one problem with it to my mind is that draftees overrun prospect lists in the year in which they're drafted.

[mikestack]

Originally Posted by injury log

Markus said that he wanted to make draft pools look better so the draft stayed interesting past the first round or so, but that there would be a corresponding increase in the possibility of a decent-looking pick not working out. So the implementation now isn't a bug, and shouldn't affect your overall talent level long-term.

This seems consistent with what I've observed-- I've simmed three years and it seems quite a few prospects who I was excited about degraded over time while others seem to "figure it out".

[GMLoophole]

Originally Posted by da commish

I'm not sure, but I've seen many of the top prospects in there. I'm going to go through the draft pool and see how many are in there and then delete some or many of the fictional prospects to get the pool down to a more reasonable quality level. Right now it seems like there are just way too many potential stars in the pool. I ran one draft and Appel went #12, Giolito went #17, Buxton went #25, Zunino went #38, etc. All seem way lower than where they should be because of all the high level fictional prospects in the pool.

Keep in mind too that some of this pertains to signability; seems like the AI is doing a better job of that too this year (and therefore is picking some of these fictional guys that don't want much money earlier). I may have drafted Buxton (without knowing he was a real dude) last night and been unable to sign him.

[PSUColonel]

Before we make a snap decision here, has anyone run a 2013 or 2014 draft? What does that look like? (without the real prospects)