Poor talent in recent Draft Years

[beorn]

I've thought over this topic the past few days, and it seems to me that we are talking about several different questions:

#1. If you start up a game in 14, over a period of many seasons, do you get a crop of successful players to play in the majors?
Yes, although when you think about it, this is a dumb question. No matter how high or how low the talent pool, each team will still field a starting rotation and a starting lineup, with some players (and teams) succeeding. If the best players had ratings of 5 out of 10, then they would be the stars of the league... It's not really evidence that all is fine with the draft, just because life goes on in your major leagues.

#2. If you start up a game in 14, over a period of many seasons, do you get realistic major league results with the players who came in through the ammy draft?
As best as I can see, yes. As long as you accept that your results will match the past couple seasons, when pitching became more dominant, and contact hitting was down.

#3. If you start up a game in 14, over a period of a few seasons, do you get realistic success and failure rates from high and low draft picks?
We have spottier evidence of that. We've established that round 5 picks don't generally become Hall of Famers or even all stars, but that's a small part of the question. How many guys from the middle of round 1 become stars? become contributors? become busts? Same with round 2,3, etc. A careful comparison of OOTP with real life would be great... although one has to keep in mind that competition with foreign ammies alters the numbers. One needs to compare apples to apples: an OOTP with about the same number of successful foreign ammies as there are in real life.

#4. Does the draft pool look the way a draft pool looks to a real life GM?
This is the most subjective question. Some OOTP players believe there are almost no players in a draft who look promising, that it is all a crap shoot after a very few players. Other OOTP players believe there are many players to be optimistic about... The trouble with this debate is that we are fans, not GMs, so we have only a shaky handle on how promising the players look to a major league front office. As I posted above, real life GMs in the past gave up substantial $ and talent to obtain extra sandwich picks, so I believe that the GMs feel their odds are decent.

Probably all we can do is look at the answer to #3. Do real life GMs get better results from late round one picks than from late round two picks? And so on. If the answer is yes, then it's not just a crap shoot.

#5. Do the draft pools work with leagues being imported from OOTP 13?
From what I have seen, leagues imported into 14 see an immediate rise in pitching, AND the draft classes shift from more quality hitter prospects to fewer.

Of course, if you have commish power, you have a choice. Switch the settings (how much isn't really clear) and you can keep things as they were. Leave things as they are, and your league's results will change in roughly the direction of real life MLB. Of course, many people do not play solo leagues with commish powers, so then it isn't a choice.

I'm guessing that this last question -- the importing of existing leagues into 14 -- accounts for a lot of the controversy about ammy classes. A sudden (permanent) change in draft classes is disruptive in an existing league, and it is quite different from real life where, if a draft class seems very different from the past, the smart money is on it being an aberration. But here it is a switch in the game engine.

[The Wolf]

I'd deally like to know if anyone figures out what settings to change to make things more like they were.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by beorn

I've thought over this topic the past few days, and it seems to me that we are talking about several different questions

You are missing the key question IMO...

Does the draft process challenge the player and reward him for diligence in research and skill in selection?

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Orcin

You are missing the key question IMO...

Does the draft process challenge the player and reward him for diligence in research and skill in selection?

Do you think that it does so more now than it did before?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Do you think that it does so more now than it did before?

No, I think it did before, but there was a lot of false gold as people have pointed out in this thread.

Now, there is nothing to do but choose between 1-star prospects. You might as well let the AI auto-draft for you because there is nothing to differentiate 99% of the pool.

This point has nothing to do with what comes after the draft. It is only about the draft process itself, and what makes it interesting vs. boring.

I draw an analogy to RPGs. Serious players want to do long involved quests to get the premium rewards. Casual players revolt, because they want to get the same reward with less effort. (I paid for the game so I deserve it.) In the end, casual players (i.e. customers) out-number the hardcore players so the game is always dumbed down to the point where everyone has an equal chance at the Awesome Sword of Instakill. I am not saying that OOTP14 adopted a new draft model for this reason, but the results seem similar to me.

I would like to see a middle ground with more prospects that show promise and more failures. i.e. more like it was before.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Orcin

No, I think it did before, but there was alot of false gold as people have pointed out in this thread.

Now, there is nothing to do but choose between 1-star prospects. You might as well let the AI auto-draft for you because there is nothing to differentiate 99% of the pool.

This point has nothing to do with what comes after the draft. It is only about the draft process itself, and what makes it interesting vs. boring.

I draw an analogy to RPGs. Serious players want to do long involved quests to get the premium rewards. Casual players revolt, because they want to get the same reward with less effort. )I paid for the game so I deserve it.) In the end, casual players (i.e. customers) out-number the hardcore players so the game is always dumbed down to the point where everyone has an equal chance at the Awesome Sword of Instakill. I am not saying that OOTP14 adopted a new draft model for this reason, but the results seem similar to me.

I would like to see a middle ground with more prospects that show promise and more failures. i.e. more like it was before.

Good points. You convinced me.

[beorn]

Originally Posted by Orcin

You are missing the key question IMO...

Does the draft process challenge the player and reward him for diligence in research and skill in selection?

You have a point there. The fun factor, based in the sense that it's more than picking among identical lottery tickets. Which to me has everything to do with whether, in reality, the draft is just a crap shoot.

I have a hunch, though, that if you look at good online leagues, you are going to find that certain GMs do better drafting than others season after season, implying that there is still skill involved. But we will see -- something to watch.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by beorn

I have a hunch, though, that if you look at good online leagues, you are going to find that certain GMs do better drafting than others season after season, implying that there is still skill involved. But we will see -- something to watch.

Or, some owners are just more lucky. We cannot verify that skill is the reason.

[beorn]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Or, some owners are just more lucky. We cannot verify that skill is the reason.

When it is a couple seasons in a row, it's ambiguous. When league after league, certain GMs consistently have the best drafts, I'm going to go with skill as the explanation.

[VanillaGorilla]

I ran a little test that in which I attempted to take out the possibility of any changes to the player creation engine that may have taken place from v13 to v14 (Marcus made no such mention of any changes to that, just to the overhaul of the scouting engine, but there has been some question regarding player creation, anyway).

Using 1973 as my year of league creation, I created three random debut draft pools for a league that contains AAA minor leagues in v 13. The league was set up for career play. I left everything on default except that I allowed for potential ratings to be lower than current ratings. I then created 3 random debut draft pools in v 14.

These are historical players, not players created by OOTP.

Since there is no existing league of players, the 1056 players selected for each pool are compared to themselves, and themselves only, for the purposes of their star ratings, so there is no skew from any preexisting players.

The median number of players with potential ratings in each star category are presented here:

--------- v13 -- v14
5.0 Stars 23 __ 24
4.5 Stars 57 __ 57
4.0 Stars 57 __ 59
3.5 Stars 50 __ 41
3.0 Stars 58 __ 47
2.5 Stars 109 __ 88
2.0 Stars 110 __ 100
1.5 Stars 79 __ 113
1.0 Stars 350 __ 323
0.5 Stars 143 __ 204

We see many more players rated with 3.5, 3.0, and 2.5 potential in v 13.

Though we see more 1.5 star players in v 14 (based on this small sample) the number of 2.0, 1.5, and 1.0 star players, collectively, are comparable.

The number of 0.5 star players in v14 is dramatically greater.

Did the historical data for RL baseball players change from v13 to v14? Of course not. However, we see a shift in potential star ratings between the two versions.

The players are the same, but their potential ratings are being presented in a more conservative manner. Superstar potentials are being presented at the same rate in v 14 as in v 13. Potential ratings for players 3.5 and below now tend to be more conservative.

The scouts still call the guys with obvious superstar potentials for what they are, guys with superstar potential. However, they are now hedging their assessments on the guys below that 4.0 Star tier.

I chose to display the averages here in terms of median vs mean to improve the ease of read by not having decimals. The mean for each star category correspond in every case with median. Selecting median rather than mean (or mean rather than median) does not alter the presentation, in this case.

One interesting note:

The most 5 star potential players was generated in a v14 pool, 44. Even though this pool generated more 5 star players than any v13 pool, and created the fewest 0.5 star potential players of a v14 pool,* the 175 0.5 star potentials in that pool was greater than the highest number of 0.5 potentials created in a v13 pool, 160.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Or, some owners are just more lucky. We cannot verify that skill is the reason.

"Luck is the residue of design."

[SunDevil]

The Rise and Fall of the Milwaukee Brewers - The Triangle Blog - Grantland

One advantage the Brewers (like any consistently bad team) had was a string of high draft picks. Starting with Zduriencik's first draft in 2000, Milwaukee picked 11th, 12th, seventh, second, fifth, fifth, 16th, and seventh through 2007. But unlike the NBA and NFL drafts, which offer much higher hit rates for high picks, baseball teams whiff all the time when given top-five and top-10 opportunities, even when given a bunch in a row.

The Brewers’ first pick under Zduriencik didn't meet that standard. In fact, Dave Krynzel was a bust, an Ohio-born, Nevada-schooled, lefty-swinging outfielder who lasted just 21 games in the big leagues. But Milwaukee redeemed itself in the 11th round, snatching Corey Hart. That first year started a string of drafts that would be the envy of nearly any other team. The next season's first-round pick, Mike Jones, never panned out; but J.J. Hardy proved to be a big score in the second round, giving the Brewers several quality seasons at shortstop before getting traded for current star center fielder Carlos Gomez. They did hit on their first-round pick in 2002, landing mega-slugger Prince Fielder seventh overall. (And though none of these players ever played a game for the Brewers, they showed a keen eye for talent in drafting Tom Wilhelmsen in the seventh round, Craig Breslow in the 26th, and Hunter Pence in the 40th.)

This was a remarkable run for any team, said Baseball America executive editor Jim Callis. You'll see a handful of stars and maybe three dozen big league regulars come out of each draft. Yet the Brewers snagged two franchise players, two other All-Stars, and several potential All-Stars during that decade. The way they did so was arguably even more effective.

Is there a way to find this kind of talent in later rounds like in real life? There are two options that I can think of, either setup double or triple amount of feeder leagues than what the "Equation" says that you need or setting the Talent Change Randomness to 200? I just wish I heard more drafting stories like this happening in the game.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

The Rise and Fall of the Milwaukee Brewers - The Triangle Blog - Grantland







Is there a way to find this kind of talent in later rounds like in real life? There are two options that I can think of, either setup double or triple amount of feeder leagues than what the "Equation" says that you need or setting the Talent Change Randomness to 200? I just wish I heard more drafting stories like this happening in the game.

TCR at 200 (100 may be fine) gives me this exact experience.

I don't use feeders.

[Klew1986]

I am starting to see my drafts in my fictional game (started in 2013, now in 2019) have only a round or two of players worth taking. My draft is 55 rounds with enough players created for 70 rounds. I am using feeders (NCAA, HS and Junior College). I just did my draft and I only picked through round 5 and simmed the rest. It's really taking the fun out of drafting.

[DrSatan]

It's been said a few times already, but I'm gonna give it a bump.

There should be higher potential ratings across the draft pool, but there should be a risk factor given to prospects by your scouts. It would fit right in with personality ratings (work ethic, intelligence), and add immersion to the draft.

I currently only draft the first 5 rounds and sim the rest. Sometimes I'll sort by work ethic and intelligence and make some later picks based on those ratings alone. After the 5th round there's usually nothing left for hitters above a 35/100 contact rating, and scraps for pitchers. Who wants to stick around for 25+ more rounds of that mess? Not me.

I'm no scout, but I would think a scouting report would provide an opinion of whether or not a guy is a raw, a project with some skills, or a stud. Obviously things change in the minors. Everything I'm talking about is pre-draft, and what can be done to make the draft a better experience for us.

[The Wolf]

Maybe we should take a poll and see how many like the new system better than the old system.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

It's been said a few times already, but I'm gonna give it a bump.

There should be higher potential ratings across the draft pool, but there should be a risk factor given to prospects by your scouts. It would fit right in with personality ratings (work ethic, intelligence), and add immersion to the draft.

I currently only draft the first 5 rounds and sim the rest. Sometimes I'll sort by work ethic and intelligence and make some later picks based on those ratings alone. After the 5th round there's usually nothing left for hitters above a 35/100 contact rating, and scraps for pitchers. Who wants to stick around for 25+ more rounds of that mess? Not me.

I'm no scout, but I would think a scouting report would provide an opinion of whether or not a guy is a raw, a project with some skills, or a stud. Obviously things change in the minors. Everything I'm talking about is pre-draft, and what can be done to make the draft a better experience for us.

Guess alot of guys will have poor work ethic and intelligent considering the lack of talent the draft actually produce.

Are team staff's really that poor in developing players?

At the end of the day every player in the draft has potential to play in the Majors, it isn't like your are drafting from a pool of people that are listed in the census lol these guys are still the cream of the crop. I think the debate is pretty much "player's in the late rounds aren't interesting enough to stick around for" IRL I doubt GM's stick around for the later rounds as well, I'm guessing scouts take over from there. Heck, most teams stop drafting after the 30th round..

IMO, a more detailed scouting report is needed to add the immersion back.

But IMO, there wasn't nothing immersive about drafting a good with high potential in the 10th round only to see him drop to a poor potential once he's on your minor league roster.,

[olivertheorem]

I think now drafting isn't so much about finding that high POT guy in the 10th round as it is finding the guys with the fewest holes that need patching to become contributors. Of course, as you go on guys have more and more holes, but the fewer talent bumps a guy needs to become at least a bench player, the more likely it is to happen. At least, that's how I think of it.

[olivertheorem]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Awesome Sword of Instakill.

I want to give a player this as a nickname now.

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

IMO, a more detailed scouting report is needed to add the immersion back.

This would be great. As it stands, there isn't much provided to the GM to seperate all the crap left over after the first few rounds. I mean, ratings wise a guy taken in the 30th round isn't much different than I guy taken in the 5th round. I be just as well drafting by cool names.

Enhance scouting report details, possibly alter potential ratings based on those reports, and add a risk/reward factor.

Example: The 16yr old internation prospect with huge potential should have a huge risk factor, while the 22yr old Division I College kid would have a lower risk factor. These are two extremes, but there's tons of room here.

Not only would this add to draft immersion; it would also add to scout immersion.