Poor talent in recent Draft Years

[dkgo]

There are opinions present throughout an ootp draft and recommendations made. if you want to go for highest power potential, or contact, or speed and good defense, etc. then your scouts will show you the players they recommend. this doesnt change the fact that on a macro level all of those players are expected to be scrubs which is what your scouts are correctly projecting for you.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by HH20xx convert

My point is that scouting departments do have opinions throughout the draft, they do make recommendations based on their evaluations of the players available. Whether that process adds significant value is something that can be debated, but its existence is obvious. I believe the OOTP draft process should replicate that real-life process.

That's different than your original "meaningful overall ratings difference". Outside the top prospects it's very likely that players are not seen directly by every eye on every team. Later in the draft the differences in rating players in real life may come down to what scout saw him, who knows his coach, his cousin or his little league teammate. That suggests to me that to be realistic the fog around lesser draft picks should be very thick.

If the fog was not thick then some team some scout or some GM would have a measurable and reproducible record of uncovering gems. No such record exists AFAIK.

[Orcin]

Based on suggestions in this thread, I would love to be able to filter the draft pool to show only players with intelligence and work ethic above a certain level. Unfortunately, I cannot.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by RchW

That's different than your original "meaningful overall ratings difference". Outside the top prospects it's very likely that player are not seen directly by every eye on every team. Later in the draft the differences in rating players in real life may come down to what scout saw him, who knows his coach, his cousin or his little league teammate. That suggests to me that to be realistic the fog around lesser draft picks should be very thick.

If the fog was not thick then some team some scout or some GM would have a measurable and reproducible record of uncovering gems. No such record exists AFAIK.

A quote from Baseball America and the Cards scouting director that emphasizes this:

Originally Posted by Baseball America

Cardinals scouting director Dan Kantrovitz makes an interesting observation, via a club press release, about the organization’s acquisition of college NDFAs, which reads in part:

“In most cases, the nondrafted free agents are players we would have drafted had there been more than 40 rounds. Although these players do not generally get a lot of publicity, we use a very similar decision-making process with them as we do with drafted players. Often times, we have multiple amateur scouting reports on each of them.”

That theme is universal to all organizations, in that the gap between a late-round draft pick, particularly one from the college ranks, and an NDFA is typically razor thin.

Further backed up by the fact that when you look at pre draft follow lists, such as those from Perfect Game, quite a few of the players that were predicted to go in the top 25 rounds ended up being undrafted while quite a few players not on the lists, which in PG's case run to around three-four times as many players as will actually be drafted (5,000+ names), end up going in reasonably high rounds.

Honestly, I'd say that from everything I've seen and heard there's essentially no difference between most college guys drafted in the 20th-40th rounds and many UDFA's. It just depends on who teams saw the most and if there's something about a specific player one of the scouts likes.

It's also worth noting that teams regularly burn picks from rounds 20-40 or so on nepotism picks and highly rated guys that are known to be unsignable.

It doesn't make sense to think that they would do that if they thought that a regular, signable guy they'd get in round 20 or 30 was actually appreciably better or different than one in round 40. If that was the case they wouldn't be wasting a round 30 pick on someone that they know won't sign, then taking someone who does sign in round 40.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Based on suggestions in this thread, I would love to be able to filter the draft pool to show only players with intelligence and work ethic above a certain level. Unfortunately, I cannot.

Adding those two options in the filters is a good idea and should be put in the suggestion thread.

I believe you can build draft views for both batters and pitchers that includes work ethic and intelligence. Then sort by work ethic and scroll down finding players that also have high intelligence. Not as good as a filter but not a lot of work either.

[injury log]

There are so many different relevant settings here - do you use feeders or auto-generated draft pools; do you have scouting on or off; does your scout 'favor ability' or 'favor tools'; what ratings scale are you using, etc - that I'm often not sure what people are even talking about in this thread. Is it the player creation model, the scouting system, feeder leagues?

I don't even know what people are talking about when they talk about the "new system" and the "old system", because there are two distinct "systems" involved: the scouting system, and the player creation system.

I suspect many people are talking about player creation when they talk about the "new system", and it's wrong to call the system in OOTP14 "new". It was the OOTP13 system that was new; the OOTP14 system returns to the model that was used in OOTP12 and before. In 13, to make drafting more 'fun', Markus made the original potentials of amateur draftees higher than before. That meant there were tons of great looking prospects even deep into a draft. That model is, however, fundamentally wrong for several reasons, most notably:

• most of these prospects need to die off, or else you get serious talent inflation at the big league level. That means that these players start out as great prospects, and then decline, some more than others. Anyone who follows BA prospect lists in real life knows that this is the opposite of what happens in real life: in real life, prospects are ranked conservatively to begin with, then climb the rankings as they establish themselves in pro ball.
  
• There were so many high potential prospects in the early rounds to begin with that there was no room for lower round prospects to emerge. The player development system became purely one which annihilated potential, not one that boosted it, because there was already too many high-potential players swimming around. The number of late-round finds was not realistic.
  
• Most importantly, people seem to be complaining that late rounds in OOTP14 are just like a 'lottery'. But in a system where the draft contains dozens of high-ceiling prospects, many of whom are later randomly killed off, then the early rounds of the draft become the lottery. And it is demonstrably true that the early rounds of real life drafts are far less of a lottery than the later rounds. So that type of model is simply wrong.
  

The scouting system, on the other hand, is genuinely "new" in OOTP14. There are far fewer scouting reports which are egregiously wrong - no more do you find guys who genuinely have the potential to hit .220 with 10 HRs, but who your scout says should be .360 hitters with 60 HRs. In OOTP12 and 13, there were always a few players a scout would give absurd ratings - Babe Ruthian ratings - guys the AI wouldn't draft before the 10th round. I'm not sure what real life players these guys were supposed to model; I don't think there are 10th round draftees in real life that one scout thinks will turn into Barry Bonds, and every other scout thinks will top out in AA. So I think a scouting system which at least is more moderate about extreme ratings is desirable.

In all, I think OOTP's player presentation system is fundamentally wrong to begin with - players in OOTP just don't look to the user the same way that real prospects look to a real GM - but it's not a question of reverting to an earlier system or tweaking the current one. The game needs a model change, where there is some distinction drawn between raw and polished prospects, between high risk/high reward guys and safe/low ceiling guys. Current ability should more obviously matter, and tools and skills should be treated separately. Many more players should have high potentials that they never reach. And some distinction should be drawn between attributes that are measurable, and those that aren't. I don't think we'll ever have a system that feels completely realistic which just presents users with a pitcher's 'Stuff potential', 'Movement potential' and 'Control potential'.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by injury log

[*] Most importantly, people seem to be complaining that late rounds in OOTP14 are just like a 'lottery'. But in a system where the draft contains dozens of high-ceiling prospects, many of whom are later randomly killed off, then the early rounds of the draft become the lottery. And it is demonstrably true that the early rounds of real life drafts are far less of a lottery than the later rounds. So that type of model is simply wrong.

this

[DrSatan]

Originally Posted by injury log

In all, I think OOTP's player presentation system is fundamentally wrong to begin with - players in OOTP just don't look to the user the same way that real prospects look to a real GM - but it's not a question of reverting to an earlier system or tweaking the current one. The game needs a model change, where there is some distinction drawn between raw and polished prospects, between high risk/high reward guys and safe/low ceiling guys. Current ability should more obviously matter, and tools and skills should be treated separately. Many more players should have high potentials that they never reach. And some distinction should be drawn between attributes that are measurable, and those that aren't. I don't think we'll ever have a system that feels completely realistic which just presents users with a pitcher's 'Stuff potential', 'Movement potential' and 'Control potential'.

I completely agree with this, and I think this is what many in this thread are talking about. You just happened to put it better than the rest of us.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

You just happened to put it better than the rest of us.

Ian pretty much always 'happens to put it better than the rest of us'

[HH20xx convert]

Originally Posted by RchW

That's different than your original "meaningful overall ratings difference". Outside the top prospects it's very likely that player are not seen directly by every eye on every team. Later in the draft the differences in rating players in real life may come down to what scout saw him, who knows his coach, his cousin or his little league teammate. That suggests to me that to be realistic the fog around lesser draft picks should be very thick.

If the fog was not thick then some team some scout or some GM would have a measurable and reproducible record of uncovering gems. No such record exists AFAIK.

Actually, it is not intended to be different. A meaningful overall ratings difference to me is anything that differentiates between the numerous choices available in later rounds. Even small differences are a basis for making a choice. Right now we have a pure lottery after a few rounds, which is, in my opinion, not realistic. I'm happy to have thick fog around later draft picks--right now we have no visibility at all. Just page after page of lower rated players, the overall ratings for which, according to our scouting department, are all the same.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I believe you can build draft views for both batters and pitchers that includes work ethic and intelligence. Then sort by work ethic and scroll down finding players that also have high intelligence. Not as good as a filter but not a lot of work either.

I was unable to view personality ratings in the draft pool screen. I could do it in the free agent screen.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by HH20xx convert

Actually, it is not intended to be different. A meaningful overall ratings difference to me is anything that differentiates between the numerous choices available in later rounds. Even small differences are a basis for making a choice. Right now we have a pure lottery after a few rounds, which is, in my opinion, not realistic. I'm happy to have thick fog around later draft picks--right now we have no visibility at all. Just page after page of lower rated players, the overall ratings for which, according to our scouting department, are all the same.

Have to agree. Would really like to see the overall ratings actually rate lower level players differently rather than hanging a 20 on all of them.

Though as stated above, I feel any differences in such players should be minimal, it still wouldn't hurt to see the ratings reflect even those minimal differences.

btw, have to apologize for not yet posting the ideas you sent me. I'm hoping to include them as part of a major proposal regarding improvements to the draft, but have lacked the time to finish working on it. Hope to get it done soon.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by injury log

[*] Most importantly, people seem to be complaining that late rounds in OOTP14 are just like a 'lottery'. But in a system where the draft contains dozens of high-ceiling prospects, many of whom are later randomly killed off, then the early rounds of the draft become the lottery. And it is demonstrably true that the early rounds of real life drafts are far less of a lottery than the later rounds. So that type of model is simply wrong.

VERY well-put. This is a huge distinction that I can't believe hasn't been brought up yet.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by HH20xx convert

An amateur draft where your scouting department can't provide a meaningful overall rating difference for players beyond the first few rounds is incredibly unrealistic, in my opinion. This could be fixed without changing the new player evaluation system, and I hope it is patched into 14.

Oh I agree it could be improved but what I'm saying is I prefer this to what was in v13.

[ShaneCarson]

Originally Posted by dkgo

do you have any evidence that shows current mlb scouting departments DO provide a meaningful difference after round 5?

2008 mlb draft

2008 Major League Baseball Draft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

not even a single 6th round pick made it. it IS a complete crapshoot once you get out of the first two or three rounds. none of those picks are expected to make it to the majors, and 1 star is a fair rating for a player not expected to make the majors.

Not sure what you mean by "made it" but several 6th rounders from that draft have played in the MLB. As a matter of fact, JB Shuck is the starting left fielder for the Angels, Ryan Lavarnway is currently the backup catcher for the Boston Red Sox and Josh Harrison has been a significant bench player for the Pirates over the past couple years.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by ShaneCarson

Not sure what you mean by "made it" but several 6th rounders from that draft have played in the MLB. As a matter of fact, JB Shuck is the starting left fielder for the Angels, Ryan Lavarnway is currently the backup catcher for the Boston Red Sox and Josh Harrison has been a significant bench player for the Pirates over the past couple years.

That's two benchwarmers with sub .200 averages this season, and one starter out of all the guys selected in that round. That's hardly a king's ransom in talent in the sixth round. If that's all OOTP's draft pools are producing, it's realistic.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by injury log

There are so many different relevant settings here - do you use feeders or auto-generated draft pools; do you have scouting on or off; does your scout 'favor ability' or 'favor tools'; what ratings scale are you using, etc - that I'm often not sure what people are even talking about in this thread. Is it the player creation model, the scouting system, feeder leagues?

I don't even know what people are talking about when they talk about the "new system" and the "old system", because there are two distinct "systems" involved: the scouting system, and the player creation system.

I suspect many people are talking about player creation when they talk about the "new system", and it's wrong to call the system in OOTP14 "new". It was the OOTP13 system that was new; the OOTP14 system returns to the model that was used in OOTP12 and before. In 13, to make drafting more 'fun', Markus made the original potentials of amateur draftees higher than before. That meant there were tons of great looking prospects even deep into a draft. That model is, however, fundamentally wrong for several reasons, most notably:

• most of these prospects need to die off, or else you get serious talent inflation at the big league level. That means that these players start out as great prospects, and then decline, some more than others. Anyone who follows BA prospect lists in real life knows that this is the opposite of what happens in real life: in real life, prospects are ranked conservatively to begin with, then climb the rankings as they establish themselves in pro ball.
  
• There were so many high potential prospects in the early rounds to begin with that there was no room for lower round prospects to emerge. The player development system became purely one which annihilated potential, not one that boosted it, because there was already too many high-potential players swimming around. The number of late-round finds was not realistic.
  
• Most importantly, people seem to be complaining that late rounds in OOTP14 are just like a 'lottery'. But in a system where the draft contains dozens of high-ceiling prospects, many of whom are later randomly killed off, then the early rounds of the draft become the lottery. And it is demonstrably true that the early rounds of real life drafts are far less of a lottery than the later rounds. So that type of model is simply wrong.
  

The scouting system, on the other hand, is genuinely "new" in OOTP14. There are far fewer scouting reports which are egregiously wrong - no more do you find guys who genuinely have the potential to hit .220 with 10 HRs, but who your scout says should be .360 hitters with 60 HRs. In OOTP12 and 13, there were always a few players a scout would give absurd ratings - Babe Ruthian ratings - guys the AI wouldn't draft before the 10th round. I'm not sure what real life players these guys were supposed to model; I don't think there are 10th round draftees in real life that one scout thinks will turn into Barry Bonds, and every other scout thinks will top out in AA. So I think a scouting system which at least is more moderate about extreme ratings is desirable.

In all, I think OOTP's player presentation system is fundamentally wrong to begin with - players in OOTP just don't look to the user the same way that real prospects look to a real GM - but it's not a question of reverting to an earlier system or tweaking the current one. The game needs a model change, where there is some distinction drawn between raw and polished prospects, between high risk/high reward guys and safe/low ceiling guys. Current ability should more obviously matter, and tools and skills should be treated separately. Many more players should have high potentials that they never reach. And some distinction should be drawn between attributes that are measurable, and those that aren't. I don't think we'll ever have a system that feels completely realistic which just presents users with a pitcher's 'Stuff potential', 'Movement potential' and 'Control potential'.

Good points. I wonder what settings most people are using.

As far as scouting, I never used anything outside of very low accuracy besides when I turn scouting off for testing purposes.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I was unable to view personality ratings in the draft pool screen. I could do it in the free agent screen.

Well I'm not anywhere near a draft in my game so I can't check it out but I thought I had a view where I could, that I either built there or carried over from a view I built elsewhere in the game.

That is why I prefaced the post with "I believe" since I was posting only from memory. Could very well be I only thought I had that view and I was wrong, sorry

I'll be watching closely when my next draft comes up. I do hope your suggestion is used and they are added to the filter options.

[jmarsh123]

Originally Posted by HH20xx convert

Actually, it is not intended to be different. A meaningful overall ratings difference to me is anything that differentiates between the numerous choices available in later rounds. Even small differences are a basis for making a choice. Right now we have a pure lottery after a few rounds, which is, in my opinion, not realistic. I'm happy to have thick fog around later draft picks--right now we have no visibility at all. Just page after page of lower rated players, the overall ratings for which, according to our scouting department, are all the same.

But only it's not a pure lottery. I will re-iterate again that I think the draft in 14 is much more realistic than 13, just requires more work.

I believe it has more to do with something that needs to be tweaked with overall potential than a true lottery. There are a lack of "middle ground" prospects (i.e players with POT between 22 & 35 or so) and having every player rated 20 or 21 after the first 4 or so rounds is frustrating.

Looking at the individual tools though, there are great distinctions to be made. I've had many pitchers I've drafted start out at 20/20, but had good indivual stuff (and other) ratings that slowly rose and because rotation mainstays or quality bullpen arms. The problem is when some with 50/50/50 (ST/MOV/CON) scouted potential are the same overall as someone with 35/40/30. The same applies to hitters.

While I have very rarely found stars, I've found regulars, quality reserves, back of the rotation and bullpen guys in the 5-15 round or so this way. To me, this seems very close to real life where most of your stars come from the top and your role players come from all over. I recently had a 6th round pick take a ratings jump and because a borderline all-star CF. I checked his ratings at draft time and even though he was rated 20/21, the scout rated all skills but contact at major league potential. Contact got a bump and a star he became.

[Orcin]

There have been a lot of comments in this thread saying that the new draft/development/scouting model is more realistic. I disagree.

Here is what my scout says about my third round pick. My scout recommended this player, and he was one of the 3-5 best players left on the board in my opinion. He was taken #93 overall.

"no future in the big leagues, projects as a poor contact hitter, no power whatsoever, poor bat speed, poor plate discipline, average fielder at best"

What team has ever said that internally about their third round pick? Keep in mind, this is the drafting team's viewpoint, not the media or other teams.

Frankly, I don't view this as realistic. I'll tell you what is realistic... the team is raving about their third round pick, and then he never does much. THAT happens all the time in real life. That's the old model.

So, in summary, the old model is more fun AND more realistic.