Poor talent in recent Draft Years

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Orcin

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.

Which mlb scouting departments have you worked for where you saw this?

A typical draft may have 4 big leaguers in the third round, and one of them might become good. Do you think every team is completely delusional to think their third round pick is that guy? Or maybe they realize they are taking a lottery ticket and praying to hit the 3%.

[Walsh06]

Are you saying that was bad scouting or thats actually how he was rated?? at orcin btw

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by Orcin

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.

They may rave about their 3rd round pick publicly, in the press, but internally? Probably not, probably much more realistic among themselves. The little interaction I have had with scouts, and I have had a little, they are much more non-committal with almost all of their scouting reports. They make a point leaving an opening for a good prospect to go bad and a bad prospect to be good.

If a pro scout did what the scouts in OOTP13 did, rate all these players as 5 star prospects only to have them tank, he wouldn't last long. The organization wants realistic evaluations not pie in the sky evaluations. When a player is rated 5 stars and taken high in the draft they get a much bigger signing bonus. If anything I would think the organisation would want more tempered reports so they could use that in negotiating the bonus.

I think the written side of the OOTP scouting reports need work. Often these written reports seem to contradict the scouts ratings of the player.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by dkgo

A typical draft may have 4 big leaguers in the third round, and one of them might become good. Do you think every team is completely delusional to think their third round pick is that guy?

Yes, I do think that they expect their third round pick to be better than "no future". I could be wrong.

My scouting is on normal and my scout is excellent with amateurs. I don't know what his real ratings are. I haven't looked.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by byzeil

They may rave about their 3rd round pick publicly, in the press, but internally? Probably not, probably much more realistic among themselves. The little interaction I have had with scouts, and I have had a little, they are much more non-committal with almost all of their scouting reports. They make a point leaving an opening for a good prospect to go bad and a bad prospect to be good.

"No future in the big leagues" isn't non-committal. It is pretty firm toward bad. "Has a chance at a decent career but needs work" is non-committal.

[Orcin]

Here's the player in question (scale is 1-10). Would you be excited if this were the best player on the board in round 3 and you have 22 rounds to go?

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Yes, I do think that they expect their third round pick to be better than "no future". I could be wrong.

My scouting is on normal and my scout is excellent with amateurs. I don't know what his real ratings are. I haven't looked.

Why would they expect their pick to be better than years and years of historical third round picks?

If you asked me to predict the future of any random third round pick I would choose "scrub" every time and be right more often than not.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Here's the player in question (scale is 1-10). Would you be excited if this were the best player on the board in round 3 and you have 22 rounds to go?

Barf

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Here's the player in question (scale is 1-10). Would you be excited if this were the best player on the board in round 3 and you have 22 rounds to go?

I put very little stock in the written scouting blurbs. As byzeil posted this feature needs work. At one time it was removed and then put back in due to user requests.

As to the player he can field multiple positions, IF (good) and OF (above avg) though his hands are what keep him from being excellent. He has good speed. With a little luck (and maybe he has good work ethic\intelligence) if his hitting develops at all he could be a valuable utility guy. With a lot of luck a starter. Nothing wrong with finding that in the third round.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Sweed

As to the player he can field multiple positions, IF (good) and OF (above avg) though his hands are what keep him from being excellent. He has good speed. With a little luck (and maybe he has good work ethic\intelligence) if his hitting develops at all he could be a valuable utility guy. With a lot of luck a starter. Nothing wrong with finding that in the third round.

Let's compare him to the Astros 2013 round 5 pick: 2B Tony Kemp of Vanderbilt.

Kemp's resume: .398/.480/.496 with 35 walks in 256 at-bats

SEC Freshman of the Year. Freshman All American. SEC Player of the Year. First team All-American according to several publications. Golden Spikes Award Semi-finalist, Howser Trophy Finalist.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that you would prefer Kemp to the guy above. Baseball America says Kemp is projected to be an average fielder, same as my guy. Kemp is a super base stealer. Round FIVE.

[The Wolf]

I see an argument developing for a happy medium between the old and new systems.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Let's compare him to the Astros 2013 round 5 pick: 2B Tony Kemp of Vanderbilt.

Kemp's resume: .398/.480/.496 with 35 walks in 256 at-bats

SEC Freshman of the Year. Freshman All American. SEC Player of the Year. First team All-American according to several publications. Golden Spikes Award Semi-finalist, Howser Trophy Finalist.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that you would prefer Kemp to the guy above. Baseball America says Kemp is projected to be an average fielder, same as my guy. Kemp is a super base stealer. Round FIVE.

I don't know how to interpret your comparison. You're comparing 1 year of college stats with OOTP's potential ratings on a major league scale. I don't want to make the thread a debate about specific players, but IMO a conservative scout would peg Kemp as closer to your OOTP example than you think.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Here's the player in question (scale is 1-10). Would you be excited if this were the best player on the board in round 3 and you have 22 rounds to go?

Lol he's not bad at all. Potential ratings are not static assuming you didnt drop TCR drastically.

His eye, avoid K, gap and contact is a 4 potential which if all those bump to 5, he would become a average hitter with great speed and glove in the infield. A typical infielder who could one day bat lead off or at worst a 9th hitter who bounces back and forth between The Show and AAA.

Would he become a super star? Probably not.

He def would be a 1st round pick if his hitting mechanics showed promise at that moment.

I think we all will agree that the scouting reports need an upgrade and its clear that the projections is working off of 13's scouting where players had high pot in later rounds. But keep in mine, scouts are wrong all the time. I mean if scouts though he was major league talent then he would have been picked in the 1st and not the 5th..

[Klew1986]

I am currently doing the 2020 First-Year Player Draft and there was honestly only 1 round worth drafting. After that it was players who had an overall potential rating of 40 or less. Just not fun to do the draft anymore.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Klew1986

I am currently doing the 2020 First-Year Player Draft and there was honestly only 1 round worth drafting. After that it was players who had an overall potential rating of 40 or less. Just not fun to do the draft anymore.

Turn OVR ratings off and focus on individual ratings and take written scouting reports with a grain of salt.

[Klew1986]

I don't read the scouting reports and I have OVR ratings still on, but look at individual ratings (contact, power, etc) and they are still mostly crappy after the 1st round. I am using feeders (NCAA, HS and Junior College). I might get rid of them and see how the next few draft classes are.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Lol he's not bad at all. Potential ratings are not static assuming you didnt drop TCR drastically.

His eye, avoid K, gap and contact is a 4 potential which if all those bump to 5, he would become a average hitter with great speed and glove in the infield. A typical infielder who could one day bat lead off or at worst a 9th hitter who bounces back and forth between The Show and AAA.

Would he become a super star? Probably not.

LOL I'm sorry, but I must be playing a different game from you.

I have around 400 players in my major leagues. I have exactly 11 with contact, power, and eye all below 6 (out of 10). Of the 11 players, only 2 are starters.

So IF he got a bump in ALL of them, then he might become a fringe player. I would hardly call the bottom 2% of my league an "average hitter".

There are no players in my major leagues with ratings all below 5, i.e. the potential for this guy.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Orcin

LOL I'm sorry, but I must be playing a different game from you.

I have around 400 players in my major leagues. I have exactly 11 with contact, power, and eye all below 6 (out of 10). Of the 11 players, only 2 are starters.

So IF he got a bump in ALL of them, then he might become a fringe player. I would hardly call the bottom 2% of my league an "average hitter".

There are no players in my major leagues with ratings all below 5, i.e. the potential for this guy.

Those 11 players are still in the Majors though. I would see your point if you said the entire database.

If he does get bumps, he still has the speed and the glove to be an utility player..

How does those 11 guys compare to each other?

His ratings were 4. Hence not good enough to get drafted in the 1st yet good enough running the bases and fielding to not get drafted at all. Now, this is were TCR comes in and this player who already has tools may get a talent bump in hitting where he then now could become a major league player. Sadly, not everyone who get drafted make it to the majors.

Its honestly the same as last year except that player wont have high potential THEN decline at the age of 20..

And hypothetically, If he got bumped to have all 5's in hitting except HR powers which was not 4 pot he would be a average hitter stat wise. (contact, eye, avoid k would raise his batting average)

Can't go wrong with a .245-.250 hitter who has speed and can field multi positions.

[injury log]

a) I've never drafted a player in OOTP14 that looks as bad as that guy in the third round. I'm not sure if we're using different settings, or if I'm playing a different game from the one you bought, but I can always find guys who at least have interesting component ratings deep into the draft.

b) The text scouting system needs a complete overhaul. The fundamental architecture is misguided from the start; it's superfluous to give text blurbs which describe the rating numbers that you can just see in the profile anyway. Let's not bring text scouting into this discussion, because it will just confuse the issue.

c) I still don't know what people are advocating in this thread. Do people think players in the fifth round should genuinely have higher Potentials? Or do people just want their scout to think some players have higher Potentials?

d) I don't agree with your evaluation of Tony Kemp, or at least I think the achievements you list are things scouts could care less about.

e) For those of you using feeders, if you aren't getting enough talent, doesn't that mean you need more feeders?

f) And for people who don't like the way their scout views the draft pool, try hiring a scout who "highly favors tools". Scouts who "highly favor ability" tend to be very conservative, and the tools guys tend to be more enthusiastic about some players.

g) You can also increase your scouting error if you want more guys to just look good in the draft pool. But then you go back to having many of the issues that existed in earlier versions of OOTP.

h) If you genuinely want the draft pool players to have high true potential ratings, then I think that's completely backwards, but I talked about that in my previous post.

i) @Wolf, I don't see that 'argument' developing at all. The prevailing view appears to me to be that the entire system of presenting prospects to users needs to be reworked, that risk, floor and ceiling need to be communicated to users, that some kind of distinction needs to be drawn between players likely to be fringe big leaguers and ones likely to top out in A-ball, etc.

My feeling is that prospects in the middle rounds of the draft can look interesting without needing to look (or be) good. But some parts of the game would need to be completely redesigned for that to happen.

[Orcin]

I answered what I could.

Originally Posted by injury log

a) I've never drafted a player in OOTP14 that looks as bad as that guy in the third round. I'm not sure if we're using different settings, or if I'm playing a different game from the one you bought, but I can always find guys who at least have interesting component ratings deep into the draft.

Well, there he is. I don't know how else to answer that. But SirMichael Jordan thinks he is fine player. So you are saying that you think he is bad prospect for the third round? I guess you two should have a discussion about that.

b) The text scouting system needs a complete overhaul. The fundamental architecture is misguided from the start; it's superfluous to give text blurbs which describe the rating numbers that you can just see in the profile anyway. Let's not bring text scouting into this discussion, because it will just confuse the issue.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that I was supposed to overlook that part of the game.

c) I still don't know what people are advocating in this thread. Do people think players in the fifth round should genuinely have higher Potentials? Or do people just want their scout to think some players have higher Potentials?

I have no idea how these players are going to develop over time. I don't know how my database of players will look 10 years from now (in game time). So I really can't answer these questions. What I am saying is that the draft process is not fun when you spend 22 of 25 rounds looking at 1-star players that all look like this guy or worse.

d) I don't agree with your evaluation of Tony Kemp, or at least I think the achievements you list are things scouts could care less about.

Ok.

e) For those of you using feeders, if you aren't getting enough talent, doesn't that mean you need more feeders?

n/a

f) And for people who don't like the way their scout views the draft pool, try hiring a scout who "highly favors tools". Scouts who "highly favor ability" tend to be very conservative, and the tools guys tend to be more enthusiastic about some players.

My scout is neutral.

g) You can also increase your scouting error if you want more guys to just look good in the draft pool. But then you go back to having many of the issues that existed in earlier versions of OOTP.

I am discussing the default settings, which used to work one way and now work another. It's nice to know that workarounds exist. I don't have any idea how to adjust that to get what I want, or whether it would change something else that I didn't want changed.

h) If you genuinely want the draft pool players to have high true potential ratings, then I think that's completely backwards, but I talked about that in my previous post.

No. I want the player base to develop as it did before. Maybe it does, but as I said I have not seen that yet.

i) @Wolf, I don't see that 'argument' developing at all. The prevailing view appears to me to be that the entire system of presenting prospects to users needs to be reworked, that risk, floor and ceiling need to be communicated to users, that some kind of distinction needs to be drawn between players likely to be fringe big leaguers and ones likely to top out in A-ball, etc.

My feeling is that prospects in the middle rounds of the draft can look interesting without needing to look (or be) good. But some parts of the game would need to be completely redesigned for that to happen.