Poor talent in recent Draft Years

[Lukas Berger]

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.

None of what you posted has anything at all to do with Kemp's eventual MLB career or more likely, lack of career.

Actually go back and look at guys with similar stat lines and college accomplishments from the past, see if they became MLB players. I'm guessing you'll find most didn't. Most fifth round picks don't, no matter how highly acclaimed they are in their college careers.

Now that being said, I'd actually tend to agree that that guy is too poorly rated for the third round, but as injury_log's mentioned several times, there are so many variables here that it's tough to tell if that player is typical of a third round pick in this version of OOTP. I'd say he isn't, I haven't seen any like him myself.

You may simply be creating a very small draft pool for whatever reason.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

You may simply be creating a very small draft pool for whatever reason.

I have a 25 round draft. I created enough players for 35 rounds.

[olivertheorem]

Originally Posted by injury log

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.

The bolded part would, I think, be relatively easy to do. Take the potential ratings of any given prospect, have the game compare those to the current ratings of the players in the league in question (minors included), and tab his ceiling as whatever level's average he is closest to. If his potentials match a AAA player in a given universe, then that's what his initial ceiling field would show. In another universe, given a completely different batch of players, the same prospect could show as AA filler or a MLB player, depending on the relative quality. Stash the field somewhere in the player page so you can see how it changes if/when he gets a ratings bump.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I have a 25 round draft. I created enough players for 35 rounds.

I'd say that's definitely a small pool. I usually have 30-40 rounds and create 50-60 rounds worth of players. Doing so will give you too many FA's unless you run some indy leagues, as I do, but I think that more accurately reflects the actual amount of draftable players available in a given year.

Now it might also create a few too many highly rated players, which would present some other problems, as discussed previously, but overall I'd say a larger draft class strikes the best balance given all the variables.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I'd say that's definitely a small pool. I usually have 30-40 rounds and create 50-60 rounds worth of players. Doing so will give you too many FA's unless you run some indy leagues, as I do, but I think that more accurately reflects the actual amount of draftable players available in a given year.

Now it might also create a few too many highly rated players, which would present some other problems, as discussed previously, but overall I'd say a larger draft class strikes the best balance given all the variables.

I did increase the number of players generated from the 30 rounds that used to work fine in OOTP13. Most people typically generate 5 rounds of extra players to avoid the ridiculously-large free agent pool that would result from your strategy. I increased that to 10 rounds (40% extra players). You are suggesting even more (50%+), which seems to indicate that you are trying to compensate for the exact issue referenced in this thread.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I'd say that's definitely a small pool. I usually have 30-40 rounds and create 50-60 rounds worth of players. Doing so will give you too many FA's unless you run some indy leagues, as I do, but I think that more accurately reflects the actual amount of draftable players available in a given year.

Now it might also create a few too many highly rated players, which would present some other problems, as discussed previously, but overall I'd say a larger draft class strikes the best balance given all the variables.

Going back to injury log's "what exactly is being complained about?" question, my sense of the thread is that this is an issue of how the draft class is perceived, not about the level of eventual talent in the league. Your solution seems to suggest that it is in fact a matter of needing to raise the level of talent in the league -- otherwise increasing the number of generated players as you suggest would inflate the level of talent, no?

EDIT: Is the rule of thumb for "# of rounds = 5 times the number of minor league levels" still appropriate?

[hlywd61]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

Going back to injury log's "what exactly is being complained about?" question, my sense of the thread is that this is an issue of how the draft class is perceived, not about the level of eventual talent in the league. Your solution seems to suggest that it is in fact a matter of needing to raise the level of talent in the league -- otherwise increasing the number of generated players as you suggest would inflate the level of talent, no?

EDIT: Is the rule of thumb for "# of rounds = 5 times the number of minor league levels" still appropriate?

No. The complaint is the draft used to be fun and now it's boring.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by hlywd61

No. The complaint is the draft used to be fun and now it's boring.

I don't think it's boring. I just think it's more work to weed through the players to find a guy you might actually want after the first couple of rounds. Just my two cents.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I don't think it's boring. I just think it's more work to weed through the players to find a guy you might actually want after the first couple of rounds. Just my two cents.

Yeah, that's my sense too. But I've never found the draft that engaging, to be honest. Even in OOTP 12-13, outside of the first couple of rounds I've always tended to start with my scout's recommendation.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

Yeah, that's my sense too. But I've never found the draft that engaging, to be honest. Even in OOTP 12-13, outside of the first couple of rounds I've always tended to start with my scout's recommendation.

That's exactly what I do. I ask for the recommendation and if I don't like the player, then I go searching for someone I do like. In 13 (I didn't play 12), it was easier to find a guy who seemed worth drafting. In 14, I have to look harder to find a guy who might have one good rating and the rest are poor.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by hlywd61

no. The complaint is the draft used to be fun and now it's boring.

+1

[Walsh06]

So what was fun about the old system?

[Tyler87898]

Originally Posted by Walsh06

So what was fun about the old system?

I wonder this too. I hated to pick guys that I thought would become good players just for them to completely fall of the table come Spring Training (or whenever the scouting reports update). I think this version's draft is much better/fun, but I understand why others like the old way, better.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I did increase the number of players generated from the 30 rounds that used to work fine in OOTP13. Most people typically generate 5 rounds of extra players to avoid the ridiculously-large free agent pool that would result from your strategy. I increased that to 10 rounds (40% extra players). You are suggesting even more (50%+), which seems to indicate that you are trying to compensate for the exact issue referenced in this thread.

I suppose that could be true to a small extent. But that's how I've played in 13 and previous versions too. So my reference point is the same. I've seen the same sort of talent dropoff that you have but I haven't seen any need to increase the amount of players available in 14.

But I also play with indy leagues and like having that 'ridiculously-large' large free agent pool.

After all the rl draft is 40 rounds, with most teams signing 5-10 udfa's. Until a couple years ago it was 50 rounds. And the real life fa pool is pretty large too.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Walsh06

So what was fun about the old system?

I think people equate fun with thinking each player they draft (or at least the first 10-15 players they draft) could turn into a star.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Tyler87898

I wonder this too. I hated to pick guys that I thought would become good players just for them to completely fall of the table come Spring Training (or whenever the scouting reports update). I think this version's draft is much better/fun.

Agree. But I think most people put on rose colored glasses during draft time irl. They end up getting very excited about the player their teams drafted, and tend to have unrealistic expectations for individual players and draft classes as a whole because they don't have a good handle on the historical trends regarding draft results.

Every half way interesting 13th round pick looks like the next Pujols at draft time, not the next G.J. Raymundo, Terry Mayo, Justin Leone, Rick Searcy, Jim Peeples or Shaud Williams.

When the players who looked so exciting at draft time end up maxing out in high-A three years later and then playing indy league ball, most fans have already forgotten about them and moved on the the shiny new objects available in that years draft.

The way the draft worked in 13 actually did a good job or replicating that, in that you got a bunch of guys that you'd be able to get really excited about initially, but would kind of forget about as they stalled in the minors and took ratings hits.

So while the overall effect in 13 wasn't very realistic, it did mirror the way many people actually see the draft, that everyone's a potential star, which made it seem more exciting, if you ignore the actual results.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I think people equate fun with thinking each player they draft (or at least the first 10-15 players they draft) could turn into a star.

I don't think anyone believes that their 15th round pick will become a star.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

The way the draft worked in 13 actually did a good job or replicating that, in that you got a bunch of guys that you'd be able to get really excited about initially, but would kind of forget about as they stalled in the minors and took ratings hits.

So while the overall effect in 13 wasn't very realistic, it did mirror the way many people actually see the draft, that everyone's a potential star, which made it seem more exciting, if you ignore the actual results.

Yes, this was fun.

But still no one expected the 15th round pick to be a star.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Yes, this was fun.

But still no one expected the 15th round pick to be a star.

Fair enough. We may be talking at cross purposes here. Which is probably my fault.

All this being said, all I'm arguing is that picks outside of the first couple rounds shouldn't regularly turn into stars, or even MLB players.

You can make that happen either the way it happened in 13 or the way it happens in 14. Create a ton of highly rated players, then knock those ratings down in the future, or create moderately rated players who might get a boost or two, but more likely won't.

Either way of doing things has something to be said for it and depending on your viewpoint, either way can be seen as more 'realistic' or more 'fun'. There's no right or wrong here, it's all viewpoint and opinion. And since this is a game that's meant to be fun, it would make sense to choose the option the majority feel is more fun, though I think opinion is actually somewhat split on that.

But the reason the changes were made was not to make things more realistic, or less fun. It's that creating too many players with too high potential ratings in a draft actually screwed some things up in the game, notably flooding the Top 100 prospect lists with players from the current years draft, making the lists essentially useless. Creating players with lower ratings that don't get knocked down was intended to fix those issues. And it's done so. That's really the long and the short of it.

As injury log suggests there's really a lot of things that could be improved regarding the draft and prospects. I think that future versions of OOTP will do so. For now this is a needed, but somewhat painful, fix.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I don't think anyone believes that their 15th round pick will become a star.

I didn't say "will." I said "could."