Poor talent in recent Draft Years

[SirMichaelJordan]

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.

The thing is that still happen. I had a guy I drafted in the 28th round become a 8x all star and 1 MVP award..

I run the 40 rounds like real life but I do not generate extra played for UDFA as of now because I am not using Indy leagues at the moment.

From the threads in the past, I though people were frustrated that their players would suddenly drop in potential ratings after being drafted going from stud to "dud"?? Now it was apparently fun?

Most guys dropped TCR drastically to compensate those drop offs (which had nothing to do with TCR but the game adjusting itself to what we see now in 14 at draft day)

Raise that TCR back to 100 draft a player in the late rounds and be surprise he made an all-star team instead of being disappointed that your 10th round high POT player was actually someone with low POT.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

From the threads in the past, I though people were frustrated that their players would suddenly drop in potential ratings after being drafted going from stud to "dud"?? Now it was apparently fun?

Well, finding out which players were losing potential ratings before the scouts of other teams around the league figured it out led to some lucrative trades. That part was fun.

This board needs an evil smiley.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

The thing is that still happen. I had a guy I drafted in the 28th round become a 8x all star and 1 MVP award..

I run the 40 rounds like real life but I do not generate extra played for UDFA as of now because I am not using Indy leagues at the moment.

From the threads in the past, I though people were frustrated that their players would suddenly drop in potential ratings after being drafted going from stud to "dud"?? Now it was apparently fun?

Most guys dropped TCR drastically to compensate those drop offs (which had nothing to do with TCR but the game adjusting itself to what we see now in 14 at draft day)

Raise that TCR back to 100 draft a player in the late rounds and be surprise he made an all-star team instead of being disappointed that your 10th round high POT player was actually someone with low POT.

Exactly, it does still happen. This is lukasberger's point, I believe. In the past, we had more guys with high potential ratings, but we would see more "busts" who didn't live up to that potential. But at the time of the draft, it "felt" like you were getting a good prospect beyond the first few rounds because of all those high potential players, even though some of them were bound to flame out. That's why people thought the draft was more fun, at least that's my perception.

Now, we have less high potential ratings in the initial draft pool, but we have a few more guys like the 28th round pick you had who turn into stars. But people get past the second round and see all one-star players left and think that it doesn't matter who they pick, so they just go with the scouting director's recommendation for the rest of the draft. That is pretty boring if that's how you handle it. But to me, it's more fun to see a one-star potential guy turn into an MLB all-star. Finding that guy in a draft is something to be proud of. Anyone can pick a 3.5-star potential guy (usually relievers in OOTP 13) in the seventh round and feel good. Can you find the one-star potential guy who far exceeds that initial potential? That's a challenge.

Plus, in the past, as lukasberger pointed out, the top prospects list would be flooded with players from the most recent draft because there were so many 5-star potential guys who just got drafted. But then when those players started to take hits to their ratings, people (myself included, at first) reacted by by lowering the TCR.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Exactly, it does still happen. This is lukasberger's point, I believe. In the past, we had more guys with high potential ratings, but we would see more "busts" who didn't live up to that potential. But at the time of the draft, it "felt" like you were getting a good prospect beyond the first few rounds because of all those high potential players, even though some of them were bound to flame out. That's why people thought the draft was more fun, at least that's my perception.

Now, we have less high potential ratings in the initial draft pool, but we have a few more guys like the 28th round pick you had who turn into stars. But people get past the second round and see all one-star players left and think that it doesn't matter who they pick, so they just go with the scouting director's recommendation for the rest of the draft. That is pretty boring if that's how you handle it. But to me, it's more fun to see a one-star potential guy turn into an MLB all-star. Finding that guy in a draft is something to be proud of. Anyone can pick a 3.5-star potential guy (usually relievers in OOTP 13) in the seventh round and feel good. Can you find the one-star potential guy who far exceeds that initial potential? That's a challenge.

Plus, in the past, as lukasberger pointed out, the top prospects list would be flooded with players from the most recent draft because there were so many 5-star potential guys who just got drafted. But then when those players started to take hits to their ratings, people (myself included, at first) reacted by by lowering the TCR.

Yea and I should point out that the lower you drop TCR, the more rare that 28th rounder become and the higher, the more common that 28th rounder become which would be on par with reality. I think guys should keep it at 100 especially in 14' since you should be going into the draft with the mindset of "this guy has raw talent and could develop a glove or etc" instead of going into the draft with OOTP 13 mind set of "this guy looks great, I hope he don't drop off at opening day in rookie ball.." Which now they would think "This guy sucks and will never develop past his initial first impressions of potential" (as if scouts can predict potential anyways; never understood a static potential rating)

I personally have TCR at 200 so that 28th pick is common, by common I mean on you'll get maybe a couple all-stars every few drafts in the later rounds. Even with TCR at 200, the first rounders are still most likely to make it to the show according to my league draft history. Talent is more spread out instead of being predictable. So drafting in the late rounds is fun to me because of my settings..

[Orcin]

Some of the issue here is that we all play with different settings: larger pool of players, TCR higher than 100, etc. What I see in my game may not look the same to someone else. It is hard to compare eras, fictional vs. hybrid, etc.

One thing that I really appreciate though... this thread has had some great discussion with no drama. It should be an example of how to conduct a fairly polarized debate and not have a meltdown.

[Walsh06]

So anyone now who does consider the older method more fun?

[Curve Ball Dave]

The new model is more fun for me.

Watching my fifth round pick crash from a 5 star stud prospect to a one star field filler in A ball time and time again was not fun.

Watching the one star guy I drafted in the fifth round because he had some solid skills to start with, and then the other skills develop too so he's a contributing MLB player is fun.

Keep in mind that "one star" player has more potential than you might think. The player in the screen shot looked like a nice prospect to me what with his speed and fielding ability. If his hitting comes around he can be a solid MLB player. Of course, that's a big "if". That's reality.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Walsh06

So anyone now who does consider the older method more fun?

Yes. The best approach would be a compromise between the two extremes that we have seen.

[injury log]

First just a few random comments:

- Markus has told me that the number of draft rounds shouldn't affect the actual amount of talent you're creating (except in extreme cases). A 40 round draft should just have more scrubs than a 20 round one, not more stars.

- surely no one expects drafting in the 12th round to be especially engaging? I'm pretty sure it's kind of boring in real life too. So we're really just talking about rounds 2-5, right?

- OOTP13 was not, for me, fun at all. You'd draft tons of great-looking guys, and they'd all die. What is fun about that? But far more importantly, if you did any kind of detailed comparison between OOTP13 and real life, you'd discover that draft values were all wrong. In real life, very early picks are very valuable, and things drop off very steeply. Past the first three or so rounds, player values are very flat in real life - a 5th round pick is barely worth more than an 8th round one. In OOTP13, the early round draft values were very flat, there was a gradual dropoff, and late round values were basically nil, because there was already so much talent generated in the early rounds, the game couldn't very well create superstars out of later round players too. OOTP14 isn't right either on the defaults (raising TCR to 150 or 200 makes it better), but it's a lot closer to being right.

And then, I actually don't know what people mean when they say they can't find good players in later rounds. Orcin posted his scout recommendation for the 3rd round earlier. I don't think that player looks very good (though I'd be happy to get him in the 7th round or something - I agree with others that he has some interesting tools). But I've just simmed to the middle of the 3rd round in my MLB style fictional league. It's a 30 team league, I generate a 25 round draft pool (smaller than normal), default scouting accuracy, a 'favor tools' scout with decent ratings. This is what I see, ratings out of 10:

* 17 players (including two catchers and five shortstops) my scout gives a '6' or better Contact potential. So these are guys my scout thinks will hit between .265 and .285 in the Majors. One guy gets a '7', which is around a .300 hitter. That guy is a RF with average power too, so I might draft him.

* 8 players get a '7' or '8' Power potential. So these are guys who should hit 25-35 HR per year. Four of those guys are outfielders too, not 1B.

* I've got pitchers rated in Stuff/Movement/Control as:

7/6/5
7/6/5
6/7/7
5/8/5
5/7/5
5/7/6
5/7/6
6/7/5
5/5/7
6/5/7

etc, etc, etc - easily twenty guys who are above average in two out of three categories. A lot of those guys are 2.5-pitch 'starters', but they still look pretty respectable. Just as a reference point, the two Cy Young winners last year in my league have 9/5/7 and 8/7/8 ratings. Those were the two best pitchers in the league. These 3rd round guys are just one small talent boost away from those kinds of ratings.

Then if I switch my view to 'OSA', suddenly I start seeing some '10' ratings. So I don't see what other people are seeing. I have lots of interesting guys to choose from in the third round.

[Tyler87898]

Originally Posted by injury log

First just a few random comments:

- Markus has told me that the number of draft rounds shouldn't affect the actual amount of talent you're creating (except in extreme cases). A 40 round draft should just have more scrubs than a 20 round one, not more stars.

- surely no one expects drafting in the 12th round to be especially engaging? I'm pretty sure it's kind of boring in real life too. So we're really just talking about rounds 2-5, right?

- OOTP13 was not, for me, fun at all. You'd draft tons of great-looking guys, and they'd all die. What is fun about that? But far more importantly, if you did any kind of detailed comparison between OOTP13 and real life, you'd discover that draft values were all wrong. In real life, very early picks are very valuable, and things drop off very steeply. Past the first three or so rounds, player values are very flat in real life - a 5th round pick is barely worth more than an 8th round one. In OOTP13, the early round draft values were very flat, there was a gradual dropoff, and late round values were basically nil, because there was already so much talent generated in the early rounds, the game couldn't very well create superstars out of later round players too. OOTP14 isn't right either on the defaults (raising TCR to 150 or 200 makes it better), but it's a lot closer to being right.

And then, I actually don't know what people mean when they say they can't find good players in later rounds. Orcin posted his scout recommendation for the 3rd round earlier. I don't think that player looks very good (though I'd be happy to get him in the 7th round or something - I agree with others that he has some interesting tools). But I've just simmed to the middle of the 3rd round in my MLB style fictional league. It's a 30 team league, I generate a 25 round draft pool (smaller than normal), default scouting accuracy, a 'favor tools' scout with decent ratings. This is what I see, ratings out of 10:

* 17 players (including two catchers and five shortstops) my scout gives a '6' or better Contact potential. So these are guys my scout thinks will hit between .265 and .285 in the Majors. One guy gets a '7', which is around a .300 hitter. That guy is a RF with average power too, so I might draft him.

* 8 players get a '7' or '8' Power potential. So these are guys who should hit 25-35 HR per year. Four of those guys are outfielders too, not 1B.

* I've got pitchers rated in Stuff/Movement/Control as:

7/6/5
7/6/5
6/7/7
5/8/5
5/7/5
5/7/6
5/7/6
6/7/5
5/5/7
6/5/7

etc, etc, etc - easily twenty guys who are above average in two out of three categories. A lot of those guys are 2.5-pitch 'starters', but they still look pretty respectable. Just as a reference point, the two Cy Young winners last year in my league have 9/5/7 and 8/7/8 ratings. Those were the two best pitchers in the league. These 3rd round guys are just one small talent boost away from those kinds of ratings.

Then if I switch my view to 'OSA', suddenly I start seeing some '10' ratings. So I don't see what other people are seeing. I have lots of interesting guys to choose from in the third round.

Weird. My drafts are 30 rounds, 35 rounds of players generated. Those types of starters (do all of them have at least 3 decent pitches by the way?) are drafted 1st 10 picks. The rest is horrible. I mean, I'm one of the people that like 14's draft better, but I have not gotten a lot of pitchers that look like that in the 3rd round , nevermind the 2nd.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by orcin

yes. The best approach would be a compromise between the two extremes that we have seen.

+1

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by injury log

etc, etc, etc - easily twenty guys who are above average in two out of three categories. A lot of those guys are 2.5-pitch 'starters', but they still look pretty respectable. Just as a reference point, the two Cy Young winners last year in my league have 9/5/7 and 8/7/8 ratings. Those were the two best pitchers in the league. These 3rd round guys are just one small talent boost away from those kinds of ratings.

Then if I switch my view to 'OSA', suddenly I start seeing some '10' ratings. So I don't see what other people are seeing. I have lots of interesting guys to choose from in the third round.

I guess I should submit my league files for examination. There was not one player as good as any of those in my third round.

I imported this league from OOTP13, if that matters.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I guess I should submit my league files for examination. There was not one player as good as any of those in my third round.

I imported this league from OOTP13, if that matters.

How many seasons (drafts) in v14?

[SirMichaelJordan]

Since I am in the process of creating a new MLB Universe with KBO, Japan Indy, etc.. and don't have a current save active anymore. I decide to run a quick 10 year sim with the MLB quick start my current settings of:

Developing/Aging= default !.000
TCR= 200
AI Eval= 25/25/25/25
Scouting= 100% (testing reasons)

2-8 rating scale

I ran into this HR Leader who was drafted in the 17th round in 2014 draft (I skipped the 2013 draft because of the custom made prospects) This guy will lead the league in HR and SO lol. With a quick glance he was the best player I could fine in the 2014 draft class that was a late pick who also made an All Star appearance.

[IMG]Uploaded with ImageShack.com
Uploaded with ImageShack.com
Uploaded with ImageShack.com
Uploaded with ImageShack.com
Uploaded with ImageShack.com
Uploaded with ImageShack.com[/IMG]

1084 of the 1200 drafted players were deleted because they never made it to the majors.

18 of the 30 1st round picks contributed to the Majors one way or another (not including the supplemental picks which were 4) 18 in one round was the most of any rounds. So even though the talent is spread (TCR 200) most of the players who were promoted to the majors (bench-superstar) are still from the 1st round.

Oh and 13 guys that never made it to the show that are still in the FA pool who should be deleted soon. That's a total of 103 players from that draft class that had a call up. 22 coming from the 1st round alone (Including suppl) compared to 28 in the 2003 draft class.

[Walsh06]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Yes. The best approach would be a compromise between the two extremes that we have seen.

ummmm.... what?? Could you answer the question because Im really curious to know. For those who considered the old way more fun. Why is it fun??

As others said drafting a bunch of people who will probably suck and its out of my control was not fun for me at all. Now Im drafting trying to find something good be it defense or good college stats or something else that might make them better.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I guess I should submit my league files for examination. There was not one player as good as any of those in my third round.

If you flip the scout view to 'OSA', do you see any decent players in the third round? Even just by scouting error, there should be a few bad players who 'look good' no matter what view you have on, at least in the 3rd round. Are your PCMs set to the defaults?

And try hiring a scout who 'favors tools' or 'highly favors tools' and see if you like things better.

Originally Posted by Tyler87898

Weird. My drafts are 30 rounds, 35 rounds of players generated. Those types of starters (do all of them have at least 3 decent pitches by the way?)

No, there's a mix; a couple of 2-pitch guys, a lot of guys with 2 real pitches and one terrible changeup, and a few 3-pitch guys, though one or two of them seem to have really low Stamina, even though they're listed as 'SP'. Yes, it's hard to find good starting pitching past the second round, but I think that's pretty true in real life as well.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by RchW

How many seasons (drafts) in v14?

Three.

Originally Posted by Walsh06

ummmm.... what?? Could you answer the question because Im really curious to know. For those who considered the old way more fun. Why is it fun??

The reason should be obvious by now if you have read the thread. I answered this question many times already. But, just one more time... it was more interesting to draft players that, for a particular reason, looked like they had a chance to succeed, even if they ultimately didn't. I find it boring to draft from a pool of 1000 players that all look equally bad, as in dismally bad, and then wait to see which (if any) develop unexpectedly for no known reason.

Originally Posted by injury log

If you flip the scout view to 'OSA', do you see any decent players in the third round? Even just by scouting error, there should be a few bad players who 'look good' no matter what view you have on, at least in the 3rd round. Are your PCMs set to the defaults?

It's too late for me to try checking OSA in my current league. Draft is over until next season.

PCMs are set to the default (1.0000).

Why should a neutral scout be unable to see any good players in round 3 of the draft? The same neutral scout did not have any problem seeing good players in round 3 of OOTP13 drafts.

[YanksFan]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I imported this league from OOTP13, if that matters.

Yes it does matter. I have an MLB-style fictional league i imported from '13 and the talent level at draft time is similar to what you and Wolf have been speaking of. But if you start a fresh MLB-style or fictional league in '14 the talent or percieved talent at draft time is better. Fictionals are even a little better than the MLB-style from what i remember of the quick glance tests i did.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by YanksFan

Yes it does matter. I have an MLB-style fictional league i imported from '13 and the talent level at draft time is similar to what you and Wolf have been speaking of. But if you start a fresh MLB-style or fictional league in '14 the talent or percieved talent at draft time is better. Fictionals are even a little better than the MLB-style from what i remember of the quick glance tests i did.

Exactly what I was afraid of...

[Walsh06]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The reason should be obvious by now if you have read the thread. I answered this question many times already. But, just one more time... it was more interesting to draft players that, for a particular reason, looked like they had a chance to succeed, even if they ultimately didn't. I find it boring to draft from a pool of 1000 players that all look equally bad, as in dismally bad, and then wait to see which (if any) develop unexpectedly for no known reason.

I ask because it doesnt make sense to me and Im trying to understand. So you enjoyed picking guys that would probably end up sucking so there was no way of differentiating who was good and who wasnt. Now you actually have to differentiate them.

So is it the more work you dont find fun?? Or was it just the illusion of good players that you liked even if it meant nothing??