Draft pool low quality of players?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

No offense, and I don't mean to get personal here, but I've never seen you post in GD

I took a little break.

, and I've never once heard of your league.

It's not my league. But it doesn't surprise me you've never heard of it.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I am not the FOBL. I was once in the FOBL. But, yes, it does seem to me that the moderator of the OOTP forums who is directly advocating for the game should be aware of the top few long-running leagues in existence.

I am not "the moderator of the OOTP forums". I'm not even a real moderator at all. I'm just listed as one

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

I ran a 100 year sim last night with full evolution while I slept. You're arguing like your league is sacred but you aren't willing to test settings to make sure stuff works the way you want it to?

Sounds like you want the devs to design your entire world for you and make sure it works even though there are literally tens of thousands of leagues that your mind could create.

"We've been running this league for years, so you make sure to do all kinds of extra legwork so everything works perfectly even though we do things a different way from others" is not a very compelling argument from a development standpoint, even though I'm sure Markus does everything in his power to try to help us all.

I don't think you're listening.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I am not "the moderator of the OOTP forums". I'm not even a real moderator at all. I'm just listed as one

Hey...my bad.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Hey...my bad.

No worries.

The real mods are listed as Global Moderator.

I'm just in it for the bigger PM box, cause of all the stuff I get from my work on the rosters.

It does go to show that even folks who've been around a while can miss things, as with my never having heard of the FOBL

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by Jythier

It's getting to the point where the conversation is becoming uninteresting because instead of addressing concerns we're addressing each other. All leagues are valid ways to play, guys.

Of course they are! But things are initially setup for the broad majority of users, who either want to simulate a MLB baseball world, or a historical world. Obviously, there are tons of customization options for fictional users as well.

Originally Posted by Jythier

So, it seems that it breaks down to this:

In years past, potential was shown that was higher than really expected.
Today, potential is shown that is lower than expected.

So in the past, more players ended up burning out than you'd hope.
Today, more players end up being stars, than you'd hope.

The problem isn't either of those things.

The problem is that there is no way to differentiate draft picks in a feeder-leagueless environment, so the draft becomes stale and boring. When potentials were looking higher, the draft wasn't stale or boring - you were picking FUTURE MAJOR LEAGUERS. Who might not pan out at all, but who might pan out beautifully!

OK, but the default Major League game does a great job with the way its player distribution is setup, as does the historical. Once you go fictional, why wouldn't you go with feeder leagues or be changing the way your players are created to do things the way you see fit! That is all I'm trying to say here. I play all three types of games, and I've found that especially with the additional options unveiled this year, that I can accomplish near anything I've put my mind to so far.

I know I was trying to help, but once people start throwing around the "well, I've been here a long time so you should know who I am and understand my plight" that is when threads deteriorate. Not one person was trivializing that man's problem.

By his own rationale, since he used MLB, only 132 (I'm not going back, I think that's the # he quoted) players had a WAR of 2 or higher last year. Out of all those players, I wonder how many didn't come in through the draft? I mean, I can think of a few just off the top of my head (Puig, Darvish, etc.)

If his league is supposed to simulate a fictional MLB-type universe, that would be a reason why his talent pool isn't the same as a real MLB universe, because he is restricting some of the very types of players that he would want under his parameters.

[Lukas Berger]

Since this thread has gone quite off track, maybe re-posting this will help get it back on track.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

That's my major complaint against the new system. Scouting prospects and drafting used to be a lot of the fun of OOTP. Now you might as well just use autodraft. Boring.

That's a valid point.

For the folks that don't like the new system, what would you propose to make it more fun for you?

The old system of creating higher ratings and knocking them down was equally unpopular with a different group and also led to some other side issues. So I don't think there's any chance of it coming back.

My point being that any proposal should probably not just be" bring the old system back".

But beyond that, do you guys have some ideas on what would make things more fun for you again?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by RonCo

The root of this problem is in the way player are created and developed (and influenced by the way they are scouted). These are base design things. They are tweaked by "default settings," but the system is not substantially altered in any way that is actually aligned with the environment. You can do it manually because of the design of player creation and whatnot. But it shouldn't have to be done that way.

"Fix" these, and then the question can become one of "default" settings regarding the source of the feeder streams (draft rounds, international signings, feeders, etc).

I think our disagreement on base design vs. default settings is one of semantics and we're both referring to the same thing, but using a different phrase.

Also, if you "fix" something for one league, it may become "broken" for another. That's why there can only be one default setting (or base design, as you call it), with the ability to customize those settings so they are no longer default.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I took a little break.



It's not my league. But it doesn't surprise me you've never heard of it.

Who cares if I've heard of it or you? And apparently, on your next post, "I'm not listening."

Actually, I've done nothing but listen and try to suggest ways to help the league you mentioned. And from your own words, it appears you aren't interested in really doing anything to make sure the league does what you want it to do.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Since this thread has gone quite off track, maybe re-posting this will help get it back on track.



That's a valid point.

For the folks that don't like the new system, what would you propose to make it more fun for you?

The old system of creating higher ratings and knocking them down was equally unpopular with a different group and also led to some other side issues. So I don't think there's any chance of it coming back.

My point being that any proposal should probably not just be" bring the old system back".

But beyond that, do you guys have some ideas on what would make things more fun for you again?

First of all, as someone else noted pages ago, the idea of fun is relative. So trying to make the draft fun for everyone may be a futile task. But since you asked, here's what I think.

For starters, I'd like to see more information on draft prospects. I don't have a concrete idea of how to deliver it or what that information would be, but something that may help the user distinguish between two players with the same star rating. Maybe it's more skill ratings (which would be a huge endeavor, I imagine), maybe it's a more in-depth scouting report, maybe it's more information on the talent level they faced in college or high school. The best idea I can think of is adding a scout's confidence rating to each draft prospect. In other words, your scout says Player A is a four-star prospect, but his confidence in that rating is low (maybe because the scout only saw him play a handful of times or he's from a state like Wyoming that doesn't have high school baseball, so the competition is weak). Or the scout's confidence is high because he saw him play every weekend for the past two months against top competition. Again, I'm just throwing ideas out there, mainly because I'm mostly satisfied with the current draft system.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

That's a valid point.

For the folks that don't like the new system, what would you propose to make it more fun for you?

An option to use the old system. I want to GM in the style of Billy Beane, not in the style of some cigar-smoking nonentity who calls up his scouting department and says "Draft whoever the Hell you want, because it's not going to make a damned bit of difference who we pick anyway."

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

An option to use the old system. I want to GM in the style of Billy Beane, not in the style of some cigar-smoking nonentity who calls up his scouting department and says "Draft whoever the Hell you want, because it's not going to make a damned bit of difference who we pick anyway."

Well, I'm pretty sure Billy Beane knows better than anyone that his 30th round pick has a 1.15% (or whatever) chance to be an MLB player and is likely to top out at SS-A.

[Walsh06]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Don't even try to tell me what my opinion is. To me this will always be a huge mistake.

Haha, I like that you think your opinion has some factor on this. If it was done intentionally its not a mistake.

[BIG17EASY]

I think the issue at the heart of Wolf's complaint is that it's nearly impossible to tell all the one-star or half-star-rated players apart once you get past the first or second round. And he's 100 percent correct. So how do you fix that? Seems to me we need a way to differentiate, or at least be able to make an effort at differentiating, between all those players.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

If his league is supposed to simulate a fictional MLB-type universe, that would be a reason why his talent pool isn't the same as a real MLB universe, because he is restricting some of the very types of players that he would want under his parameters.

You're not listening.

The FOBL does not and is not supposed to simulate the MLB. I will always advocate for the user. In that particular case, the user is the FOBL. The other user who is being "disenfranchised" is the user who wants to see more separation in their draft pools. These issues are linked, and are linked at the player creation and initial scouting level. Using draft classes and whether they look like MLB draft classes as the primary way to judge if this algorithm is working sounds like it should be a natural fit, but, alas, it is bad thinking and leads to results that require a lot of manual work by people who would really rather not do that manual work.

But, yes, they do it. And they do it because they love their leagues.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I think the issue at the heart of Wolf's complaint is that it's nearly impossible to tell all the one-star or half-star-rated players apart once you get past the first or second round. And he's 100 percent correct. So how do you fix that? Seems to me we need a way to differentiate, or at least be able to make an effort at differentiating, between all those players.

But, isn't the reason that the majority of these guys don't stand out is because they don't stand out?

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by RonCo

You're not listening.

The FOBL does not and is not supposed to simulate the MLB. I will always advocate for the user. In that particular case, the user is the FOBL. The other user who is being "disenfranchised" is the user who wants to see more separation in their draft pools. These issues are linked, and are linked at the player creation and initial scouting level. Using draft classes and whether they look like MLB draft classes as the primary way to judge if this algorithm is working sounds like it should be a natural fit, but, alas, it is bad thinking and leads to results that require a lot of manual work by people who would really rather not do that manual work.

But, yes, they do it. And they do it because they love their leagues.

I think I mentioned something earlier about incomplete information?

If you aren't SIMULATING THE MLB, then why would your draft class do it?

I think its quite pretentious to expect that any of us has the foggiest idea of your league settings. Guess what, if you aren't simulating the MLB, you've got to figure out how you want your player sources to work.

That's the whole thing about fictional... it's fictional. How in the hell is it supposed to know what you want if you don't tell it?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I think the issue at the heart of Wolf's complaint is that it's nearly impossible to tell all the one-star or half-star-rated players apart once you get past the first or second round. And he's 100 percent correct. So how do you fix that? Seems to me we need a way to differentiate, or at least be able to make an effort at differentiating, between all those players.

The ratings do allow a great deal of differentiating, so long as you use use the higher scales.

I guess that's why I've never quite been able to understand some of the complaints and was the point I was trying to make a few pages back when talking about the Italian league. There's a world of difference between a guy with a 70 contact (or power or stuff or any specific rating) potential on the 1-250 scale and one rated at 50.

That only shows up as a point if you use the 2-8 or 1-10 ratings, but it's the difference between someone with an outside shot at an MLB career and someone with no shot. Even very small differences in the ratings can mean a lot. Those differences show up quite well when you use the 1-100 scale and when you add them up over the 10+ important ratings for each player, not to mention consider character traits, etc. there is in fact a world of difference between any two guys with a 20 overall rating.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by RonCo

You're not listening.

The FOBL does not and is not supposed to simulate the MLB. I will always advocate for the user. In that particular case, the user is the FOBL. The other user who is being "disenfranchised" is the user who wants to see more separation in their draft pools. These issues are linked, and are linked at the player creation and initial scouting level. Using draft classes and whether they look like MLB draft classes as the primary way to judge if this algorithm is working sounds like it should be a natural fit, but, alas, it is bad thinking and leads to results that require a lot of manual work by people who would really rather not do that manual work.

But, yes, they do it. And they do it because they love their leagues.

The frustration of those in the FOBL is understood. I don't think anyone is arguing that. But the point is that OOTP gives us the ability to customize different settings to get the results we want. If we, as users, aren't willing to take the time to figure out what settings give us our desired results, then we don't have a right to complain that the game doesn't work the way we want it to. It can only be designed one way, and that way isn't going to fit for everyone. The logical "base design" is an MLB design because that's what the majority of baseball fans understand. If the user wants something other than that, the user needs to be willing to figure it out for him/herself.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

The ratings do allow a great deal of differentiating, so long as you use use the higher scales.

I guess that's why I've never quite been able to understand some of the complaints and was the point I was trying to make a few pages back. There's a world of difference between a guy with a 70 contact potential on the 1-250 scale and one rated at 50. Or power of whatever.

That only shows up as a point if you use the 2-8 or 1-10 ratings, but it's the difference between someone with an outside shot at an MLB career and someone with no shot. Even very small differences in the ratings can mean a lot. Those differences show up quite well when you use the 1-100 scale and when you add them up over the 5-10 important ratings for each player, there is in fact a world of difference between any two guys with a 20 overall rating.

I agree. I use the 20-80 scale, mainly because that's the accepted scale among real-life scouts and teams, but it also gives enough differentiation that I can find a one-star player with a good skill or two. But I also understand that others use much smaller scales that don't provide that range.

My answer was simply an attempt to give you some talking points. The ideas I came up with would provide me personally with a deeper level of immersion, but won't necessarily change my draft experience greatly because, as I said, I'm pretty satisfied with the current draft model.