Draft pool low quality of players?

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by HolyCow98

Potential of 75..out of 80?

If its out of 80....I'm not sure I would want see a guy who is listed as " this guy wouldn't be a bad pick in the 3rd round..." with a 75 out of 80 potential.

If you mean 75 out of 100...then disregard

Is that what you guys are wanting? I'm curious....not trying to be inflammatory.

75/80 if everything goes right, but with a HUGE chance of busting. I feel like that's not a first rounder.

Am I wrong? I mean... I might be projecting Casey Meisner too high, but I feel like he could become a Syndergaard-esque prospect. Projecting muscle onto his 6'7/170 frame, projecting him to gain velocity, etc... all that.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by HolyCow98

Potential of 75..out of 80?

If its out of 80....I'm not sure I would want see a guy who is listed as " this guy wouldn't be a bad pick in the 3rd round..." with a 75 out of 80 potential.

If you mean 75 out of 100...then disregard

Is that what you guys are wanting? I'm curious....not trying to be inflammatory.

Well 75 is way too high. I hope that's not what they're wanting. That the same potential as a Top 5-10 overall prospect in the MLB roster set. To have a raw but promising third round pick with that sort of potential is kind of much, to say the least.

Meisner is rated as a 20 overall in the MLB roster set. Now he's a darn, darn good 20 that projects as a potential 4th starter type in game as is and could easily hit the top 50 prospect list and look like a top 2 starter if he gets one talent boost, but he's still a 20.

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Well 75 is way too high. I hope that's not what they're wanting. That the same potential as a Top 5-10 overall prospect in the MLB roster set. To have a raw but promising third round pick with that sort of potential is kind of much, to say the least.

Meisner is rated as a 20 overall in the MLB roster set. Now he's a darn, darn good 20 that projects as a potential 4th starter type in game as is and could easily hit the top 50 prospect list and look like a top 2 starter if he gets one talent boost, but he's still a 20.

How do you know he's a "good 20"? What tells you that?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

but I feel like he could become a Syndergaard-esque prospect. Projecting muscle onto his 6'7/170 frame, projecting him to gain velocity, etc... all that.

He could easily have all that happen in in game as is as a 20 overall prospect.

He just needs to get a talent boost or two, which would simulate that projection filling out. The game doesn't have all a players potential there to begin with.

Potential in game is just their current most likely potential, not the absolute max level they can ever achieve. As I'm sure you realize, it's a very fluid thing that, especially with high .TCM's changes frequently.

[HolyCow98]

I think I just have a hard time envisioning a draft pool where a guy is projected to go in the 3rd round or later and is has a 75 out of 80 potential. That would mean there is 2 to 3 round of 5* prospects. That seems like a very deep draft class or severe over valuing. I'm just not sure I would like that...but that is me. I'll adapt to anything.

On the flipside, I need to think about it in the context of how you are saying it potential ceiling + boom/bust probability. I kinda of do that already with Intelligence + Work Ethic + Health but a boom/bust value would be more streamlined I think. It feels like one of those things I would need to see in action before I had a feeling on it.

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

He could easily have all that happen in in game as is as a 20 overall prospect.

He just needs to get a talent boost or two, which would simulate that projection filling out. The game doesn't have all a players potential there to begin with.

Potential in game is just their current most likely potential, not the absolute max level they can ever achieve. As I'm sure you realize, it's a very fluid thing that, especially with high .TCM's changes frequently.

Gotcha.
I guess that's what I want changed. I'd want to see "Absolute max level potential" but obviously not everyone would get there. In fact most wouldn't. I'd rather see that + boom/bust factor, plus work ethic/intelligence factoring in, etc...

Although I suppose it works in reverse right now? Work ethic/intelligence + having great coaches up and down the system = more likely to have a +TCR?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

How do you know he's a "good 20"? What tells you that?

His component ratings. His stuff rating is 116 (throws 91-93). His individual fb and cb ratings are both 163, which is excellent. Movement is 127 and control 109. Stamina is 125.

He's a 20 but teetering on the brink of being a 40 or so. There's really not much difference at all between a 20 that's at Meisner's level and a 40.

That's a decent MLB pitcher right there if he just hits that potential. If he gets a couple good talent boosts then yeah, he could end up close to Syndergaard levels. If not he won't, and it's not likely he will, but that's true irl anyway.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

Although I suppose it works in reverse right now? Work ethic/intelligence + having great coaches up and down the system = more likely to have a +TCR?

Yeah, sure does.

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

His component ratings. His stuff rating is 116 (throws 91-93). His individual fb and cb ratings are both 163, which is excellent. Movement is 127 and control 109. Stamina is 125.

He's a 20 but teetering on the brink of being a 40 or so. There's really not much difference at all between a 20 that's at Meisner's level and a 40.

That's a decent MLB pitcher right there if he just hits that potential. If he gets a couple good talent boosts then yeah, he could end up close to Syndergaard levels. If not he won't, and it's not likely he will, but that's true irl anyway.

Ah, that makes alot of sense. Thanks Lukas.
And yeah, I know it's not likely IRL, but I'm dreaming big

[Roy Tucker]

Trading places: Jason Heyward, Freddie Freeman on divergent paths - MLB - Ben Reiter - SI.com

An interesting article about how Heyward and Freeman were seen as prospects and how they are seen now.

Some Key Quotes:

Since he became Atlanta's full-time first baseman on Opening Day of 2011, Freeman has essentially maxed out his talent and developmental curve.

By the age of 24, he has gone from a player once projected to be perhaps an above-average starter into one who toes the line between star and superstar, one whose only readily identifiable shortcoming is a lack of footspeed.

When Heyward was a prospect, the consensus was that his swing, though slightly unorthodox, worked for him, so extreme was his talent. As it has turned out, the scout says, it is the one thing that has separated him from greatness, giving pitchers a clearly identifiable hole to attack

[HolyCow98]

As a Braves fan, thanks for the link.

[Walsh06]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I laugh at your opinion on this, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe that you can't have one.

You can certainly have an opinion on if you like it or not. We have seen that plenty from you. My point is it has no factor on the programmers on the game. Neither does me liking it. It was their decision and thats that.

Also it would help to answer Lukas's question about what would make the draft interesting to you again outside of "I want the old way". The end results are the same the only thing thats different is draft day. So be constructive and try and help people come up with a solution.

Also I never have a problem going for guys later on. I look at guys with good defense and running, high contact and eye so they can at least get on base for me, I look at college stats, I look at personality ratings. Im pretty sure those were all the things looked before just the numbers are smaller. (This last paragraph is not directed at you wolf, just general thoughts on the topic)

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I'm wondering if while going through the draft in this version, it might be helpful to use the relative rating scale and drop the level as you go. Guys that you can't tell apart on the major league scale should have differences on, say, a AA scale and so on. I haven't actually gotten to the point of doing this, but it is a possible benefit from that new feature that I've been rolling around in my head.

So, I decided to try this with and see what it looked like. I created a fictional MLB setup and simmed to the draft and then counted the number of players with each star potential while looking through the relative eyes of MLB, AAA and AA. Here are the results.

MLB

5.0: 1
4.5: 2
4.0: 9
3.5: 13
3.0: 22
2.5: 106
2.0: 356
1.5: 178
1.0: 26
0.5: 220

AAA

5.0: 175
4.5: 29
4.0: 56
3.5: 53
3.0: 61
2.5: 117
2.0: 116
1.5: 82
1.0: 24
0.5: 220

AA

5.0: 270
4.5: 52
4.0: 86
3.5: 87
3.0: 85
2.5: 100
2.0: 58
1.5: 85
1.0: 32
0.5: 78


Next, I'm thinking I'll sim 20 years and see what the star ratings for that draft class looks like through each level's eyes.

[Rain King]

While that is simming (it is going to take a while on my old machine), it leaves me to wonder a few things. The OP in this thread mentioned that he only had something like 35 players over 1 star potential in his league. The above data shows many more than that. So, my first thought is that his league probably has much higher talent levels than a default fictional OOTP league. However, lukasberger seemed to indicate that his numbers were normal...which confuses me a bit. I know that lukasberger has worked extensively with the real world roster set, could it be that the draft classes (star-wise) look much different against that set than an initial fictional league that OOTP creates?

[SirMichaelJordan]

I mentioned something about using the relative rating in the thread before.

People have to realize that everyone in the draft is not a MLB quality player. When setting the relative rating to AAA, the amount of 5* players is really interesting.

We aren't just drafting for the future 40 man roster but we are also drafting for organization depth.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by HolyCow98

On the flipside, I need to think about it in the context of how you are saying it potential ceiling + boom/bust probability. I kinda of do that already with Intelligence + Work Ethic + Health but a boom/bust value would be more streamlined I think. It feels like one of those things I would need to see in action before I had a feeling on it.

Yea it seems too "gamey" to me. Something you'll see in Madden.

What would it be? A probability of a player becoming a sure thing or not? How accurate would that be?

"This guy has a 80 potential but his boom/bust factor is 40"

if anything, boom/bust factor should be tied into work ethic/intelligence if its not already.

IRL potential is subjective and of course a blog or site dedicated to a specific team are going to be bias on its own players and hype up its new found prospects as if they are the next best thing. Heck even Reese Havens had some kind of hype.

[Avindian]

Originally Posted by Avindian

I don't want to bring up an entirely different point, but it is germane to the discussion, in my opinion.

The major problem seems to be the clustering of 1* draft players, without an easy way to differentiate between them. The draft should be fun: by that, I mean that if I spend a bit of time comparing players, I'll have a better shot at telling which players have a future and which do not, 1* rating aside.

So... why not make high school/college stats (especially college stats) more relevant? It could be that the stats are already very relevant, but I seem to recall discussions from a year or two ago that indicated that purely sabermetric scouting (that is, ignoring ratings entirely) was almost entirely useless. Am I mistaken?

Posting this partially to bump it (since I think it got missed ) but also to add another thought. I know OOTP has some kind of deal with Baseball Prospectus -- do you have enough access to PECOTA to add a possible Breakout/Improvement/Collapse %, as BP uses?

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Yea it seems too "gamey" to me. Something you'll see in Madden.

What would it be? A probability of a player becoming a sure thing or not? How accurate would that be?

"This guy has a 80 potential but his boom/bust factor is 40"

if anything, boom/bust factor should be tied into work ethic/intelligence if its not already.

This is the kind of thing scouts write up all the time.

There are some prospects that are high floor, low ceiling guys, and others that are high potential, high risk, and you see allusion to it all the time in scouting reports. For example, lots of power hitters with big swings struggle with handling breaking pitches; if they figure them out, the potential is huge, if they can't, they stop at AAA. A guy who already has a tight compact swing and already hits breaking balls well can still improve, but its the difference in improving on something you already do well vs. on something you can't do at all -- the latter guy has more room to grow. A guy who struggles with focus and concentration is more of a boom/bust prospect than one who doesn't. Etc.


In general, a lot of the things that scouts can and do project aren't projected in OOTP -- there are some pitchers that have the body to add a few mph to the fastball, and others that don't. There are some defenders that have room to improve, there are some that have maxed out. Personally, I'd like to see all of them projected (and things like batting eye not projected, because it isn't); Failing that, especially high boom/bust potential could be reflected in the scouting reports.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by frangipard

This is the kind of thing scouts write up all the time.

There are some prospects that are high floor, low ceiling guys, and others that are high potential, high risk, and you see allusion to it all the time in scouting reports. For example, lots of power hitters with big swings struggle with handling breaking pitches; if they figure them out, the potential is huge, if they can't, they stop at AAA. A guy who already has a tight compact swing and already hits breaking balls well can still improve, but its the difference in improving on something you already do well vs. on something you can't do at all -- the latter guy has more room to grow. A guy who struggles with focus and concentration is more of a boom/bust prospect than one who doesn't. Etc.


In general, a lot of the things that scouts can and do project aren't projected in OOTP -- there are some pitchers that have the body to add a few mph to the fastball, and others that don't. There are some defenders that have room to improve, there are some that have maxed out. Personally, I'd like to see all of them projected (and things like batting eye not projected, because it isn't); Failing that, especially high boom/bust potential could be reflected in the scouting reports.

Isn't that work ethic and intelligence?

How else are these scouts determining if a guy is a risk or a boom or bust prospect?

Even real life scout's written report is subjective and based on being optimistic.

I in fact do the same thing when I draft late rounds. I pick players based on individual skill (too much weight is being given to the OVR star rating in this thread) and have an optimistic look on a guy getting things right in the future. I treat work ethic and intelligence like another rating.

In real life. If a player is one of the select few to be drafted by an MLB team in the entire US than this guy is already an elite baseball player. Real life scouts are going to be optimistic on prospects because these guys are the cream of the crop when it comes to amateur baseball in the US (Canada & PR)

In OOTP, the user doesn't see it from this perspective and automatically thinks that a 20 player is comparable to some player in a rec league and shouldn't be in the draft and has no hope of fixing things in the future because his star potential rating says 20.

Thing is, a 20 is good enough to be a useful player in OOTP. The game doesn't have a bunch of maxed out players in it.

[pjh5165]

Another thing that needs to be taken into consideration with the draft potential is that if, as many of you have suggested, there is more clear differentiation between guys at the end of the draft, it will inevitably become another human vs AI exploit that we can use to our advantage.