Has anyone noticed the MASSIVE increase in draft quality? - Page 2

jmarsh123 · 03-23-2016, 05:27 AM

I love this new feature. I got so bogged down looking through my filters trying to decide between all the 20/21 players after the 3rd round. I like my scout to tell me ceilings.

Sure that 18 year pitcher that throws 95 COULD turn into an ace if you draft him in the 17th round. IF he develops his changeup. IF he doesn't get hurt. IF he refines his curveball, etc.

tejdog1 · 03-23-2016, 08:06 AM

IF he doesn't decide to retire and become a ballroom dancer

Orcin · 03-23-2016, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griever20

I remember that we had the same discussion some OOTP's ago, when most players complained about how suddently the draft became incredibly shallow after 10-15 picks and one basically had to pick 1* players after the first two rounds.

I remember this conversation well. I am glad that Markus made this change. I think the new way will be more realistic and a lot more fun.

kevrock · 03-23-2016, 09:03 AM

So... is there some way to tell that a player is more likely to reach their ceiling? E.g. Bryce Harper and Strasburg were considered can't miss prospects.

Also, how does this affect feeder leagues that have been carried over from OOTP 16? My feeders have always had significantly less talent than the game generated drafts.

catcherjul · 03-23-2016, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevrock

So... is there some way to tell that a player is more likely to reach their ceiling? E.g. Bryce Harper and Strasburg were considered can't miss prospects.

Also, how does this affect feeder leagues that have been carried over from OOTP 16? My feeders have always had significantly less talent than the game generated drafts.

Can't miss prospect will probably be already 2-3* overall with a high potential. For the feeders, I saw a lot of guys with potential jump during the season so my first draft already had more potential superstar than before. The generated prospect are better now too.

PSUColonel · 03-23-2016, 11:45 AM

I have often wondered if there is a way to make this customizable

da commish · 03-23-2016, 12:12 PM

Does this change now mean that scouting the amateur draft pool will be more important and more $ should be spent on that, as well as having a better scout?

Ron. · 03-24-2016, 05:41 PM

This change definitely makes drafting and developing prospects more realistic and more interesting. It's also more challenging to manage your 40-man roster. I rarely kept more than 30 before, now I'm having to waive guys every year just to make room for new guys I want to protect.

I'm not sure it hasn't made top dollar IFAs too risky though. You're paying the same bonuses you were in 16 only now the players are much less likely to pan out.

Nez477 · 03-24-2016, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevrock

So... is there some way to tell that a player is more likely to reach their ceiling? E.g. Bryce Harper and Strasburg were considered can't miss prospects.

This is what I'm really hungry for. As it currently stands, you don't really know when you are taking a "risk" on a prospects potential vs. a "safe" pick.

What I'd love is the following (1-10 scales)

SS Spec with 8/9/7/9/6 potential. 5-star spec. But.... scouts question his devotion. Or scouts are concerned about his power rounding out. Something in game says "this guy could be a stud, but there are concerns"
LF Spec with 7/7/6/8/6 potential. 4-start spec. But..... he's really close to being a slam dunk.

Then you have the tough choice. Go with the slam dunk or go for the risk?

Or is this maybe not a reasonable ask? I feel, like kevrock said, there are sometimes some slam dunk prospects in the drafts nowadays. There should be SOME sort of differentiation on the risk factor IMO

catcherjul · 03-24-2016, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nez477

This is what I'm really hungry for. As it currently stands, you don't really know when you are taking a "risk" on a prospects potential vs. a "safe" pick.

What I'd love is the following (1-10 scales)

SS Spec with 8/9/7/9/6 potential. 5-star spec. But.... scouts question his devotion. Or scouts are concerned about his power rounding out. Something in game says "this guy could be a stud, but there are concerns"
LF Spec with 7/7/6/8/6 potential. 4-start spec. But..... he's really close to being a slam dunk.

Then you have the tough choice. Go with the slam dunk or go for the risk?

Or is this maybe not a reasonable ask? I feel, like kevrock said, there are sometimes some slam dunk prospects in the drafts nowadays. There should be SOME sort of differentiation on the risk factor IMO

Something similar to this could be very very interesting

CubbyFan23 · 03-24-2016, 07:57 PM

I'm curious - does this mean historical league players should tune talent change way down from where it defaults? Historical drafts seem to be more like how drafts were in OOTP16 and prior. Will the historical studs flame out more now?

jpeters1734 · 03-24-2016, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Yes, it is much more realistic now. In real life scouts usually think that a 10-th round draft pick does indeed have a small chance of becoming a usable player in the majors. The ratings of the draft pool is earlier versions of OOTP did not give that impression because there after round 3 or 4 everyone was at 1 star or less.

I think the problem is that too many people assume a 1 star potential player will never be a usable player in the majors.

I actually don't feel it's more realistic now because no real life GM thinks he's drafting 5 star players in the 3rd round. Hell, outside of the top 10 they are just trying to find players that will make it.

Take a look at the MLB top prospects. Lets highlight the top pick last draft and 8th overall. He's not even projected to be a 5 star guy. He's got a 60 overall which should be in the 4 star range. His individual ratings are far from how most of the 1st round players in ootp are represented.

I understand you are appealing to the masses because most people simply don't like looking at a realistic draft pool which is actually very bland.

Tyler87898 · 03-24-2016, 10:35 PM

Yeah, I remember a couple of versions ago we had a whole long argument/discussion on here on which type of draft pool would be best for the game. Personally, I agree that the draft pools of OOTP 16 were more realistic, but the new draft pools (or the really old draft pools) might be more fun. I would want more realism, but I don't care that much.
'

Ron. · 03-24-2016, 10:51 PM

You aren't seeing 5 star prospects in the 3rd round though. I get 2 or 3 per draft. By the third round it's mostly 3 star. None of the ratings correspond exactly with any real life rating--even the 20-80 rating isn't really analogous to the actual 20-80 rating that scouts use. With the old system 3rd round picks were virtually indistinguishable from 30th round picks, which seems much more off than how it is in 17.

Curve Ball Dave · 03-24-2016, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tejdog1

IF he doesn't decide to retire and become a ballroom dancer

Hey, don't knock it. Have you seen the babes those guys get to hang out with?

03-23-2016, 08:06 AM	#22
tejdog1 All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Danbury, CT Posts: 1,654	IF he doesn't decide to retire and become a ballroom dancer __________________ It's amazing How you make your face just like a wall How you take your heart and turn it off How I turn my head and lose it all And it's unnerving How just one move puts me by myself There you go just trusting someone else Now I know I put us both through hell ~Matchbox 20, "Leave" Everyone knows it's spelled "TRAID", not trade

03-23-2016, 05:27 AM	#21
jmarsh123 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 26	I love this new feature. I got so bogged down looking through my filters trying to decide between all the 20/21 players after the 3rd round. I like my scout to tell me ceilings. Sure that 18 year pitcher that throws 95 COULD turn into an ace if you draft him in the 17th round. IF he develops his changeup. IF he doesn't get hurt. IF he refines his curveball, etc.

03-23-2016, 09:03 AM	#24
kevrock Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 159	So... is there some way to tell that a player is more likely to reach their ceiling? E.g. Bryce Harper and Strasburg were considered can't miss prospects. Also, how does this affect feeder leagues that have been carried over from OOTP 16? My feeders have always had significantly less talent than the game generated drafts.

03-23-2016, 11:45 AM	#26
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,139	I have often wondered if there is a way to make this customizable

03-23-2016, 12:12 PM	#27
da commish All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Minnesota Posts: 555	Does this change now mean that scouting the amateur draft pool will be more important and more $ should be spent on that, as well as having a better scout?

03-24-2016, 05:41 PM	#28
Ron. Minors (Double A) Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 148	This change definitely makes drafting and developing prospects more realistic and more interesting. It's also more challenging to manage your 40-man roster. I rarely kept more than 30 before, now I'm having to waive guys every year just to make room for new guys I want to protect. I'm not sure it hasn't made top dollar IFAs too risky though. You're paying the same bonuses you were in 16 only now the players are much less likely to pan out.

03-24-2016, 07:57 PM	#31
CubbyFan23 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 2,257	I'm curious - does this mean historical league players should tune talent change way down from where it defaults? Historical drafts seem to be more like how drafts were in OOTP16 and prior. Will the historical studs flame out more now?

03-24-2016, 10:35 PM	#33
Tyler87898 All Star Reserve Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 794	Yeah, I remember a couple of versions ago we had a whole long argument/discussion on here on which type of draft pool would be best for the game. Personally, I agree that the draft pools of OOTP 16 were more realistic, but the new draft pools (or the really old draft pools) might be more fun. I would want more realism, but I don't care that much. '

03-24-2016, 10:51 PM	#34
Ron. Minors (Double A) Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 148	You aren't seeing 5 star prospects in the 3rd round though. I get 2 or 3 per draft. By the third round it's mostly 3 star. None of the ratings correspond exactly with any real life rating--even the 20-80 rating isn't really analogous to the actual 20-80 rating that scouts use. With the old system 3rd round picks were virtually indistinguishable from 30th round picks, which seems much more off than how it is in 17.