No good pitchers in Draft

[PSUColonel]

One thing to look at…perhaps it’s true that batters should NOT be rated as highly as they are in the draft pool.

[PSUColonel]

While we are on this subject…RP in the game have artificially high overall/ potentials. It would be nice if they were brought back down to earth to represent their true value. So an elite RP would really never be more than a 65.

[andyhdz]

Well RPs are high relative to other RPs correct? Because if you switch them to Starters their ratings will always take a hit.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by andyhdz

Well RPs are high relative to other RPs correct? Because if you switch them to Starters their ratings will always take a hit.

Yes, but the problem is that aren’t really relative in the sense of how the game uses OVR relative to position players. Meaning that there is a setting the based OVR on players or positions where if you select all players, the catcher who was once a 80 because he was rated against other catchers is now a 60 because he is currently rated against all players. This isn’t the case with pitchers and as is, you will get way more CL/RP rated at 80 than you would ever see a SP. There are rarely any 80 rated SP’s in the game and ironically this plays a part of way this thread was created in the first place. The confusion.

[BarneyRubble]

There are a few different takes on this, but they are all similar.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by BarneyRubble

There are a few different takes on this, but they are all similar.

Yep…this looks right to me, and is how it should be reflected in OOTP.

[Dave Stieb II]

Yep....agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I'm shocked that fangraphs is currently projecting one 50 (average) FV player to come out of the entire 2022 draft class.

But I am not posting to simply reiterate that fact.

I have finally figured out what concerns me about ootp's obvious attempt to add more 'fog of war' to scouting in version 2023. This is the only part I really have an issue with.

It has to do with the responsibility of scouting directors/staff to provide discernable/manageable groups of players to evaluate at each level and provide the organization with some clarity in their projections - no matter how right or wrong they turn out to be. I will try to explain momentarily.

But first, what I am referring to has NOTHING to do with.....

1. Nothing to do with scouting accuracy - I have always played at the normal level. I hope to continue to do just that. I believe those who want more accuracy should bump it up, those who want less should bump it down. I am hoping normal will reflect real life as much as possible.

2. Nothing to do with overall grades - I really don't care whether the OOTP draft class has one 50 FV rated player at the top of its board (ie fangraphs) or an ungodly number of 60's (ie mlb pipeline). Eventually, everything sorts itself out in #3 so it doesn't really matter to me. (which also has nothing to do with my concern).

3. Nothing to do with what happens from one second after the draft forward - We all know what happens once the development process begins is a crapshoot, both iRL and OOTP. In OOTP, what becomes of players after draft day is baked in under the hood (where I never venture) and impacted by TCR, which can be increased or decreased to suit each customer's tastes. So this has nothing to do with what happens once the draft is over.

My only concern is that if each subset of players at each level (i.e. 45 FV overall) is too unwieldy, and there is nothing to reasonably differentiate the players in their individual skillsets, then scouting becomes entirely irrelevant.

Again, accuracy is irrelevant here (until I fire them, but that's in-game), but scouts IRL are required to take some responsibility for discerning between groups of players and to take some ownership for providing a reasonable differentation in their evaulations. Not necessarily from player A to B to C, but in subsets A to B to C. And, most importantly, to some degree within each subset.

IRL, if a scouting director threw a draft list on the GM's table and said, "well, you really could take any one of these 50 players with the 10th pick" they'd be fired immediately following the draft. They have to take ownership and, in every case I'm aware of, cherish the opportunity to conduct their own drafts.

Obviously, as the draft unfolds, there will - and should - be larger and larger groups of players in each subset. That is only natural. But in the first few rounds, scouts need to bring some clarity to their lists.

As an example of providing some clarity, here is a breakdown of the 95 players on fangraphs' current draft board. It shows the FV (potential overall) and the number of players in each group. Please note that no one group is so unwieldy that a review of their ratings for individual skillsets wouldn't help refine the choice - and provide more clarity.

50 - 1
45+ - 6
45 - 18
40+ - 27
40 - 19
35+ - 12
35 - 12

[Cluboris]

Originally Posted by Dave Stieb II

Yep....agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I'm shocked that fangraphs is currently projecting one 50 (average) FV player to come out of the entire 2022 draft class.

But I am not posting to simply reiterate that fact.

I have finally figured out what concerns me about ootp's obvious attempt to add more 'fog of war' to scouting in version 2023. This is the only part I really have an issue with.

It has to do with the responsibility of scouting directors/staff to provide discernable/manageable groups of players to evaluate at each level and provide the organization with some clarity in their projections - no matter how right or wrong they turn out to be. I will try to explain momentarily.

But first, what I am referring to has NOTHING to do with.....

1. Nothing to do with scouting accuracy - I have always played at the normal level. I hope to continue to do just that. I believe those who want more accuracy should bump it up, those who want less should bump it down. I am hoping normal will reflect real life as much as possible.

2. Nothing to do with overall grades - I really don't care whether the OOTP draft class has one 50 FV rated player at the top of its board (ie fangraphs) or an ungodly number of 60's (ie mlb pipeline). Eventually, everything sorts itself out in #3 so it doesn't really matter to me. (which also has nothing to do with my concern).

3. Nothing to do with what happens from one second after the draft forward - We all know what happens once the development process begins is a crapshoot, both iRL and OOTP. In OOTP, what becomes of players after draft day is baked in under the hood (where I never venture) and impacted by TCR, which can be increased or decreased to suit each customer's tastes. So this has nothing to do with what happens once the draft is over.

My only concern is that if each subset of players at each level (i.e. 45 FV overall) is too unwieldy, and there is nothing to reasonably differentiate the players in their individual skillsets, then scouting becomes entirely irrelevant.

Again, accuracy is irrelevant here (until I fire them, but that's in-game), but scouts IRL are required to take some responsibility for discerning between groups of players and to take some ownership for providing a reasonable differentation in their evaulations. Not necessarily from player A to B to C, but in subsets A to B to C. And, most importantly, to some degree within each subset.

IRL, if a scouting director threw a draft list on the GM's table and said, "well, you really could take any one of these 50 players with the 10th pick" they'd be fired immediately following the draft. They have to take ownership and, in every case I'm aware of, cherish the opportunity to conduct their own drafts.

Obviously, as the draft unfolds, there will - and should - be larger and larger groups of players in each subset. That is only natural. But in the first few rounds, scouts need to bring some clarity to their lists.

As an example of providing some clarity, here is a breakdown of the 95 players on fangraphs' current draft board. It shows the FV (potential overall) and the number of players in each group. Please note that no one group is so unwieldy that a review of their ratings for individual skillsets wouldn't help refine the choice - and provide more clarity.

50 - 1
45+ - 6
45 - 18
40+ - 27
40 - 19
35+ - 12
35 - 12

Thanks for posting this. You said much more eloquently what I was trying to get across. I don't care if OOTP rates pitchers as mostly lower, or mostly higher. I just want to look at the list the scout provides and make an educated guess as to who I should draft. If all the pitchers are rated the same, I might as well throw a dart at one and pick him.

The chance of me taking a guy who actually pans out might be the same odds as the dart throw, but the scout should be helping me by saying, "throw a dart at these 25 guys" instead of 100's of guys. Right now, I can do that with hitters, but not with pitchers.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Cluboris

Thanks for posting this. You said much more eloquently what I was trying to get across. I don't care if OOTP rates pitchers as mostly lower, or mostly higher. I just want to look at the list the scout provides and make an educated guess as to who I should draft. If all the pitchers are rated the same, I might as well throw a dart at one and pick him.

The chance of me taking a guy who actually pans out might be the same odds as the dart throw, but the scout should be helping me by saying, "throw a dart at these 25 guys" instead of 100's of guys. Right now, I can do that with hitters, but not with pitchers.

In the lists shown in the screen shots here I see differences between all of those pitchers and I can't even see their current skills, their personality traits, their stats from the league they are coming from, nor, for that matter, the league they are coming from.

I can see differences in velocity, ground balls, hold, stamina, height, weight. All of these things make a huge difference on who I draft in my OOTP game.

I use "overall" 20-80 not stars. Stars are the worst, other than as a starting spot with overall being slightly behind stars IMHO. I've never drafted a player based on overall whether potential or current. Those are guides that tell me where to start drilling down into the players actual skills and personality type ratings.

Those skill ratings are not the scout "being responsible for differentiating" the players? To me they are just that. I certainly wouldn't be looking at the examples here and thinking "I just as well throw a dart at the list.".

[locuspc]

When you consider all the other problems with pitcher stuff in this release, it's hard to view this as anything but a bug. I don't know what the devs did to pitchers when they updated the engine, but they screwed them up badly. I had an international free agent class come in without any pitchers above 30 scouted stuff potential, and you can go look at the underlying ratings and see under the hood stuff potentials of 100-140, which should rate around 50 or 60.

[Cluboris]

Originally Posted by Sweed

In the lists shown in the screen shots here I see differences between all of those pitchers and I can't even see their current skills, their personality traits, their stats from the league they are coming from, nor, for that matter, the league they are coming from.

I can see differences in velocity, ground balls, hold, stamina, height, weight. All of these things make a huge difference on who I draft in my OOTP game.

I use "overall" 20-80 not stars. Stars are the worst, other than as a starting spot with overall being slightly behind stars IMHO. I've never drafted a player based on overall whether potential or current. Those are guides that tell me where to start drilling down into the players actual skills and personality type ratings.

Those skill ratings are not the scout "being responsible for differentiating" the players? To me they are just that. I certainly wouldn't be looking at the examples here and thinking "I just as well throw a dart at the list.".

I use ratings and stars. I don't think stars are the worst. I have used them in the past and I use them currently to do just what you said, which is act as a starting point and go from there.

A lot of the stuff in that list aren't things a scout gives me an estimation on, other than maybe hold and stamina. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, as others definitely know more than I do about the ins and outs of the engine, but the scout isn't guessing if a guy is intelligent or has a low work ethic, tall or throws 99 mph. Those are things that are baked in to what the engine determines. They don't appear or become more accurate after I assign a scout to them. I use personality traits, velocity, etc as tie breakers, or look at stats to see if maybe the scout is under or overestimating the value of the player.

Like Locus said, there is a huge difference to how the game is analyzing pitcher potential this year vs previous years. If this is working as intended, great. But why is it doing that for pitchers and not hitters?

[MikeS369]

I just noticed in my upcoming draft there are only 2 pitchers. Both RP.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Sweed

In the lists shown in the screen shots here I see differences between all of those pitchers and I can't even see their current skills, their personality traits, their stats from the league they are coming from, nor, for that matter, the league they are coming from.

I can see differences in velocity, ground balls, hold, stamina, height, weight. All of these things make a huge difference on who I draft in my OOTP game.

I use "overall" 20-80 not stars. Stars are the worst, other than as a starting spot with overall being slightly behind stars IMHO. I've never drafted a player based on overall whether potential or current. Those are guides that tell me where to start drilling down into the players actual skills and personality type ratings.

Those skill ratings are not the scout "being responsible for differentiating" the players? To me they are just that. I certainly wouldn't be looking at the examples here and thinking "I just as well throw a dart at the list.".

I personally turn OVR off. I actually come up with my own OVR when drafting to differentiate players. The info is there. Things like arm slot and pitching tendencies do matter.

I look at OVR as a tool for the AI.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I personally turn OVR off. I actually come up with my own OVR when drafting to differentiate players. The info is there. Things like arm slot and pitching tendencies do matter.

I look at OVR as a tool for the AI.

This is true…but overall still needs to be a “ballpark” figure.


EDIT: I was going to start a brand new save, but if this is changes, this seems like it might be one of the fixes requiring a new save in order for any potential changes to go into effect.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Cluboris

I use ratings and stars. I don't think stars are the worst. I have used them in the past and I use them currently to do just what you said, which is act as a starting point and go from there.

A lot of the stuff in that list aren't things a scout gives me an estimation on, other than maybe hold and stamina. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, as others definitely know more than I do about the ins and outs of the engine, but the scout isn't guessing if a guy is intelligent or has a low work ethic, tall or throws 99 mph. Those are things that are baked in to what the engine determines. They don't appear or become more accurate after I assign a scout to them. I use personality traits, velocity, etc as tie breakers, or look at stats to see if maybe the scout is under or overestimating the value of the player.

Like Locus said, there is a huge difference to how the game is analyzing pitcher potential this year vs previous years. If this is working as intended, great. But why is it doing that for pitchers and not hitters?

The point is these pitchers are not all the same nor do they look all the same. We were seeing people say they could just as well throw a dart. Just pointing out that's not true.


Why pitchers and not batters? I have no idea, I don't code the game.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I personally turn OVR off. I actually come up with my own OVR when drafting to differentiate players. The info is there. Things like arm slot and pitching tendencies do matter.

I look at OVR as a tool for the AI.

Yes, arm slots, is another to add to the things I posted to differentiate all of these pitchers that are "the same". Skill sets matter in OOTP as IRL.

I draft by skills while using peripherals as "tie breakers". That could be arm slot, GB\FB, pull hitter, fly ball hitter, work ethic, intelligence, etc. etc. etc.
I work from my draft board shortlist. When I build my draft board I don't use overall. I sort with filters for minimum skills I want in my players. The list if of players I get are rated whatever they are rated. When the draft comes each pick is deliberated on a case by case basis weighing available players in the moment.

[Cluboris]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Yes, arm slots, is another to add to the things I posted to differentiate all of these pitchers that are "the same". Skill sets matter in OOTP as IRL.

I draft by skills while using peripherals as "tie breakers". That could be arm slot, GB\FB, pull hitter, fly ball hitter, work ethic, intelligence, etc. etc. etc.
I work from my draft board shortlist. When I build my draft board I don't use overall. I sort with filters for minimum skills I want in my players. The list if of players I get are rated whatever they are rated. When the draft comes each pick is deliberated on a case by case basis weighing available players in the moment.

My only point was, for the last several days, I had seen people posting here and on Reddit and Discord, that the way scouts were rating newly created pitchers seemed to be off, especially when compared to hitters. My admittedly amateurish way of testing this seemed to confirm it, and I wanted to add my 2 cents. It appears to be related to how the scout looks at a pitcher's STUFF rating. MOV and CON look normal to me. STUFF just seems kind of lumped together. If you create a bunch of 18-21 year olds in the FA pool at 50 percent development, legend quality, Potential STUFF as graded by the scout is low across the board, even with guys having superstar STUFF ratings in the editor, even with a scout that heavily favors tools. I am just hoping the devs can take a look at it and confirm if this is indeed a bug or something that is working as intended, so I can finally start my new long term save.

[thenewchuckd]

Yeah stuff scouting for amateurs is broken. I went through 6 drafts with no amateurs having potential stuff above 50. Even 50 was highly exceptional. This applied to international amateurs as well.

I thought I'd just draft one of the guys with highish stuff potential (45) and very high control and movement. This approach didn't work either, guy spent 3 seasons in rookie ball and flamed out.

I am curious to know what arm slot does? What does it tell you in drafting?

I could see ignoring overall but if the scout can't get a proper read on stuff it seems to make pitcher drafting near impossible.

[thenewchuckd]

The top pitching prospect in my league has stuff potential of 55 (he's pitching in the majors) while the next one has stuff potential of 45. The 8th pitching prospect (#29 overall) has 1.5 star potential and 40 stuff potential.

I have the best scout in the league, legendary minors and majors scouting, these guys all have high or very high scouting accuracy and I spend 4+ million on majors and minors scouting.

[Dave Stieb II]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

The top pitching prospect in my league has stuff potential of 55 (he's pitching in the majors) while the next one has stuff potential of 45. The 8th pitching prospect (#29 overall) has 1.5 star potential and 40 stuff potential.

I have the best scout in the league, legendary minors and majors scouting, these guys all have high or very high scouting accuracy and I spend 4+ million on majors and minors scouting.

Oh, it's broke alright. No doubt about it.
Guess we'll just have to see if that is acknowledged and adjusted at some point.