Can we tone down OOTP created draft class overall potentials?

[atlbrave1]

FYI, if you are fictional league player you can create the "reduced" potential draft classes you want if you simply lower the PCMs and adjust the league totals. It will take some tinkering, but I did a quick and dirty and adjusted all batters PCMs to .75 and pitchers to .70 then increased hits to 1.15 and got decent statistical results with player pools with "reduced" potential. I know people don't think they should have to mess around with that stuff, but it is there for those who want to create their own perfect universe.

I know that is not how most people play - pretty sure most are MLB players, so if the developers want to go that way, they would also need to adjust the current pool of MLB players ratings to align with incoming classes. And I think that there would be more screaming about changing those ratings than there is about the draft classes. (Just created a MLB league and OSA rates Elly as an 80 potential, Drake Baldwin as a 75 potential? - maybe 65 and 60 respectively at top end and I wouldn't argue 60 and 55).

As noted previously, if the more realistic classes were created I also think the development would need to be changed (less reductions in potential overall being the major change) and that's probably a more significant overhaul.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by redranger

I have a question on the draft pool ratings. Are these ratings based solely on the talent only within the draft class? Meaning once the draft is completed and players are signed and distributed throughout the teams minors system, are the ratings dropping or lining up more in line with the overall league?

It seems I’ve seen higher rating while drafting but once I’ve placed them they seem to change more in line with the overall league.

Fortunately I’m coming up on my draft in my league and I’ll pay close attention to this once it completed and player get distributed around the minors


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you are just seeing the "natural" decrease of the inflated ratings the game creates for "fun". The verification IMHO comes from the fact you can still see the projected ratings based on "relative to league level". Ie you can see the players in the context of rookie ball all the way up to MLB. To be sure the menu to change the "relative to" isn't on the draft screen but that doesn't mean you can't use it.

All you have to do is open one player, change the relative to the league you want, close the player, and the draft class is now displayed in the context of the league you selected.

Here is an example from my league using a filter to only look at 80 potential overall players while changing the "relative to" setting.

Relative to MLB=80 pot. 15 players
Relative to AAA=80 pot. 142 players
jump down to relative to Rookie and you get, 595 players

IMHO the relative to menu should be on the draft screen. All using it does is ask your scout for an opinion on how the player would rate at league level "x". It's no different than how it is used on your team's organization tab.

Originally Posted by luckymann

That's a really good question. Clearly, if that is the case, then it shouldn't be because the scouting / ratings system is standardised across all players.

Hopefully the devs can clarify.

G

Per my reply to redranger I don't think this is the case, but if...

You are right. If that was they way it was done then it shouldn't be. I'm not scouting and drafting players based on how they compare to each other. I am drafting based on how my scout projects them to develop/perform compared to MLB. The place I hope they eventually play and contribute to my team.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by atlbrave1

FYI, if you are fictional league player you can create the "reduced" potential draft classes you want if you simply lower the PCMs and adjust the league totals. It will take some tinkering, but I did a quick and dirty and adjusted all batters PCMs to .75 and pitchers to .70 then increased hits to 1.15 and got decent statistical results with player pools with "reduced" potential. I know people don't think they should have to mess around with that stuff, but it is there for those who want to create their own perfect universe.

I know that is not how most people play - pretty sure most are MLB players, so if the developers want to go that way, they would also need to adjust the current pool of MLB players ratings to align with incoming classes. And I think that there would be more screaming about changing those ratings than there is about the draft classes. (Just created a MLB league and OSA rates Elly as an 80 potential, Drake Baldwin as a 75 potential? - maybe 65 and 60 respectively at top end and I wouldn't argue 60 and 55).

As noted previously, if the more realistic classes were created I also think the development would need to be changed (less reductions in potential overall being the major change) and that's probably a more significant overhaul.

I appreciate you testing and the points you make in this post. I don't think you'll be surprised at my response.

One counter is those that want a "fun" draft could create it by increasing PCM's.

I think you are correct the developer would have to have fewer reductions with those reductions being a smaller drop in POT/OV. Ie no more 6 weeks into rookie ball and the 80 pot guy I drafted "fell off the table" to a "meager" 60. Resulting in the "Twenty point drop in 6 weeks? OOTP development is broken" complaints. Have that same player in the draft as a 65, he drops to 60, and you get "I'm amazed at how realistically players develop in OOTP". Ratings being toned down to a more realistic range of numbers in the draft class would be a "win" for OOTP.

Keep in mind the developer had to create these artificially large reductions to make the "inflated model" work in the first place. At one time there were draft classes that were slightly inflated. They just weren't artificially inflated to be totally unrealistic. They should have old code as a base to quickly return to sane numbers.

Yes, rerating the incoming real players would have many howling. The developer's response should be and always should have been "we're making a simulation and are sticking to reality". Drum on the fact that a 65/65 player IS a great player. OOTP is not Madden where one of the pre-release topics should be "who's going to be a 99 overall this year?". Having said that the game doesn't have to be ultra-realistic in rating the draft pool. It can be toned down and still have the "fun" draft classes.

Please don't take my post as attacking the messenger. I do appreciate your thoughts in the on-going discussion.

[atlbrave1]

I totally get your point, I am mostly on board for more realistic pools overall. As I stated previously, I do try to keep the "fun" factor in mind when thinking about how I would solve the issue. I think we seem to be getting to a similar place. It is just a question of whether the developers want to start with a realistic base or a fun base. In some respects I think the MLB license hinders them as I think the easiest path (i.e., less getting yelled at path) is to rate real players more positively. As you have noted, there may be a middle ground that could mostly satisfy both camps.

I have definitely enjoyed a lot of the points in this conversation - I know I am in the minority as a fictional only player who tweaks PCMs and League Totals far more than any normal person should, so that is where my solutions come from.

EDIT: One other item I would be concerned if the potential ratings were shrunk into a smaller distribution is the engine's ability to still produce unicorns. V25 if I recall correctly had an issue where pitchers were all bunched together in terms of talent and the game never produced a Pedro or Randy Johnson or JR Richard type of pitcher and that wasn't realistic either. In other words, I don't envy the developers at all.

[Baconi]

Is anybody else also seeing almost every single top prospect having an "Extreme" development risk?

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by Baconi

Is anybody else also seeing almost every single top prospect having an "Extreme" development risk?

No. If you're seeing this all the time, your scouting is not very accurate.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by atlbrave1

I totally get your point, I am mostly on board for more realistic pools overall. As I stated previously, I do try to keep the "fun" factor in mind when thinking about how I would solve the issue. I think we seem to be getting to a similar place. It is just a question of whether the developers want to start with a realistic base or a fun base. In some respects I think the MLB license hinders them as I think the easiest path (i.e., less getting yelled at path) is to rate real players more positively. As you have noted, there may be a middle ground that could mostly satisfy both camps.

I have definitely enjoyed a lot of the points in this conversation - I know I am in the minority as a fictional only player who tweaks PCMs and League Totals far more than any normal person should, so that is where my solutions come from.

EDIT: One other item I would be concerned if the potential ratings were shrunk into a smaller distribution is the engine's ability to still produce unicorns. V25 if I recall correctly had an issue where pitchers were all bunched together in terms of talent and the game never produced a Pedro or Randy Johnson or JR Richard type of pitcher and that wasn't realistic either. In other words, I don't envy the developers at all.

I can't speak for everyone but I know that I, and some others, have posted that this isn't a concern for us. The thought is the draft pool as created is fine. The players in the pool are actually quite realistic. It is only the way that they are displayed that is the issue. Once all of the inflated players regress to their "real pre-inflated ratings" the actual draft class turns out to be a realistic draft class. If that is true than the smaller distribution would only be visually different than the inflated class. One could argue the unicorns we have now are too few. But the number of possible unicorns we have now shouldn't change because they change how the draft class is displayed IMHO.

Where the "fun" crowd comes in is not wanting the draft to be so tightly grouped that there is a ton of 40-50 pot guys that are hard to tell apart ( I think that is a fair representation of their position). The hopeful answer is to tone down the inflated ratings that fill the top of the draft with players that don't exist IRL. And then we have to add that these players don't exist in OOTP either, other than the aritificial inflation of their initial scouting grades.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by atlbrave1

FYI, if you are fictional league player you can create the "reduced" potential draft classes you want if you simply lower the PCMs and adjust the league totals. It will take some tinkering, but I did a quick and dirty and adjusted all batters PCMs to .75 and pitchers to .70 then increased hits to 1.15 and got decent statistical results with player pools with "reduced" potential. I know people don't think they should have to mess around with that stuff, but it is there for those who want to create their own perfect universe.

I know that is not how most people play - pretty sure most are MLB players, so if the developers want to go that way, they would also need to adjust the current pool of MLB players ratings to align with incoming classes. And I think that there would be more screaming about changing those ratings than there is about the draft classes. (Just created a MLB league and OSA rates Elly as an 80 potential, Drake Baldwin as a 75 potential? - maybe 65 and 60 respectively at top end and I wouldn't argue 60 and 55).

As noted previously, if the more realistic classes were created I also think the development would need to be changed (less reductions in potential overall being the major change) and that's probably a more significant overhaul.

This is very misguided advice, and I would caution heavily if anyone is reading it. Lowering PCM’s does not fix the issue that was raised. Lowering PCM‘s weakens the draft class, sure, but that’s not what’s being discussed. The issue that most of us are in agreement of is that the scouted ratings are inflated, not the true talent abilities.

Your suggestion is to lower the overall talent, which is a terrible idea, because since all ratings are relative, you will have the same issue once the player pool consists of only players created after the PCM‘s were lowered.

[thenewchuckd]

Hey - yeah I'm back! I might open another thread. This version is by far the best I have played in a while. And if you've seen me around, you know I can be very critical.

My experience so far is there is nothing wrong with the draft quality. There isn't actually as much depth in the draft as you see out of the gate.

I would say, my issue is more with scouting. Yes, at the draft, even the best scouts (even if you go 100% accurate) will see what seems like too many top prospects. However, most of these guys are already baked in to drop into the average (45/45) range, or even worse. I say already baked in, because I do not believe it is TCR. More often than not, you'll see these guys drop, even though your amazing scouting tells you there are 30 or more hall of fame rated players per draft.

Dropping the base talent level won't help you. The talent is already baked in to be about right. If you drop the base talent level, you're just making bad players come out of the draft. You're not fixing the real issue.

The real issue is with scouting. If these guys are already baked in to drop in ratings, my amazing scout should give me some indication of that.

Let's say there is 1 hall of fame player in a draft. I have no way to know who that guy is out of the 30-50 other 80 potential guys in the draft. It becomes a pure crap shoot.

Still one of the niggling things that will continue to bother me.

[thenewchuckd]

Some issues I have seen:

-I believe the issue with catcher development persists. Every single catcher will drop ratings. To the point that, without TCR, if you advance far enough your league will only have 40 or 45 rated catchers.

-If you use feeder leagues for the draft, demand and signability does not populate.

Some annoyances:
-I continue to dislike the international amateur process. First of all, if you leave defaults, it is easy to game. Crank up your amateur scouting in the offseason, sign your international amateurs, then focus back on whatever your scouting priorities are. Yes, there is still scouting discoveries, but you can find those in the off-season as well. And personally - I hate scouting discoveries - just another crap shoot.

-I don't like the international signing process to begin with. If there are studs, people bid the max on them. I think adding more TCR to 15, 16 year olds might help here (or more of them with "extreme" development risk). But, give me a draft or something better.

-I want to know more about what "development relationship" does and if it does anything at all - have a way to sort coaches based on it.

-I'd like more feedback on the dev lab. Right now it seems like another crap shoot. Adding a "prob of success" that updates with the progress bar might be neat. Spamming improve defense seems a bit "op".

-Maybe add a defense potential, and this could be better for the lab. If I get enough random rolls, I can really pump a guy's range. I don't think that is realistic (so maybe range starts fixed out of the gate, cannot improve much; vs something like error or dp that a player might be able to develop and grow into).

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

The real issue is with scouting. If these guys are already baked in to drop in ratings, my amazing scout should give me some indication of that.

Let's say there is 1 hall of fame player in a draft. I have no way to know who that guy is out of the 30-50 other 80 potential guys in the draft. It becomes a pure crap shoot.

Still one of the niggling things that will continue to bother me.

Or the developer could just have the scouts give a realistic (toned down from what we have now) assessment of the players instead of artificially inflating the ratings for "fun".

Exactly. There is no hype to any generational talent in the draft because everyone knows they are all "fool's gold". Well at least 99% of them. So the pity is if/when the game actually creates an actual "generational" 70-80 potential player the user just blows it off (he's going to regress/crash anyway). Only to find out two or three seasons down the road that it would have been a fun ride follow this player.

[atlbrave1]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

This is very misguided advice, and I would caution heavily if anyone is reading it. Lowering PCM’s does not fix the issue that was raised. Lowering PCM‘s weakens the draft class, sure, but that’s not what’s being discussed. The issue that most of us are in agreement of is that the scouted ratings are inflated, not the true talent abilities.

Your suggestion is to lower the overall talent, which is a terrible idea, because since all ratings are relative, you will have the same issue once the player pool consists of only players created after the PCM‘s were lowered.

It may be a terrible idea, and yes, it will only reduce the ratings across all players therefore "lowering" the potential rating of every player, but if the developers do not change the influence of scouting, I don't know how else you are going to reduce the number of 80s.

I ran two leagues (30 teams w 5 minors leagues), one with no scouting and the other with scouting set to average, then looked at the potential of players created initially and at each draft (for 3 years).

For all of the cries of realism the initial creation with scouting off created 50 80 potential players. Throw realism out the window right there. Even if I was going to be generous and allow relievers to get an 80 grade, there aren't 5 players in baseball right now who are an 80 potential.

But you are correct that when you look at the draft class when scouting is on (Again not the same league, but same set up), there is a significant increase in 80s and above average players than with scouting off.

Even with scouting off, the player creation doesn't even come close to resembling reality. For myself, I am fine with it, it's a game and I enjoy it regardless of some of these issues that may or may not be fixed.

[jofos]

The draft class being full of HOFs is a pretty big issue and it doesn't really seem to work itself out as some say it does. I edited the players from the 2027 draft to see their ratings then simed five years to see the change. Some players that had potential over 500 in a stat may have dropped as much as 25 points but just as many player saw numbers go up.
In the 2027 draft there were 7 pitchers drafted in the top 10 and after 5 years they all had potential stuff, raw movement and control higher than Ohtani. The 3 position players from the same draft all had high power potential than Judge or Ohtani after 5 seasons.

[NakedReporta]

Seems to me the answer is to have 3 columns -- current ability, expected ability and potential ability. Current and potential would stay as they are in OOTP27. Expected would be where they are anticipated to ultimately land as a player. They might not meet their expected ability. They might exceed it. A 35c/55e/80p would mean, wow, if everything falls right and into place and with the right development, that might be a superstar, but he's expected to be an above average player. That would be a helpful ranking. That would satisfy all parties.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by NakedReporta

Seems to me the answer is to have 3 columns -- current ability, expected ability and potential ability. Current and potential would stay as they are in OOTP27. Expected would be where they are anticipated to ultimately land as a player. They might not meet their expected ability. They might exceed it. A 35c/55e/80p would mean, wow, if everything falls right and into place and with the right development, that might be a superstar, but he's expected to be an above average player. That would be a helpful ranking. That would satisfy all parties.

This goes farther from reality to more gamey than the "fun" inflated ratings we have now, IMHO. But let's say they take your suggestion. First "potential" should return to what it is IRL, ie a 40/65 would have a real potential of 65. Potential should never be inflated to a "fun" rating. Expected which doesn't exist would need to become the "fun" rating we have now and be optional to never display. "Expected" then isn't really a descriptor that fits so that would have to be named something else. I'd be fine with "Fun", "pipedream", or "fantasy" since I wouldn't use it. It's scary that those three words actually describe quite nicely what we have now. In your suggested model I'm not sure what "expected/fun/fantasy/pipedream" could be called that wouldn't sound terrible?

I think it would be easier to code a tick box for realistic or fantasy (that should be the name so it's clear what the user is opting in to) ratings in the draft than add another column. The trouble then is they have to maintain two models and listen to the complaints about both.

I'm not a coder but have wondered what hoops do they have to jump through to make a draft class that appears, for the most part, to be made up of players that eventually regress to realistic skill sets, look so inflated? Are the players created with those **high skill potentials** but with a 99% chance they will regress and regress a lot? Are the scouts coded to overinflate everyone in the draft that is => than 45, and then come to their senses after the drafted players become part of any organization where they begin to see them as they actually are? Keep in mind all scouts and OSA are on the same schedule to overrate and than correct these players. By design.

The bad thing is these inflated draft class numbers are a total mess by design. It was coded, tested and deemed to be working as intended. It's not a bug. It's a feature, and it makes the game look bad.

Let's look at HR distances as something to compare. There have been times where there were too many 450+ foot bombs being hit in stadiums with realistic dimensions (Ie not because a user made a stadium with 500 ft LF and RF lines). Users reported the issue and? The distances were tweaked to be more realistic. Imagine the developer coming back and saying "450 ft home runs are more fun". This is what we are doing with draft classes.

**high skill potentials** One thing that doesn't get talked about is it's not just the overall potential that gets inflated. It is also the underlying skills that "make" that potential. A player that is inflated to 80 pot also may have an 80 pot babip as part of building that overall 80 pot. That 80 pot babip isn't real the same as the overall 80 pot isn't real. And this goes on for all underlying skills be it batters or pitchers. There is nothing you can look at on any of these players that is remotely accurate. But somehow it is fun, to some users, to draft these players. Huh?

[locuspc]

"Ceiling" would be a term you could use for the current best-case scenario style ratings.

I think the devs tried to address this problem with the "development risk" rating, but they didn't tune it right somehow. It consistently suggests "medium" development risk even for prospects who are blatantly not going to get anywhere close to their rated potentials.

[CBLCardinals]

Originally Posted by Sweed

This goes farther from reality to more gamey than the "fun" inflated ratings we have now, IMHO. But let's say they take your suggestion. First "potential" should return to what it is IRL, ie a 40/65 would have a real potential of 65. Potential should never be inflated to a "fun" rating. Expected which doesn't exist would need to become the "fun" rating we have now and be optional to never display. "Expected" then isn't really a descriptor that fits so that would have to be named something else. I'd be fine with "Fun", "pipedream", or "fantasy" since I wouldn't use it. It's scary that those three words actually describe quite nicely what we have now. In your suggested model I'm not sure what "expected/fun/fantasy/pipedream" could be called that wouldn't sound terrible?

I think it would be easier to code a tick box for realistic or fantasy (that should be the name so it's clear what the user is opting in to) ratings in the draft than add another column. The trouble then is they have to maintain two models and listen to the complaints about both.

I'm not a coder but have wondered what hoops do they have to jump through to make a draft class that appears, for the most part, to be made up of players that eventually regress to realistic skill sets, look so inflated? Are the players created with those **high skill potentials** but with a 99% chance they will regress and regress a lot? Are the scouts coded to overinflate everyone in the draft that is => than 45, and then come to their senses after the drafted players become part of any organization where they begin to see them as they actually are? Keep in mind all scouts and OSA are on the same schedule to overrate and than correct these players. By design.

The bad thing is these inflated draft class numbers are a total mess by design. It was coded, tested and deemed to be working as intended. It's not a bug. It's a feature, and it makes the game look bad.

Let's look at HR distances as something to compare. There have been times where there were too many 450+ foot bombs being hit in stadiums with realistic dimensions (Ie not because a user made a stadium with 500 ft LF and RF lines). Users reported the issue and? The distances were tweaked to be more realistic. Imagine the developer coming back and saying "450 ft home runs are more fun". This is what we are doing with draft classes.

**high skill potentials** One thing that doesn't get talked about is it's not just the overall potential that gets inflated. It is also the underlying skills that "make" that potential. A player that is inflated to 80 pot also may have an 80 pot babip as part of building that overall 80 pot. That 80 pot babip isn't real the same as the overall 80 pot isn't real. And this goes on for all underlying skills be it batters or pitchers. There is nothing you can look at on any of these players that is remotely accurate. But somehow it is fun, to some users, to draft these players. Huh?

There is precedence here….Baseball America now has basically two FV on prospects that appears to be “if everything works out” and a “more realistic outcome. Attached example.

[Ratbelly]

Originally Posted by CBLCardinals

There is precedence here….Baseball America now has basically two FV on prospects that appears to be “if everything works out” and a “more realistic outcome. Attached example.

Welp that solves this. Realism has arrived.

[Hokie05]

I got through 1993 as the expansion Rockies, with the first draft (fake players) coming in June of 1993. Several players drafted that June made their MLB debut by the end of the year, and that seems a bit extreme needless to say.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by CBLCardinals

There is precedence here….Baseball America now has basically two FV on prospects that appears to be “if everything works out” and a “more realistic outcome. Attached example.

Appreciate you posting this. Do you know how long they have been doing this? Or how many players have attainted their "everything works out" potential if we only looked at 70+ pot players? As a real life Baseball America rating it still feels like a "pipedream" rating to me. I guess over time we'll see how it shakes out. I'm not a paying member of BA so I can only find small amounts of information on their site. Are there any 80 overalls in their "if everything works out" list?

Here is a blurb I found on their site. This is the Prospect Handbook and as far as I can tell is only established minor league players.

In 2024, there were 18 players in the PHB who had at least one 80-grade tool. A year later, that number dwindled to 13. This year, the number is even lower. Just nine of the 900 players ranked in this year’s book have an 80 on their scouting card.

None, best as I can tell, are an 80 pot overall. At least they don't say that in the blurb. The way I read it is 9 have "an 80" which means just one? It does say "at least one 80 grade tool" too, so maybe someone has more than one? Either way anything I see in my limited ability to look at BA says that OOTP still needs to tone things down.

Of course it's up to Matt and the team where they go from here. I have no idea what the coding lift would be but, if OOTP wants to go with a "everything works out" third rating they sure can.