Can we tone down OOTP created draft class overall potentials?

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by Sweed

About as necessary a statement as a guy that corrects someone about using "their" instead of "there" in an online forum. If we really have to go to the level of detailing posts with things like "of course scouts aren't accurate and we are talking about inflation of the scout's ratings" I'm not sure what to say? The whole thread is filled with that context.

When you say things like "I really can't understand anyone supporting a system that they know is giving them incorrect information by design", that's a sweeping philosophical statement. Clearly it's not giving incorrect information by design you object to, so what is it you object to?

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by locuspc

But now you have that same problem, just in rounds 4 through 20.

Well...if you took a random draft year and looked at the "hit rates" (by whatever metric you consider a "hit") you will see tons of hits in the 1st, some in the 2nd, a few in the 3rd...but after that it's probably going to be really scattershot. The 6th round could have one guy who "hit", the 8th could have zero and the 11th could have two. So that's basically how it works in real life.

Scouting has gotten a lot better over the years.

Originally Posted by locuspc

The whole scouting system is based on getting incorrect information by design. If you want correct information, play with scouting off.

There's a difference between incorrect information and wildly incorrect information, though. Having some of the former ("fog of war") is highly realistic, but players thought to have superstar ceilings are not getting drafted in the bottom of the first round. Scouts may disagree on ceilings, but there's no scout on earth who thinks that any draft class has 15 or even 10 80 potential players.

Originally Posted by md40022

True, but what I'd say is IRL an "elite" talent is supposed to stand out from the group.

Exactly. How many players were talked about as having elite/superstar ceilings in the 2025 draft? Maybe Ethan Holliday and Seth Hernandez? (both thought at the time to have low floors too). Even then maybe they were talked about that in an OOTP "75" way.

Eli Willits certainly wasn't talked about as a superstar despite being picked first overall.

I can only think of a few guys who have been really hyped up as a guy who would probably be an 80 in OOTP. Harper, Strasburg, Mark Appel (lol), Skenes. Maybe Justin Upton or Rutschman.

I think a lot of real-life 80s were the result of "TCR."

Think Aaron Judge, whose ceiling was described in one blog thusly: "Judge could hit .250 with 35-40 homers and play serviceable defense in right field. Think along the lines of what Josh Reddick did for the A's last season."

Well...maybe he had some TCR sprinkled in... lol.

[luckymann]

I can understand why there is pushback from both sides with this, and I understand even more why the devs struggle to get it right in a way that keeps as many people happy as possible.

What seems to keep getting forgotten here is that the main issue lies not with player talent, but perceived player talent. More precisely, scouted player talent.

A pool overstocked with players rated way higher than their true talent level means you are being wildly misled on a league-wide basis, almost exclusively in a negative direction. Nothing to do with scout talent or the whole tools / ability continuum, but purely on the basis of spurious statistical distribution.

So, even at 100% scouting, you are being deceived to an inordinate degree. The vast majority of those players so highly rated initially will disappoint you with their "underwhelming" performance compared to this lofty original estimation thrust upon them.

Even a really solid 50-rated player can seem like a bust if you took him with an early R1 pick. Which is the inherent risk to the process, but the chances should at least be a bit more equitable, as is the case with the toned-down pool.

Remember, there's no way an 80-rated prospect can surprise you on the upside. I want the boom-bust equation to be more of a fair deal.

My thoughts, at any rate.

G

[ultramegaOK]

Yeah but how many of these prospects actually pan out? Not many. If you lower the class then you, in the future basically have nothing to feed your league with. Just a bunch of low level prospects drafted. And it takes away from the fun of the game. At least if you have higher rated prospects you feel as if you may just have a chance at winning the lottery. But if you have a bunch of low level guys, it feels as if it's just a waste of time. It feels like there is no point in drafting a scrub because it will never be anything as a player. so what's the point?

[md40022]

Originally Posted by ultramegaOK

If you lower the class then you, in the future basically have nothing to feed your league with. Just a bunch of low level prospects drafted.

They didn't "lower the class" though. All they did was take the crack pipe out of the scouts' hands


That same prospect is going to develop his actual skills the exact same way that he would have before the patch was released.


The only thing that was changed is your scout is no longer telling you that guy is a 5 star potential the day before the draft, and then laughing in your face and telling you he's actually a 1 star prospect the day after the draft.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by locuspc

When you say things like "I really can't understand anyone supporting a system that they know is giving them incorrect information by design", that's a sweeping philosophical statement. Clearly it's not giving incorrect information by design you object to, so what is it you object to?

"Their" and "there" all over again. If you can't figure out the context on your own me typing a book isn't going to help.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by luckymann

I can understand why there is pushback from both sides with this, and I understand even more why the devs struggle to get it right in a way that keeps as many people happy as possible.

What seems to keep getting forgotten here is that the main issue lies not with player talent, but perceived player talent. More precisely, scouted player talent.

A pool overstocked with players rated way higher than their true talent level means you are being wildly misled on a league-wide basis, almost exclusively in a negative direction. Nothing to do with scout talent or the whole tools / ability continuum, but purely on the basis of spurious statistical distribution.

So, even at 100% scouting, you are being deceived to an inordinate degree. The vast majority of those players so highly rated initially will disappoint you with their "underwhelming" performance compared to this lofty original estimation thrust upon them.

Even a really solid 50-rated player can seem like a bust if you took him with an early R1 pick. Which is the inherent risk to the process, but the chances should at least be a bit more equitable, as is the case with the toned-down pool.

Remember, there's no way an 80-rated prospect can surprise you on the upside. I want the boom-bust equation to be more of a fair deal.

My thoughts, at any rate.

G

They are good thoughts.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by ultramegaOK

Yeah but how many of these prospects actually pan out? Not many. If you lower the class then you, in the future basically have nothing to feed your league with. Just a bunch of low level prospects drafted. And it takes away from the fun of the game. At least if you have higher rated prospects you feel as if you may just have a chance at winning the lottery. But if you have a bunch of low level guys, it feels as if it's just a waste of time. It feels like there is no point in drafting a scrub because it will never be anything as a player. so what's the point?

The answer is players are more likely to reach their realistic scouted potential. Also more players are likely to develop beyond their scouted value. You turn the old inflated/crash model on it's head and make it a develop/boom model.

Which model is more fun?
A. Drafting a highly rated player, knowing he's very likely to crash to a normal 45-55 player or at best maybe stop dropping at 60?

B. Draft a player that is a 40/48 (I don't do by 5's) and have him boom to a 55 or 60?

Which one kills the complaint "my drafted players never develop, OOTP sucks"?

Which one fills users with excitement as more of their players develop to projected levels or beyond?

Getting rid of model A doesn't mean they can't make it into model B. It doesn't have to be neither. It can be one or the other.

[Joelman111]

Originally Posted by Sweed

The answer is players are more likely to reach their realistic scouted potential. Also more players are likely to develop beyond their scouted value. You turn the old inflated/crash model on it's head and make it a develop/boom model.

Which model is more fun?
A. Drafting a highly rated player, knowing he's very likely to crash to a normal 45-55 player or at best maybe stop dropping at 60?

B. Draft a player that is a 40/48 (I don't do by 5's) and have him boom to a 55 or 60?

Which one kills the complaint "my drafted players never develop, OOTP sucks"?

Which one fills users with excitement as more of their players develop to projected levels or beyond?

Getting rid of model A doesn't mean they can't make it into model B. It doesn't have to be neither. It can be one or the other.

Honestly this feels like a personal preference rather than “correct” or “incorrect” ways of viewing things. Some users like to have more hope at draft time and understand they will likely not reach the high ceiling presented by their scout (model A, excitement in the draft). Others prefer a more likely development outcome presented by their scout, knowing they could step up and develop into even more (model B, excitement in development).

I feel like this could be a trait that scouts could have alongside the “favors tools” and “favors ability” axes and then the user can hire whichever scout provides the view they want to see. This would also allow it to work on a spectrum so we don’t have to be stuck on the extremes (20 80-potential players vs. <1 full round of 50-potential players).

Something like “optimism” vs “pessimism”. In high optimism scouts, your scout assumes a 90th percentile outcome, everything goes right in development, where does this player end up? These scouts will have draft picks rated much higher with most of them likely to not meet that potential. In high pessimism scouts, your scout assumes a 10th percentile outcome with minimal development or development lab improvements. These scouts will have draft picks rated much lower and it may be harder to differentiate between same-y players, but their picks are far more likely to meet or exceed their potential.

[luckymann]

Originally Posted by ultramegaOK

Yeah but how many of these prospects actually pan out? Not many. If you lower the class then you, in the future basically have nothing to feed your league with. Just a bunch of low level prospects drafted. And it takes away from the fun of the game. At least if you have higher rated prospects you feel as if you may just have a chance at winning the lottery. But if you have a bunch of low level guys, it feels as if it's just a waste of time. It feels like there is no point in drafting a scrub because it will never be anything as a player. so what's the point?

This makes zero sense to me.

Why would you logically think you have a better chance of "hitting the lottery" with an incorrectly scouted 80-rater than with a more realistically scouted 45-rater?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Joelman111

Honestly this feels like a personal preference rather than “correct” or “incorrect” ways of viewing things. Some users like to have more hope at draft time and understand they will likely not reach the high ceiling presented by their scout (model A, excitement in the draft). Others prefer a more likely development outcome presented by their scout, knowing they could step up and develop into even more (model B, excitement in development).

I feel like this could be a trait that scouts could have alongside the “favors tools” and “favors ability” axes and then the user can hire whichever scout provides the view they want to see. This would also allow it to work on a spectrum so we don’t have to be stuck on the extremes (20 80-potential players vs. <1 full round of 50-potential players).

Something like “optimism” vs “pessimism”. In high optimism scouts, your scout assumes a 90th percentile outcome, everything goes right in development, where does this player end up? These scouts will have draft picks rated much higher with most of them likely to not meet that potential. In high pessimism scouts, your scout assumes a 10th percentile outcome with minimal development or development lab improvements. These scouts will have draft picks rated much lower and it may be harder to differentiate between same-y players, but their picks are far more likely to meet or exceed their potential.

To be clear the title of the thread did not ask for a totally realistically rated draft class. It asked for it to be toned down.

The problem is the game puts out 10+ 80 Pot overalls per draft. I'm not going to write paragraphs about why this is a problem. It's been well covered in the thread.

A more optimistic view of the draft than "totally realistic" as a second option is fine if the developer thinks it necessary. It's for the developer to determine the return on coding time. What shouldn't happen, IMHO, is putting draft classes back in the game that are as far off from reality as those we saw before the latest patch.

Some users certainly understood, in the inflated model, that most of their highly rated players were never going to develop. And there were other users that filled this board, Steam boards, Discord, and other social medial with complaints about OOTP and player development. It is/was a bad look. Two models where one could point the complainers to a "realistic" model would be fine. But if the developer decides only one model can be supported it should go with realistic every time. The game is a simulation of real baseball.

[snepp]

I haven't done it yet on this update, and only did a cursory run of it one the initial release version, but I plan on running through a new round of "this is what players look like" when viewed through the eyes of the different scout types, and see how accurate/variable they actually are on the draft pool. It's always been a fun exercise in the past.

That last time I really dug into it was on 25, and highly favor tools scouts were downright dreadful for the level of false potential they'd view players with. Which always made me cringe when they'd get recommended as "the best", and then have people cry about the amount of tanking all their top prospects were doing.

I know there were some changes made between 25 and 26 where scout types were concerned, but I never did look into them last year.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by snepp

I haven't done it yet on this update, and only did a cursory run of it one the initial release version, but I plan on running through a new round of "this is what players look like" when viewed through the eyes of the different scout types, and see how accurate/variable they actually are on the draft pool. It's always been a fun exercise in the past.

That last time I really dug into it was on 25, and highly favor tools scouts were downright dreadful for the level of false potential they'd view players with. Which always made me cringe when they'd get recommended as "the best", and then have people cry about the amount of tanking all their top prospects were doing.

I know there were some changes made between 25 and 26 where scout types were concerned, but I never did look into them last year.

I really like that idea!

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Which one kills the complaint "my drafted players never develop, OOTP sucks"?

See this is a big one. It's not just about being more realistic...I think "Help! Why do my prospects never reach potential?" is potentially downstream of the excessively-optimistic ratings. A 55 player from the first round is generally a solid outcome, but it looks disappointing when the guy was advertised as an 80. Of course this should still be a potential outcome as it is IRL, but still..

[snepp]

Originally Posted by ChrisG

See this is a big one. It's not just about being more realistic...I think "Help! Why do my prospects never reach potential?" is potentially downstream of the excessively-optimistic ratings. A 55 player from the first round is generally a solid outcome, but it looks disappointing when the guy was advertised as an 80. Of course this should still be a potential outcome as it is IRL, but still..

Absolutely, expectations and perception play a huge role, particularly for new players that haven't been nerding out over OOTP for years (or a couple decades now like many of us have fossils have).

I'm ecstatic when a 55 potential player I draft at the bottom of the first round becomes a 50 overall everyday starter, that's already a better outcome than most drafted players in the MLB will ever hope to achieve. New players drafting a fake 75 in the same spot end up feeling shafted when they become that same solid 50.