Can we tone down OOTP created draft class overall potentials? - Page 8

Pelican · 05-15-2026, 02:00 PM

It looks to me from the data that the draft class has been somewhat toned down. As others have pointed out, there will be hits and misses, a lot more of the latter, if this is done right. IRL that's what happens. I don't see it as "incorrect scouting" at all. The scouts - real and OOTP - give the best evaluation based on what they see, in a kid who is 18 years of age or whatever and still developing. There's a huge margin of error, and that's unavoidable. I play with highly accurate scouting, but even on that setting, the accuracy improves as the player gets older and has more seasons at higher levels. As it should be.

I'm afraid the answer to "why don't any of my highly-rated prospects succeed?" is "welcome to the life of a major league GM - or Player Development guy".

Mickey Moniak is getting lots of attention right now, as a former #1 pick who took nearly a decade to find modest success at the major league level. Was he inaccurately scouted as a top prospect with all the tools? Not really, no. But he's proof that no one can say how long it will take to put all that together - or if that ever happens. I hope that OOTP would allow for a former top prospect to go through the many phases that Moniak did, and come out on the other side as a productive everyday player. I hope that those of us playing the game would have patience (my Phillies did not) to wait for that to happen.

Sweed · 05-15-2026, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelican

I'm afraid the answer to "why don't any of my highly-rated prospects succeed?" is "welcome to the life of a major league GM - or Player Development guy".

That is true in real life for sure, and OOTP. BUT in OOTP draft classes were being made with 10 to 20, 80 Pot players. Meaning OOTP had to have at least 9 to 19 of those guys fail to develop (actually to crash). With a strong possibility all SHOULD crash. Followed with another 10 to 20 unrealistic 70+ Pot players that should do the same.

The OOTP question was "why do my highly rated players always crash?". The answer is "they have to if OOTP is to simulate a realistic baseball world with realistically skilled players".

luckymann · 05-15-2026, 06:55 PM

Personally, I'd like about 4% in the 70-80 range and around 6% in the 60-70 range. So this is still a bit top-heavy IMO. But, I'll take the smoothing and be happy.

The fact that it is part of a RD historical universe has some bearing on this group, making it not representative of fictional pools, so I'll be keeping an eye on my one fictional universe to see how things look there.

ChrisG · 05-15-2026, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckymann

Personally, I'd like about 4% in the 70-80 range and around 6% in the 60-70 range. So this is still a bit top-heavy IMO. But, I'll take the smoothing and be happy.

The fact that it is part of a RD historical universe has some bearing on this group, making it not representative of fictional pools, so I'll be keeping an eye on my one fictional universe to see how things look there.

Is it possible that it's a little top-heavy just bc of the nature of your league (players coming in more developed)?

luckymann · 05-15-2026, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisG

Is it possible that it's a little top-heavy just bc of the nature of your league (players coming in more developed)?

To answer your question, yes, absolutely. That said, the main essence (for me at least) is more "honesty" in those initial scouted ratings, or at least a better spread of boom and bust as against basically every player disappointing to some degree.

The fact that I am using the NeL MLE feature is perhaps another consideration. Still, what I'd like is for more of these guys to come in with more evenly distributed SCOUTED ratings than we saw originally, which has happened to some degree.

I am the first to admit mine is not the ideal control group here, but it at least offers a direct line of comparison for the before and after.

G

luckymann · 05-15-2026, 10:25 PM

I will add this as well. I believe this problem is exacerbated by a fundamental issue in the game regarding player development.

So, while hopefully the over-inflated pool issue is heading toward where it should be, I do hope the devs have a look at the general development of players in non-recalc environments, as I feel a constant downward pressure is evident across numerous saves of mine that fall into this category, one that goes back a number of versions.

I have endeavoured to figure out a way of proving this is the case statistically, but not been able to do so. So will readily admit the problem is perhaps less intense than it feels for the more part. However, given the number of posts claiming the same issue, I remain convinced it exists.

G

Reed · 05-16-2026, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckymann

Personally, I'd like about 4% in the 70-80 range and around 6% in the 60-70 range. So this is still a bit top-heavy IMO. But, I'll take the smoothing and be happy.

The fact that it is part of a RD historical universe has some bearing on this group, making it not representative of fictional pools, so I'll be keeping an eye on my one fictional universe to see how things look there.

Random is working great IMO. Please don’t touch anything that will impact random play. Making adjustment to fielding, ball landing spots, etc. is fine.
It seems like if you fix one thing then there will an issue somewhere else.

luckymann · 05-16-2026, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reed

Random is working great IMO. Please don’t touch anything that will impact random play. Making adjustment to fielding, ball landing spots, etc. is fine.
It seems like if you fix one thing then there will an issue somewhere else.

I wasn't suggesting RD needs seeing to, just putting in a caveat about the absolute validity of this group.

G

Reed · 05-16-2026, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckymann

I wasn't suggesting RD needs seeing to, just putting in a caveat about the absolute validity of this group.

G

Thank you for clarifying.

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot · Yesterday, 12:43 AM

I'm enjoying the more toned down drafts. Its definitely enhancing my engagement levels a lot deeper into the draft, trades and my minor league teams. It was super frustrating before getting to 2nd round and seeing so many "highly rated " prospects supposedly still on the board. I knew from experience that most of these would crater after a few weeks time.
Now I'm spending more time assessing guys more holistically instead of being too focused on the potential rating. I'm being more nuanced and realising not all 36/48 rated players are the same. And instead looking more closely at their tools et and personality and character traits as well.
This has produced some interesting outcomes, and I'm seeing more of my picks (compared to my previous approach) mature and grow over a aeason, and less massive negative decline after only a few weeks after drafting.

05-15-2026, 02:00 PM	#141
Pelican Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2021 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 3,214	It looks to me from the data that the draft class has been somewhat toned down. As others have pointed out, there will be hits and misses, a lot more of the latter, if this is done right. IRL that's what happens. I don't see it as "incorrect scouting" at all. The scouts - real and OOTP - give the best evaluation based on what they see, in a kid who is 18 years of age or whatever and still developing. There's a huge margin of error, and that's unavoidable. I play with highly accurate scouting, but even on that setting, the accuracy improves as the player gets older and has more seasons at higher levels. As it should be. I'm afraid the answer to "why don't any of my highly-rated prospects succeed?" is "welcome to the life of a major league GM - or Player Development guy". Mickey Moniak is getting lots of attention right now, as a former #1 pick who took nearly a decade to find modest success at the major league level. Was he inaccurately scouted as a top prospect with all the tools? Not really, no. But he's proof that no one can say how long it will take to put all that together - or if that ever happens. I hope that OOTP would allow for a former top prospect to go through the many phases that Moniak did, and come out on the other side as a productive everyday player. I hope that those of us playing the game would have patience (my Phillies did not) to wait for that to happen. __________________ Pelican OOTP 2020-? ”Hard to believe, Harry.”

05-15-2026, 06:55 PM	#143
luckymann Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2019 Posts: 14,132	Personally, I'd like about 4% in the 70-80 range and around 6% in the 60-70 range. So this is still a bit top-heavy IMO. But, I'll take the smoothing and be happy. The fact that it is part of a RD historical universe has some bearing on this group, making it not representative of fictional pools, so I'll be keeping an eye on my one fictional universe to see how things look there. __________________ HISTORICAL DO-OVERS A'S RED SOX DODGERS PIRATES MARINERS CUSTOM SAVES LGB NEXUS Last edited by luckymann; 05-15-2026 at 06:57 PM.

05-15-2026, 10:25 PM	#146
luckymann Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2019 Posts: 14,132	I will add this as well. I believe this problem is exacerbated by a fundamental issue in the game regarding player development. So, while hopefully the over-inflated pool issue is heading toward where it should be, I do hope the devs have a look at the general development of players in non-recalc environments, as I feel a constant downward pressure is evident across numerous saves of mine that fall into this category, one that goes back a number of versions. I have endeavoured to figure out a way of proving this is the case statistically, but not been able to do so. So will readily admit the problem is perhaps less intense than it feels for the more part. However, given the number of posts claiming the same issue, I remain convinced it exists. G __________________ HISTORICAL DO-OVERS A'S RED SOX DODGERS PIRATES MARINERS CUSTOM SAVES LGB NEXUS

Yesterday, 12:43 AM	#150
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 254	I'm enjoying the more toned down drafts. Its definitely enhancing my engagement levels a lot deeper into the draft, trades and my minor league teams. It was super frustrating before getting to 2nd round and seeing so many "highly rated " prospects supposedly still on the board. I knew from experience that most of these would crater after a few weeks time. Now I'm spending more time assessing guys more holistically instead of being too focused on the potential rating. I'm being more nuanced and realising not all 36/48 rated players are the same. And instead looking more closely at their tools et and personality and character traits as well. This has produced some interesting outcomes, and I'm seeing more of my picks (compared to my previous approach) mature and grow over a aeason, and less massive negative decline after only a few weeks after drafting.