Draft pool low quality of players?

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

But, isn't the reason that the majority of these guys don't stand out is because they don't stand out?

Going to use the Mets again, since that's all I know of in deep draft classes.

Casey Meisner (3rd rounder, RHSP, 6'7/170 with a FB already in the low 90s and projection out the you know what) isn't Ricky Knapp (short RHSP college guy might top at 91, pure C&C guy) is not Tyler Bashlor (11th round reliever big fastball) isn't Paul Paez (30th round lefty reliever) etc... but in OOTP, they might as well all be named Joe Smith because they ARE all the same.

Casey Meisner has HUGE upside, if he fills out, if he adds velocity, if his secondaries develop, he could become the next Syndergaard. There are innumerable impediments in his way, but he's not Ricky Knapp, who might become Rick Reed (Dillon Gee, if you want) if all breaks right.

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by sjshaw

But you are. Just not in the way you might like to be.

Nevermind again.

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

Listen, I've got better things to do.

It's pretty funny, you people come to the forums with a problem, and this is how you treat people? I'm sure your concerns will rate high on the development list. LOL

And good luck getting anyone to help you with your problems... I'll not respond to anymore such idiocy as this, and I definitely won't personally attack you which I'm quite sure is against the forum rules.

Nevermind. Bad judgement on my part.

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

As a fellow Mets fan, I honestly disagree with you on that. I've seen nothing from any reputable sources like PG or BA that indicates Wilson's upside is anything more than a slightly better, right handed hitting version of Kirk Nieuwenhuis. Now that's not bad. It's the upside of a major league player, though not a great one.

Wilson could almost be the poster child for the over-hyping of draft picks that goes on with some members of the media, particularly those who are focused on a specific team.

I've seen him referred to by Mets focused sources as a "five tool" player while even a cursory glance at his PG scouting reports reveals that he's at best a two to three tool guy,

He runs a 6.72 40, which is only a bit above MLB average, it's not even plus speed. That speed flags him as a potential tweener in the OF at higher levels, as it's not really typical MLB CF speed. Plus, he's so big he's extremely likely to lose speed as he ages.

He's also reported by PG as having "close to average arm strength".

He's known for having major, major issues with his hitting, particularly his ability to make contact.

So his only real tool that grades out as a plus is his power, which is not useable at this time due to his issues making contact.

A non biased scouting report would have him as a potential MLB 4th outfielder, with an outside chance at being a starting caliber player but with an unusually high amount of risk in that projection.

Keith Law at the time of the draft:

Law:

Wilson is all kinds of raw right now, but for a team that likes to draft athletic kids and try to teach them how to play baseball, he's got enough ceiling (above-average regular) to be appealing in the third round or so. Wilson is strong and well-built at 6-foot-3, 220 pounds with good bat speed but a deep load that bars his lead arm and creates excessive length, meaning he can't always get to the potentially plus power from his wrist strength and big hip rotation. His swing path is also very inconsistent, and like many kids from very rural high schools he doesn't recognize offspeed stuff well yet. He's an average runner, a little slow out of the box and better underway, with plenty of arm for right field.

Wilson reminds me a lot of Jamie Jarmon, a very crude prep outfielder from Delaware whom I rated as a third-rounder last year and was drafted in the second round by Texas, after which he struggled to make contact in his first summer in pro ball. Jarmon's a long-term project, as is Wilson, and if Jarmon could go 83rd overall in a stronger draft, Wilson should go in that area as well.

Edit: More here http://www.nyfuturestars.com/communi...p?f=15&t=39171

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Oh, how I love Nimmo

Which means he'll probably turn out just like Bobby Malek or something.

How you know Lukas is one of us. Bobby Malek reference. lol

How about "5 tool talent Alhaji Turay"?

[RonCo]

Yes. Dead horse. Beating.

Here's a different way to look at the design requirements for a player creation process that's linked to the draft (or any other intake process)

------

How many major leaguers does a league, with or without a international signing process, need to keep the talent level up? You can answer that by looking at a draft class back in the days when there were very few international signings, and using that as a basis for eventual yield. This is a little messy because that yield happens over a collection of years. Still, it's the same situation as OOTP leagues are in, so I think it's not a terrible representation of base input the game needs to create (regardless of whether these come from feeder leagues or are just flat-out created or whatever).

So at random, I looked at the 1980 draft class by round (through 30 rounds #) and selected the number of players who registered at least 4.5 WAR over their career. That 4.5 could be all in one year, could be 1.5 for three years, could be ... well ... it could be 40, for crying out loud. Regardless, they are pretty much always players who people would recognize, and who made some form of semi-significant impact on a major league baseball team. Call them 2* and above players.

Rounds 1-5: 17 players
Rounds 6-10: 8 players
Rounds 11-15: 2 players
Rounds 16-20: 3 players
Rounds 21-25: 3 players
Rounds 25-30: 1 player

So, total, there were 34 players drafted in 1980 who made significant impacts, many, of course, very significant. With 26 teams in the league back then, it means that on average, every team in the league could be expected to yield 1.3 such players (not that every team _did_ get 1.3 ... only that this was the average). This is only counting guys who "stuck" long enough to register 4.5 WAR. It does not count the number of guys people sent up with "can't miss" scouting reports (high star ratings/minor league stats), and just still somehow managed to miss. If we make what is probably a cautious estimate of 50% for those guys, that means most teams should walk away from the draft thinking they have about 2.6 real major league prospects. I suggest these guys would be called at least 2*-3* ceiling prospects given OOTP lingo, with several of those listed with ceilings of 4*-5*. This also does not take into account the guys who are 1*-1.5* kind of guys who made it to the bigs and did their 2-4 WAR careers for 2-6 years. Several of those guys are valuable little players, but are not big eye-catchers. For ease of math, let's say there are 1.4 of those guys every year (though I fully admit I did not count those up).

That means each team can leave a player intake process (draft) thinking they will get some major league time from about 4 players, 1.3 of those making some kind of significant impact for at least a year or three...many of those being pretty high quality players. And another 1.4 or so being replacement level guys or just above. And, of course, the other 1.3 they think they think _might_ yield, but do not. I realize there could be some overlap between those two groups...we'll just have to deal with it, though as just an element of noise for now.

If you take that number of players and then allow a league to scatter them in whichever way they want, then all should be fine for any league who wants to play in any fashion.

----------------

For a league that does nothing but draft (which is most long-running online leagues)...

Those 4 players need to be spread out over as many rounds as that league uses--so if a league uses 5 rounds of draft, those players need to be loaded into those five rounds...if they use ten rounds of draft, you get the idea. At least 2-3 of those guys (arguably 4-5) should be expected to be projected as 2*-5* players by their scout. Then to account for the "tweeners," and another 1-2 (arguably 2-3) should be rated 1.5*.

----------------

So, if a league uses 5 rounds of draft there would be very few 1-star players (though quite a few 2*-4* guys ... and only a few 5*). In these low draft-round leagues, the draft lists of each team will look considerably different than they would for a real team. Probably quarter the league would have a 5-star prospect, a half might find themselves with a 4-star, then the next round or two would be 3-stars, and then comes a bunch of 2-stars ... and many of those would pan out. This is because the league needs that rate of success to meet their needs due to having only 5 rounds. This league also needs a development process that, due to it's use of only 5 draft rounds, _needs_ its development process to be almost all negative. The question for owners in this league is "which ones will bust".

If a league uses 10 rounds of draft, there would be considerably more 1-star players, and the development process would need to create considerably more churn at the back of the draft. With ten rounds of draft, you can afford to spread the success out a bit, so the development process needs to be . But even then, the draft lists of these teams will not look much like a "real" team's draft list.

If a league uses 30 rounds of draft, however, _then_ those draft picks would spread out and the draft lists would look a lot like a real major league team's list.

----------------

Unfortunately, to make this work, it would be best if the player creation model was directly linked to the development model so we can control the dynamic needs of the development model...meaning some leagues need it to work at a mostly downward fashion, some leagues need it to work with a much more robust up/down process where there is more uncertainty both ways. If we do this, we actually can remove the need for lots of tweaking the default settings and all that other crud.

But it is the right way to do the design.

----------------

# NOTE: I did this with the first five rounds of 2001, and got 24 players (with 30 major league teams), so we're at nearly 1/team just through 5 rounds. So I suspect that the 1.3/2.6 numbers are not too bad.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

Well that's not a post screaming "HEY I'M A DOUCHEBAG!!!!!!"

I'm not a mod, so I'm out of my swim lane here, but this isn't exactly a shining example of a productive post that furthers discussion, no matter how the other guy is acting.

I mean, no matter whose is bigger, when both sides are just whipping things out and peeing, all that we all get to smell is urine, you know? The more, the smellier.

There are some flowers in this thread. Let's not kill them all.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

Keith Law at the time of the draft:

Law:

Wilson is all kinds of raw right now, but for a team that likes to draft athletic kids and try to teach them how to play baseball, he's got enough ceiling (above-average regular) to be appealing in the third round or so. Wilson is strong and well-built at 6-foot-3, 220 pounds with good bat speed but a deep load that bars his lead arm and creates excessive length, meaning he can't always get to the potentially plus power from his wrist strength and big hip rotation. His swing path is also very inconsistent, and like many kids from very rural high schools he doesn't recognize offspeed stuff well yet. He's an average runner, a little slow out of the box and better underway, with plenty of arm for right field.

Wilson reminds me a lot of Jamie Jarmon, a very crude prep outfielder from Delaware whom I rated as a third-rounder last year and was drafted in the second round by Texas, after which he struggled to make contact in his first summer in pro ball. Jarmon's a long-term project, as is Wilson, and if Jarmon could go 83rd overall in a stronger draft, Wilson should go in that area as well.

Edit: More here NYFS ny mets message boards ? View topic - 2013 Mets Draft: Round 03, Pick 76: cf Ivan Wilson (HS)

Yeah, I've seen that.

I guess I don't see anything there that contradicts anything I got from PG or BA, except maybe a slight discrepancy on his arm strength. Law's not really describing a five tool guy there. Average speed, average arm, issues with his swing and pitch recognition, etc.

As far as the thread goes, you see a lot of verbal descriptions from posters of stuff like "plus speed" and "good arm". But when you actually look at his measurables as recorded by PG, it's clear that he doesn't actually have plus speed, or a plus arm, just above average speed that's likely to diminish due to his size and an average-ish arm.

That kind of what I'm saying about draft picks getting overrated. You can't trust verbal descriptions of draft picks from fans and team focused writers. They get stuff wrong and exaggerate a lot, like when they describe a 6.72 runner as having "plus speed".

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

How about "5 tool talent Alhaji Turay"?

I hadn't thought about him in years!

[HolyCow98]

For the record, any opinion I've expressed has been based on my perceptions and results from 25-30 round drafts. It has been sometime (OOTP 10 or perhaps longer) since I've used anything as small as a 5 or even 7 round draft pools with the exception of the one online league I'm (NPBL) which uses 6 rounds and is about to increase that to 7. That league is currently using OOTP 13 (going to covert to 15 in the near future).

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

Edited

Please don't keep that going, man.

Honestly that post is definitely warnable. No way I'm going to give you a warning since there's been far worse stuff I've let go in this thread, and you've been provoked as we all have, but you may still want to edit it.

EDIT: Thanks for editing it!

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

Going to use the Mets again, since that's all I know of in deep draft classes.

Casey Meisner (3rd rounder, RHSP, 6'7/170 with a FB already in the low 90s and projection out the you know what) isn't Ricky Knapp (short RHSP college guy might top at 91, pure C&C guy) is not Tyler Bashlor (11th round reliever big fastball) isn't Paul Paez (30th round lefty reliever) etc... but in OOTP, they might as well all be named Joe Smith because they ARE all the same.

Casey Meisner has HUGE upside, if he fills out, if he adds velocity, if his secondaries develop, he could become the next Syndergaard. There are innumerable impediments in his way, but he's not Ricky Knapp, who might become Rick Reed (Dillon Gee, if you want) if all breaks right.

You're right on all those guys respective skills.

I guess I just don't see where the OOTP draft doesn't have guys that different. You have your 7-4-5 Meisner's in the third round, your 3-4-8 Knapp's, your 6-4-3 Bashlor's and your 3-3-6 Paez's later on, right?

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Please don't keep that going, man.

Honestly that post is definitely warnable. No way I'm going to give you a warning since there's been far worse stuff I've let go in this thread, and you've been provoked as we all have, but you may still want to edit it.

Another take on Ivan Wilson:

One scout's writeup:

OF, Ivan Wilson, Ruston HS, La, 6'3 220, R/R, very strong, physical specimen, throws ave when sets up to throw to bases, has good hand speed and strength in his swing, bat goes to the ball, runs very well once underway, 4.27 out of the box from RH side, tracked the ball well in the OF, best suited for either corner, projects to hit for HR power, Some Joe Carter comparisons for me. 4-7 round type follow for 2013. Showed much better confidence then he did during the Breakthrough Series in Durham.

The aggrigate (sp?) when you take all these reports together make it sound like a 3.5 to 4 tool player. IMO, anyway. Did you read the thread I linked to?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

Another take on Ivan Wilson:

One scout's writeup:

OF, Ivan Wilson, Ruston HS, La, 6'3 220, R/R, very strong, physical specimen, throws ave when sets up to throw to bases, has good hand speed and strength in his swing, bat goes to the ball, runs very well once underway, 4.27 out of the box from RH side, tracked the ball well in the OF, best suited for either corner, projects to hit for HR power, Some Joe Carter comparisons for me. 4-7 round type follow for 2013. Showed much better confidence then he did during the Breakthrough Series in Durham.

The aggrigate (sp?) when you take all these reports together make it sound like a 3.5 to 4 tool player. IMO, anyway. Did you read the thread I linked to?

I did, always follow the NY Future stars draft threads and checked it over again after you posted. See post 188 above for my thoughts.

He's a very nice player, and he has real potential as a possible MLB guy, I'm not saying he doesn't. But in the end, I just don't see the 3-4 stars. I see a slightly different, maybe better Kirk Nieuwenhuis.

What do we have him in the roster set? Two stars maybe? Or maybe he's just a nice 1 star guy, I'll check.

Yeah, he's a 1 star with some real potential to be an MLB regular, if he can get a slight boost to his avoid K potential or even if not. And the roster set guys are usually rated a bit higher than they would be if they were similar fictional players, to keep them around longer. I do think his eye deserves a slight boost though, since he actually showed a pretty good eye in the GCL last year.

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

You're right on all those guys respective skills.

I guess I just don't see where the OOTP draft doesn't have guys that different. You have your 7-4-5 Meisner's in the third round, your 3-4-8 Knapp's, your 6-4-3 Bashlor's and your 3-3-6 Paez's later on, right?

I guess I just never see them.

I think if you had something like

"This guy is a scout's dream, but there are significant developmental hurdles here. He's 6'7 and a stringbean at 170 lbs. Fastball sitting 90-92 right now with significant velocity projection. Alot could go wrong here, but for a team who likes extreme upside, this guy wouldn't be a bad pick in the 3rd round on. His secondaries include a curveball and changeup, which flash average right now, and could both eventually become plus. If everything goes right, Meisner could end up being a beast on the hill, but if things don't work out, his floor is not a major leaguer".

Current grade: 20
Potential grade: 75
Boom/Bust rating (default 1-100): 85

And obviously for Ricky Knapp it'd be potential: 40, B/B rating: 20/30.

[Rain King]

I'm wondering if while going through the draft in this version, it might be helpful to use the relative rating scale and drop the level as you go. Guys that you can't tell apart on the major league scale should have differences on, say, a AA scale and so on. I haven't actually gotten to the point of doing this, but it is a possible benefit from that new feature that I've been rolling around in my head.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

I guess I just never see them.

I think if you had something like

"This guy is a scout's dream, but there are significant developmental hurdles here. He's 6'7 and a stringbean at 170 lbs. Fastball sitting 90-92 right now with significant velocity projection. Alot could go wrong here, but for a team who likes extreme upside, this guy wouldn't be a bad pick in the 3rd round on. His secondaries include a curveball and changeup, which flash average right now, and could both eventually become plus. If everything goes right, Meisner could end up being a beast on the hill, but if things don't work out, his floor is not a major leaguer".

Current grade: 20
Potential grade: 75
Boom/Bust rating (default 1-100): 85

And obviously for Ricky Knapp it'd be potential: 40, B/B rating: 20/30.

Well if you're talking about the written scouting reports in game, I agree they're pretty terrible.

Honestly, I like that idea. Better scouting report, slightly higher potential ratings (not 75 for Meisner, that's crazy) but with a bigger boom/bust factor.

The boom/bust rating would be a super addition to the game.

The main boom/bust factor now comes from guys that have lower current ratings than they should for their age.

[HolyCow98]

Potential of 75..out of 80?

If its out of 80....I'm not sure I would want see a guy who is listed as " this guy wouldn't be a bad pick in the 3rd round..." with a 75 out of 80 potential.

If you mean 75 out of 100...then disregard

Is that what you guys are wanting? I'm curious....not trying to be inflammatory.

[tejdog1]

That'd also allow you to see, maybe... those "players who fall" and you have to overslot.

Like... say someone with 75 upside, boom/bust of 85, you take him in round 12, he wants 1st round money, say $1.25m. Something like would work with a boom/bust rating or whatever.

[olivertheorem]

I got tired of reading this thread when I got to page 6 (started at page 2, man you guys ran with this today), so this may have been covered already.

In 14 (haven't done a draft yet in 15), there was differentiation in the component potentials in the later rounds. Sure, as you got later the guys had more holes, and had maybe one legit MLB potential, but a little legwork would find me guys who had something to build off of if they got lucky. Maybe if the draft screen defaulted to the core hitting/pitching potentials in addition to OVR/POT so you could see the guys' actual tools (well, projected tools) it would help in the at-a-glance differentiation. I don't think it does this now.

Just a thought.