Poor talent in recent Draft Years

[endgame]

Thanks for the insights, beorn. One question, and it's been a long day so I may just not be 'getting it', but what does it mean when you say

8 were high number one draft picks

? Does this mean early first round picks?

[beorn]

Originally Posted by endgame

Thanks for the insights, beorn. One question, and it's been a long day so I may just not be 'getting it', but what does it mean when you say ? Does this mean early first round picks?

Yes.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by endgame

FWIW, focusing on some of the thoughts I and others mentioned previously in the thread, I actually went pretty deep into the draft before I delegated the picks out. I think I made it to about the 15th round or so, looking pretty carefully at the recommendations first and then using it to key on specific qualities in the balance of the candidates. Truth be told, in past versions, it was unlikely I'd go that deep picking on my own.

Once it gets to the red rated players... I'm done.

[GoodOlKevin]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Yeah, I'm the resident draft nut on the boards. I actually create the ratings for the real players in the 2013 MLB quickstart draft. And that being so, the ridiculously high ratings that OOTP used to generate for draftable players always seemed silly to me.

To say that the new way isn't realistic simply shows me you don't know that much about the real draft. Or if you do that you're drinking the kool-aid that some draft sites give you about player potentials.

Seriously, go on baseball ref and look up some past drafts. Tell me how many MLB stars came from the 5th round in a given draft. The 10th? etc. Few to none.

Here's some facts.

Take a random round, say the fifth. Let's look at how many good MLB players came from the 5th round in the course of a few years:

2000:
One good and one ok MLB player.
30 matching player(s). 7 played in the majors (23%). Total of 13.2 WAR, or 1.9 per major leaguer.

2001:
Big, big year. Three All-Star type guys and two bench players/borderline starters.
30 matching player(s). 12 played in the majors (40%). Total of 44.3 WAR, or 3.7 per major leaguer.

2002:

Two MLB bench players and a couple of scrubs.
30 matching player(s). 8 played in the majors (26%). Total of 3.2 WAR, or 0.4 per major leaguer.

2003
Essentially nothing
30 matching player(s). 4 played in the majors (13%). Total of 0.8 WAR, or 0.2 per major leaguer.

2004
One decent player with the potential to still improve (Jake McGee) and one bench player.
hing player(s). 11 played in the majors (36%). Total of 1.5 WAR, or 0.1 per major leaguer.

2005
Essentially nothing.
30 matching player(s). 7 played in the majors (23%). Total of -0.7 WAR, or -0.1 per major leaguer.

2006
Another big year. A good MLB SP and a bench player/borderline starter (Chris Davis)
30 matching player(s). 12 played in the majors (40%). Total of 8.9 WAR, or 0.7 per major leaguer.

2007
A youngster with MLB starter potential and a couple ok rp's.
30 matching player(s). 12 played in the majors (40%). Total of 4.7 WAR, or 0.4 per major leaguer.

2008
Two nice starting type MLB players.
30 matching player(s). 8 played in the majors (26%). Total of 14.7 WAR, or 1.8 per major leaguer.

2009
One solid MLB starter/bench player with some potential in Brandon Belt.
30 matching player(s). 4 played in the majors (13%). Total of 6.0 WAR, or 1.5 per major leaguer.

Gonna stop there since most of the players from this point on are still developing and haven't even made the majors yet.

So in 10 years the fifth round of the draft looks like this:
300 picks
85 of whom played in the majors at least for one ab.
15 of whom are good enough to have been solid starters, good bench players, or key RP's for a decent part of their careers.
3 of whom can be considered genuine stars if you count Jim Johnson as a genuine star, which is debatable in my opinion. 2 if you don't

So according to this data, in a given real draft out of 30 picks in the 5th round there are likely to be 1.5 MLB starting caliber players. You're also likely to find a "star" player once every 3-4 years.

Do you really think the current ratings won't accomplish this in the 5th round?

How would you define those results as showing anything other than those picks being "lottery tickets"?

And this is from a high round. Trust me, the results don't get better the further down you go.

A big part of the opposition to the changes come from people not really understanding just how few great players you really find in lower rounds of the draft. So the current system is certainly much more realistic.

I'm sorry if you don't find it fun, but it is realistic.

Very very interesting way to look at it. Thank you for this post.

[beorn]

Interesting post, lukasberger, I think you are correct, but I also think that there's more to it.

1) It's quite different thinking a bunch of round 5 players should be big time performers from thinking players into the top of round two should look interesting.

2) In actuality, if players are drafted roughly in the order of their worth, players in round 5 will not often be significant major league players regardless of whether ratings run high or low. Whether these round 5 guys have 6s or 4s for ratings, a whole bunch of players must have been better in order to be picked higher. In general, a baseball league does not add 5 significant players per team across the league each season. So the number of round 5 players making it will be a function of a) how many higher rated players crash, b) how many round 5 guys were underestimated by the whole league, c) how many round 5 guys got talent potential jumps after being drafted. Also, the steepness of the talent curve... how much more talent does the 20th player have when compared to the 40th, 60th, etc.

3) One distinction that is very tough to make -- you refer to this when you mention "the kool-aid that some draft sites give you about player potentials" -- How do the 20th, 40th, 60th players look TO THE MAJOR LEAGUE CLUBS on draft day? That is an entirely different question than asking how they pan out over the years, or how they look to the fans on draft day... and this game is meant to model the way things look to the major league clubs.

On this, I can offer one piece of indirect evidence. Until the recent rule was changed outlawing the practice, major league teams would make trades and manipulate things so as to have extra players filing for free agency, so as to gain compensation picks. Remember, these comp picks were never in the top half of the first round, they were always second half of the first round or worse, and, for the old "Type B" players simply a supplemental pick.

So, through the eyes of major league teams, late first round picks, sandwich picks, and early second round picks LOOK good enough to actively strategize for (and important enough to pass a rule against this strategizing). Thus, as I figure it, if OOTP uses a talent curve such that players into the top of round two don't LOOK to be worth having, it is not realistic.

4) A significant portion of the shock over OOTP14 draft classes involves the top hitting prospects -- the first round types. Objectively, they are not as good as in the past. This is fine, if you are starting a league and want your results to echo MLB results of the past couple years. I've heard no complaints about unrealistic results... However, it is not so clearly a positive thing for long standing online leagues to suddenly run into draft classes so much skewed away from batting eye and contact. It appears that this happens, unless you take action and adjust player creation modifiers. It's not that OOTP needs to change, but people running long time leagues and moving them to OOTP should be aware of the change and make their decisions accordingly.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by beorn

3) One distinction that is very tough to make -- you refer to this when you mention "the kool-aid that some draft sites give you about player potentials" -- How do the 20th, 40th, 60th players look TO THE MAJOR LEAGUE CLUBS on draft day? That is an entirely different question than asking how they pan out over the years, or how they look to the fans on draft day... and this game is meant to model the way things look to the major league clubs.

On this, I can offer one piece of indirect evidence. Until the recent rule was changed outlawing the practice, major league teams would make trades and manipulate things so as to have extra players filing for free agency, so as to gain compensation picks. Remember, these comp picks were never in the top half of the first round, they were always second half of the first round or worse, and, for the old "Type B" players simply a supplemental pick.

So, through the eyes of major league teams, late first round picks, sandwich picks, and early second round picks LOOK good enough to actively strategize for (and important enough to pass a rule against this strategizing). Thus, as I figure it, if OOTP uses a talent curve such that players into the top of round two don't LOOK to be worth having, it is not realistic.

Well done. This is one of the first truly solid arguments for the old draft system in this thread.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by beorn

On this, I can offer one piece of indirect evidence. Until the recent rule was changed outlawing the practice, major league teams would make trades and manipulate things so as to have extra players filing for free agency, so as to gain compensation picks. Remember, these comp picks were never in the top half of the first round, they were always second half of the first round or worse, and, for the old "Type B" players simply a supplemental pick.

So, through the eyes of major league teams, late first round picks, sandwich picks, and early second round picks LOOK good enough to actively strategize for (and important enough to pass a rule against this strategizing). Thus, as I figure it, if OOTP uses a talent curve such that players into the top of round two don't LOOK to be worth having, it is not realistic.

Of course the teams worked the system to get more picks. It is an advantage to get 5 picks in the top 100 as opposed to having 2. At your county fair raffle, if you buy 5 tickets you have a better chance of taking home the blue ribbon pie than if you only buy two. Do that year after year, you will eat more pie than the two ticket buyers.

IRL teams place value on someone who has the potential to simply play in the ML. About 80% of the drafted players never get a cup of coffee. About 1 % of the players who ever play a big league game get to the Hall of Fame.

How many number one overall picks are in the Hall of Fame? The answer is : Zero.

This will change when Griffey Jr gets the call from Cooperstown, but when he does, it will mean that it took 23 tries for the collective scouting wisdom, and particular team wisdom, to find a HOFer when given the opportunity to select from all of the talent.

If anything, even with the scouting changes, the OOTP scouting model remains more accurate in this regard, when compared to real life.

RL teams deal with RL injury rates. Reading the boards I don't see very many users playing with injuries set to "high" as the game recommends for modern day realism, or "very high". This is the environment that RL teams deal with. They need a flow of guys who can be 1 star ML players because 1 star ML players are still ML players, which 80% of the players who are drafted will never be. Therefore, there IS great interest in getting guys who will possibly be able to play in the ML, period, whether or not they ever play in an All Star game.

Originally Posted by beorn

However, it is not so clearly a positive thing for long standing online leagues to suddenly run into draft classes so much skewed away from batting eye and contact. It appears that this happens, unless you take action and adjust player creation modifiers. It's not that OOTP needs to change, but people running long time leagues and moving them to OOTP should be aware of the change and make their decisions accordingly.

This point is well taken. There is a change in how draft talent is presented to the user, and this will cause a change in approach for on-line leagues switching over, true enough. Each league, and each player in each league, should be aware of how the game has changed in v14, in this regard, so they can make an informed choice as to whether or not they want to make the change to v 14.

[beorn]

VanillaGorilla, our "disagreement" probably amounts to nothing, since I strongly suspect that everyone will find that OOTP14 early second round picks will look to be worth having, once people are acclimated to the new system.

However, I would still hold that it is highly significant that MLB teams jockeyed to get those comp picks, as long as it was within the rules. Teams were not picking up those picks for free or nearly free -- they were trading talent and taking on salaries, in order to get those picks. The market had established a reasonably high value for those picks.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by beorn

VanillaGorilla, our "disagreement" probably amounts to nothing, since I strongly suspect that everyone will find that OOTP14 early second round picks will look to be worth having, once people are acclimated to the new system.

However, I would still hold that it is highly significant that MLB teams jockeyed to get those comp picks, as long as it was within the rules. Teams were not picking up those picks for free or nearly free -- they were trading talent and taking on salaries, in order to get those picks. The market had established a reasonably high value for those picks.

I do not think we have a disagreement on the substance of the issue, but perhaps we do to degree.

These sandwich players are most certainly valuable, but not to the degree I think people playing this computer sim want to believe that they are, in reality, or to the degree in which they were presented previously.

You aren't going to find 60 All Stars in a draft. And with the 60th pick, you shouldn't have any sort of omniscient foresight as to which remaining player that was bypassed by 29 other teams will develop into an All Star.

I go back to Wade Boggs. He looked like a future HOFer to 0% of the people who make their living watching, studying, and scouting baseball when he was drafted in the 7th rd. Glenn Hoffman looked to the Red Sox a much surer bet of being a MLB player. That's why they picked him in the second rd (can't fault the Red Sox 1 iota for liking a pitcher like Bruce Hurst for their first pick, that year).

Glenn Hoffman would be one of those sandwich picks, basicly. A guy that is ready to play at the ML level, or play in a short ammount of time. Guys that can play ML baseball are damn good baseball players, period, and really hard to find. That Hoffman didn't go to Cooperstown doesn't mean that the Red Sox didn't do their job. That Boggs is in the HOF doesn't mean that they did do their job and 29 other teams did not.

There should be no player in the second rd that stands out as a surefire HOFer or even an All Star. The guys at that point in the draft are guys that show talent to play major league baseball sometime soon, and that is it. If they showed anything more, they would be drafted in the first rd, because those guys are rare finds.

I agree that there is a BP effect that happens to casual observers that causes them to conclude that every player in the top 100 are superstars in the making. They are not. They are all potential superstars, perhaps, but if you looked at an 18 year-old Ryan Zimmerman and an 18 year-old Wade Boggs, you would be correct in thinking that the Zimmerman kid sure shows a whole lot more talent and potential than the Boggs kid. Is Zimmerman a superstar? Maybe, maybe not. Was Boggs?? Silly question.

Zimmerman was a solid pick to play in the Major leagues. Boggs, as an 18 year-old, was a flier of a pick to ever play MLB, at all. Glenn Hoffman was the safer bet. No scout in the world would have said otherwise.

[injury log]

Haven't read the whole thread, but there were some serious problems with draft prospects in OOTP last year. The game uses potential ratings for things like prospect lists, so when the draft is full of high-ceiling prospects, then each year the top 100 prospect list gets completely overtaken by last year's draft class. That is not at all what happens in real life; in real life, prospects usually need to demonstrate some aptitude for the pro game before receiving a high prospect ranking. I also found last year's model quite depressing; I'd draft a ton of intriguing prospects, and one by one they'd all turn into sawdust. So while I understand that some people found the draft more fun when it was full of amazing prospects, the months and years after the draft were not, at least for me, fun at all.

I really think OOTP's talent model needs to be overhauled to make the draft realistic. It's possible to make prospects look interesting without giving them sky-high potential ratings. In real life, there's an important distinction between 'risky' and 'safe' prospects. You sometimes have the raw toolshed with mammoth batting practice power, a cannon arm, and lightning speed who can't hit a breaking ball, and then you have the sluggish grinder who can work the count and slap the ball in the gaps, and who plays reliable defense already, but who will never hit 30 HRs or steal 30 bases. In OOTP terms, one has current ratings very far from his potentials, and the other has lower potentials but higher current ratings. But I don't think that distinction matters much in OOTP, and it really should. In later rounds, GMs should be choosing between safer picks with lower upsides, and riskier picks with higher upsides.

So I think the game needs to do a few things: a player's current ratings should matter a lot more, and the further they are from his potentials, the less likely it should be the player reaches his potential (I don't think that's really the case at the moment - I think age is really the only important factor); the game should give some kind of risk indicator, so that GMs know which players are most likely to reach their potential; and the game should give some indication of a prospect's floor and ceiling. So in this past draft, for example, you had picks like first rounder SP Marco Gonzales (STL). He barely hits 90 on the gun, but he's very polished, and is a safe bet to have a career as a 4th or 5th starter. Few people think he has much of a shot to be the next Strasburg, however. Then you have a guy like OF Aaron Judge (supp-1st round), who is huge, and has great raw power, but was considered very raw for a college player. He's the kind of guy who could turn into Giancarlo Stanton, but has just as good a chance of topping out at A-ball.

I guess when I draft in OOTP, I'm not sure which guys are Marco Gonzales, and which guys are Aaron Judge.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by injury log

In real life, there's an important distinction between 'risky' and 'safe' prospects.

^^^^
THIS is an astute insight and an awesome suggestion.

[mpejkrm]

Very interesting debate guys. Just read through this and there are a lot of good points. After reading the first page I had a kind of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" feeling, with the idea that there are tons of good prospects every year IRL and many don't work out. But a lot of you guys make valid arguments for both sides and, I honestly haven't seen a difference, so it's not that big of a deal to me. But it's good to know some changes that have gone on.

On a side note, props to you lukas for doing a great job on the draft class for quickstart this year. As a draft/prospect junkie myself, I wasn't too happy about last year's as I felt it was sort of... off. This year is far better and I only found a few prospects I didn't really agree with a few things.

Also, didn't Wolf say he plays stats-only? If that's the case ... how would this do anything to him? He can't see their ratings or anything. Just their stats, and since all HS players and most college guys put up good stats it shouldn't mean anything. Just wondering.

[Orcin]

My current draft pool: There are four pitchers with potential rated above 3 stars. One is a closer. Another is a starter with two pitches. A third is a starter with four pitches and stamina of 30/100.

Oh well, at least there is one starting pitching prospect in the draft. That's pretty realistic. Most MLB drafts only have one exciting starting pitcher prospect.

[mpejkrm]

Originally Posted by Orcin

My current draft pool: There are four pitchers with potential rated above 3 stars. One is a closer. Another is a starter with two pitches. A third is a starter with four pitches and stamina of 30/100.

Oh well, at least there is one starting pitching prospect in the draft. That's pretty realistic. Most MLB drafts only have one exciting starting pitcher prospect.

What? In this year's draft, there were at least 30 potential major league starters who actually wanted to sign, and then 20+ more who were unsignable HSers. I don't what you mean by this. Only one ace or something?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by mpejkrm

What? In this year's draft, there were at least 30 potential major league starters who actually wanted to sign, and then 20+ more who were unsignable HSers. I don't what you mean by this. Only one ace or something?

It's called sarcasm.

[mpejkrm]

Originally Posted by Orcin

It's called sarcasm.

Oh. I'm dumb. :P

[The Wolf]

I confess to having a non-stats-only MLB league.

To solve the perceived problem I added a boatload of college and HS feeder teams, and now everything is working out fine in that league.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Not to sound too much like an apologist for the developers, but it's the first day of Spring Training in my league and I'm about the start the fourth season. I've had three June drafts of 30 rounds apiece.

My drafts have given me one solid starting pitcher (did a great job out of the pen the previous season) and another excellent reliever. Both pitchers were first round picks. I have an outfielder whose performance has exceeded his ratings and, while he may not be an all star, will be a contributing member of my Major League team. He's an excellent defender and baserunner (I look for those things in later round picks) and can hit well enough to be a fifth outfielder. He was a thirteenth round pick.

The rest of the guys are still in the minor league system. It's a long journey to the majors for most players. I have about five solid prospects at various levels of the minors.

I think the new system is working fine. Draft pools do not appear as good at the front end, but the same number and quality of MLB players is being produced. IRL the draft is a crapshoot, the game is modelling this. You have your hits that should have missed, you have your misses that should have hit, but in the end a few guys out of dozens become productive major league players.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

I think the new system is working fine. Draft pools do not appear as good at the front end, but the same number and quality of MLB players is being produced. IRL the draft is a crapshoot, the game is modelling this. You have your hits that should have missed, you have your misses that should have hit, but in the end a few guys out of dozens become productive major league players.

That's pretty much what I found in the tests I ran - there has been little to no change to the overall talent distribution in the draft, just the PERCEIVED talent distribution.

Which is pretty much what this debate has been about, for the most part.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

That's pretty much what I found in the tests I ran - there has been little to no change to the overall talent distribution in the draft, just the PERCEIVED talent distribution.

Which is pretty much what this debate has been about, for the most part.

Yup thats has been said before. Its actually a fix because before this year, players would have high potential ratings and then magically "decline" in that area which really wasnt a decline but the game adjusting. This lead to players reducing TCR thinking that was the culprit.