Initial Draft and Talent Evaluation Terribly Broken - Page 2

The Wolf · 07-07-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

I like finances; just fairer/better finances.

Then set all the markets to be the same size and equalize everything economic. Problem solved.

Charley575 · 07-07-2008, 09:26 PM

I don't really have a problem with teams having different draft strategies. Nor do I necessarily want there to be total parity. However, teams that draft "for the future" should not be permanently handicapped with miniscule markets because of it. That's just silly, IMHO.

bababui · 07-07-2008, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Then set all the markets to be the same size and equalize everything economic. Problem solved.

Thats one solution. But common sense would dictate that below a certain level, an MLB franchise couldnt exist. In the above example, the Anaheim market size is 1. Now 1 is a small town in Idaho. 20 would/should be Tokyo/Mexico City. The smallest MLB market sizes should be around 6 ands the average about 10.

bababui · 07-07-2008, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charley575

I don't really have a problem with teams having different draft strategies. Nor do I necessarily want there to be total parity. However, teams that draft "for the future" should not be permanently handicapped with miniscule markets because of it. That's just silly, IMHO.

I agree with you Charley. But for the first 10 picks or so, teams should get the best possible player. After that, they could choose between the lower priced young players or the veteran roleplayers.

Charley575 · 07-07-2008, 09:59 PM

You make a good point. Of course, the argument can be made that teams should adjust their draft strategy according to their market si- oh. Never mind.

The Wolf · 07-07-2008, 11:12 PM

Baba, just set all your markets to the same size and move on.

Long_Long_Name · 07-07-2008, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Baba, just set all your markets to the same size and move on.

That's the only part of what bababui says that I'd support - markets should exist prior to the draft, and players should have contracts prior to the draft - or, at least, have to negotiate with the team that drafts them. I'm not a fan of finances being decided after the draft. Drafted players should derive from financial situation, not the other way around.

Charley575 · 07-08-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

That's the only part of what bababui says that I'd support - markets should exist prior to the draft, and players should have contracts prior to the draft - or, at least, have to negotiate with the team that drafts them. I'm not a fan of finances being decided after the draft. Drafted players should derive from financial situation, not the other way around.

YES!

andoq · 07-08-2008, 12:11 PM

I prefer the current system - I would disklike having to negotiate with each person I drafted, and I like that the initial draft always ends up with different markets sizes. How each team gets thier market size, I don't really care, nor do I care if they were drafting 1st or 22nd to get to their current state.

I think the suggestion that the first 10 rounds teams should draft the best player clearly demostrates the difficulty of coming up with a workable alternative inagural draft. With players form the MLB quickstart, who is the "best" player? I've done about 10 drafts, and it's been Jay Bruce, then Evan Longoria - which sounds like a good strategy to me. Yet neither is the best current player. But they are the best combination of current + potential.

I think perhaps a compromise would be for people to be able to set the priorties of each team before the inagural draft: current talent? Or potential talent? A team that favored current talent would end up being a big-market team, but a team that favored potential would end up being a small market team.

But, you might be able to acheive this just by manipulating the personel (scouts and GM's) for each team before the draft.

Joe Shlabotnick · 07-08-2008, 01:27 PM

I agree that we should be able to set financials before the draft. I was shocked and disappointed to discover it's the other way around.

I don't understand the concept of playing a game where we are trying to immerse ourselves in a fictional world, we imagine these different cities and towns we want in our league ....

...and then the game kicks in, and the "big-market" team you imagined is now a small-market team, and vice versa.

In my recent start-up, I worked around this by holding a draft, then looking over finances and assigning my teams based on the resulting budgets and payroll. Which is a backwards way to work, but at least it can be done.

Carplos · 07-08-2008, 01:35 PM

You can change teams markets and adjust TV revenue, etc. after the draft. I understand why it would be easier to be able to set it up before--but you have to set it up at some point, regardless. But no team is "stuck" with a market, etc.

Long_Long_Name · 07-08-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carplos

You can change teams markets and adjust TV revenue, etc. after the draft. I understand why it would be easier to be able to set it up before--but you have to set it up at some point, regardless. But no team is "stuck" with a market, etc.

But then, you have a team from, say, Louisville, that was "astronomical" market size after the draft, that suddenly becomes minuscule and will be in big trouble. If it had known beforehand that it was a minuscule market, there would not have been a problem.

Carplos · 07-08-2008, 02:05 PM

True, I tend to give those types of teams a bit more cash than others to compensate for a couple years. You can also just pretend that the owner is "overspending" to win from the beginning.

Markus Heinsohn · 07-08-2008, 02:08 PM

For OOTP Online I'll have to code a draft where you need to stay within a budget when drafting, so sooner or later this will be part of the 'normal' OOTP as well...

bababui · 07-08-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

For OOTP Online I'll have to code a draft where you need to stay within a budget when drafting, so sooner or later this will be part of the 'normal' OOTP as well...

Good news!!

The Wolf · 07-08-2008, 08:48 PM

Tell me why this doesn't work.

1. Autodraft to completion.

2. Set your finances and markets just how you want them.

3. Release all players to free agency.

4. Delete all players

5. Fill all teams with fictional players

6. Release all players to free agency and run a draft.

Carplos · 07-08-2008, 09:22 PM

Because when you run the draft again, it assigns fictional financials again.

Charley575 · 07-08-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Tell me why this doesn't work.

1. Autodraft to completion.

2. Set your finances and markets just how you want them.

3. Release all players to free agency.

4. Delete all players

5. Fill all teams with fictional players

6. Release all players to free agency and run a draft.

In this case, why have an inaugural draft? Just leave that box unchecked and skip immediately to step 3 after game creation. Of course, it still doesn't work because of what Carplos said.

I once started a league with a mass free agency period by releasing all players to the free agent pool and adjusting finances, then letting all teams battle for players. Of course, that's fine when all teams are AI controlled. For a human GM, you could make a lifelong career out of filling a major league roster and 3 levels of minors entirely through free agency. Neat challenge, though.

The Wolf · 07-09-2008, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carplos

Because when you run the draft again, it assigns fictional financials again.

Okay, turn financials off and run the draft.

07-08-2008, 12:11 PM	#29
andoq Bat Boy Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 8	agree w/markus I prefer the current system - I would disklike having to negotiate with each person I drafted, and I like that the initial draft always ends up with different markets sizes. How each team gets thier market size, I don't really care, nor do I care if they were drafting 1st or 22nd to get to their current state. I think the suggestion that the first 10 rounds teams should draft the best player clearly demostrates the difficulty of coming up with a workable alternative inagural draft. With players form the MLB quickstart, who is the "best" player? I've done about 10 drafts, and it's been Jay Bruce, then Evan Longoria - which sounds like a good strategy to me. Yet neither is the best current player. But they are the best combination of current + potential. I think perhaps a compromise would be for people to be able to set the priorties of each team before the inagural draft: current talent? Or potential talent? A team that favored current talent would end up being a big-market team, but a team that favored potential would end up being a small market team. But, you might be able to acheive this just by manipulating the personel (scouts and GM's) for each team before the draft.

07-08-2008, 01:27 PM	#30
Joe Shlabotnick Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Row 12, Seat 7 Posts: 291	I agree that we should be able to set financials before the draft. I was shocked and disappointed to discover it's the other way around. I don't understand the concept of playing a game where we are trying to immerse ourselves in a fictional world, we imagine these different cities and towns we want in our league .... ...and then the game kicks in, and the "big-market" team you imagined is now a small-market team, and vice versa. In my recent start-up, I worked around this by holding a draft, then looking over finances and assigning my teams based on the resulting budgets and payroll. Which is a backwards way to work, but at least it can be done. __________________ This space for rent.

07-07-2008, 09:26 PM	#22
Charley575 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 544	I don't really have a problem with teams having different draft strategies. Nor do I necessarily want there to be total parity. However, teams that draft "for the future" should not be permanently handicapped with miniscule markets because of it. That's just silly, IMHO.

07-07-2008, 09:59 PM	#25
Charley575 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 544	You make a good point. Of course, the argument can be made that teams should adjust their draft strategy according to their market si- oh. Never mind.

07-08-2008, 01:35 PM	#31
Carplos Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Idaho Posts: 2,784 Infractions: 1/0 (0)	You can change teams markets and adjust TV revenue, etc. after the draft. I understand why it would be easier to be able to set it up before--but you have to set it up at some point, regardless. But no team is "stuck" with a market, etc.

07-08-2008, 02:05 PM	#33
Carplos Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Idaho Posts: 2,784 Infractions: 1/0 (0)	True, I tend to give those types of teams a bit more cash than others to compensate for a couple years. You can also just pretend that the owner is "overspending" to win from the beginning.

07-08-2008, 02:08 PM	#34
Markus Heinsohn Developer OOTP Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Germany Posts: 24,805	For OOTP Online I'll have to code a draft where you need to stay within a budget when drafting, so sooner or later this will be part of the 'normal' OOTP as well...

07-08-2008, 09:22 PM	#37
Carplos Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Idaho Posts: 2,784 Infractions: 1/0 (0)	Because when you run the draft again, it assigns fictional financials again.