Can we tone down OOTP created draft class overall potentials?

[luckymann]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

It's always interesting to hear the discussions and everyone's impressions. The draft is running a little hot, I would agree, and we'll revisit a little on the player creation going forward to get a little more balance.

I do think our ratings scheme in general pegs players to a higher rating than you would see on like a Fangraphs. I mean, by their scheme, only 10 prospects in baseball are even a 60, which is probably true, but man, it sucks when there's no difference in talent and you just see 500 guys between a 45 and a 55 when making any choices.

But it's not easy, there's a lot of balance to make sure the overall talent levels in the league don't start skewing too low or too high.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. Again, perception v reality. Nobody wants all of the talent to be interchangeable 40-50s. But nor do we want the guideline provided to us by the team or OSA scout in assessment of the pool's talent level to be so horrifically inflated. It is, after all, basically the only thing we have to go by.

I'm reluctant to speak for others, so I'll stop and change tack.

Here's what I would like to see.

What I want is a fair cross-section of talent to choose from that the scouts have provided at least a ballpark (sorry) assessment of but that I can then use my own rule(s) of thumb to make the final decision on which to draft, and to be given as good a chance for the picks I make to, in retrospect as the sim unfolds over the subsequent seasons, turn out to have been good (boom), bad (bust), or indifferent (in line with expectations), just as it happens IRL.

The vast majority of players as it currently stands in OOTP end up being busts of varying degrees from their original SCOUTED ratings. That unfairly makes us feel stupid or as if we're no good at the game, and increases the amount of negative feedback you'll get from us on the topic.

I want you to make it so the spread of original SCOUTED ratings v the players' actual talent levels are more evenly distributed to surprise on both the upside and downside.

Now, that's just one man's request.

All the same, I get the feeling this is what people are asking for in threads like this one. Not an adjustment to the pool's underlying talent level, but how it is originally assessed and presented.

Happy to be corrected if I'm off the mark.

G

[Lukas Berger]

This is such a tough thing. Draft pool ratings are kind of like an OOTP third rail.

I agree with the folks who don't like this, and ideally I would like to see us adjust this as well.

However, based on past experience, I can guarantee you that if and when we do this, there will be a thread as long or longer than this one with folks upset about that and begging us to go back to the inflated pools.

This whole subject is something where we literally cannot make everyone happy, unless we introduced some sort of toggle. But given it's already tricky enough to properly set development with only one level, increasing the levels to balance for has the potential for disaster, and I think is a non-starter because of that.

What will probably happen is that we'll try to hit a happy medium, of having more like a handful of 80's in each draft, but not as many as there are now and so on down the scale.

Again though, changing things here at all is tricky because it requires rebalancing development, and that is always tough to do and hit right.

[Baconi]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

This is such a tough thing. Draft pool ratings are kind of like an OOTP third rail.

I agree with the folks who don't like this, and ideally I would like to see us adjust this as well.

However, based on past experience, I can guarantee you that if and when we do this, there will be a thread as long or longer than this one with folks upset about that and begging us to go back to the inflated pools.

This whole subject is something where we literally cannot make everyone happy, unless we introduced some sort of toggle. But given it's already tricky enough to properly set development with only one level, increasing the levels to balance for has the potential for disaster, and I think is a non-starter because of that.

What will probably happen is that we'll try to hit a happy medium, of having more like a handful of 80's in each draft, but not as many as there are now and so on down the scale.

Again though, changing things here at all is tricky because it requires rebalancing development, and that is always tough to do and hit right.

Thanks for the response Lukas. I'm wondering if what you're referring to when talking about a toggle is about different options for talent distribution/ratings rather than just the way ratings are presented? It seems to me like for the most part, the actual underlying ratings are not necessarily a problem, albeit maybe slightly inflated. It's all about how it's presented. I would just like it if the relative scale of ratings could be changed so that only the very best of the created players are shown as 70-80 POT, e.g. in a draft class in the current game with ten 80 POT players, maybe only one of them should be scouted as an 80 - without actually changing what the "real" ratings are.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by luckymann

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. Again, perception v reality. Nobody wants all of the talent to be interchangeable 40-50s. But nor do we want the guideline provided to us by the team or OSA scout in assessment of the pool's talent level to be so horrifically inflated. It is, after all, basically the only thing we have to go by.

I'm reluctant to speak for others, so I'll stop and change tack.

Here's what I would like to see.

What I want is a fair cross-section of talent to choose from that the scouts have provided at least a ballpark (sorry) assessment of but that I can then use my own rule(s) of thumb to make the final decision on which to draft, and to be given as good a chance for the picks I make to, in retrospect as the sim unfolds over the subsequent seasons, turn out to have been good (boom), bad (bust), or indifferent (in line with expectations), just as it happens IRL.

The vast majority of players as it currently stands in OOTP end up being busts of varying degrees from their original SCOUTED ratings. That unfairly makes us feel stupid or as if we're no good at the game, and increases the amount of negative feedback you'll get from us on the topic.

I want you to make it so the spread of original SCOUTED ratings v the players' actual talent levels are more evenly distributed to surprise on both the upside and downside.

Now, that's just one man's request.

All the same, I get the feeling this is what people are asking for in threads like this one. Not an adjustment to the pool's underlying talent level, but how it is originally assessed and presented.

Happy to be corrected if I'm off the mark.

G

This pretty much sums up what I was trying to get at when starting the thread.

[dw001da]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

However, based on past experience, I can guarantee you that if and when we do this, there will be a thread as long or longer than this one with folks upset about that and begging us to go back to the inflated pools.

I note that OOTP27 is marketed as “immersive,” “dynamic,” and “authentic,” but avoids the description “realistic.” This wisely leaves yourselves quite a bit of room for a variety of approaches in sticky conundrums such as this. I definitely prefer to point much more closely to a realistic draft ratings distribution and presentation and simply don’t understand the preference to “feel good” about a draft pick’s rating only to see it come crashing down later because it didn’t actually represent the true talent level - But I also get that it may just not be for me to understand.

There were several of what I thought were strong recommendations on how to make a tightly packed ratings draft be not as much of a slog to navigate, as well as requests to better explain what is happening with the draft ratings in terms of appearance vs. performance. Maybe much more education on how the draft ratings function in-game, along with providing additional out-of-the-box filtering tools and views might mitigate the anticipated backlash?

[snepp]

I'm going to throw out my post from another thread...

"Realistic" looking draft class = "Not fun" and players whine

Top prospects "always" decline = "Not fun" and players whine

It's a straight up lose/lose proposition, the devs simply can't win here.

May as well add "not realistic" looking draft class = players whine (my camp)

I don't envy the balancing act required here. The "dual" prospect grading is an interesting approach though, a bit like an expansion on the development risk grading.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

This is such a tough thing. Draft pool ratings are kind of like an OOTP third rail.

I agree with the folks who don't like this, and ideally I would like to see us adjust this as well.

However, based on past experience, I can guarantee you that if and when we do this, there will be a thread as long or longer than this one with folks upset about that and begging us to go back to the inflated pools.

This whole subject is something where we literally cannot make everyone happy, unless we introduced some sort of toggle. But given it's already tricky enough to properly set development with only one level, increasing the levels to balance for has the potential for disaster, and I think is a non-starter because of that.

What will probably happen is that we'll try to hit a happy medium, of having more like a handful of 80's in each draft, but not as many as there are now and so on down the scale.

Again though, changing things here at all is tricky because it requires rebalancing development, and that is always tough to do and hit right.

I well remember the year the very realistic draft classes were put in the game and the complaints that followed. I'm not sure you weren't the impetus for doing those realistic classes. To this day I'll say it was a very vocal minority that caused OOTP to cave on the issue. The complainers did have a point on how tedious it could be. The problem IMHO came when OOTP overcorrected.

Like luckymann I'll not try to speak for others but will post (maybe repost) what I would like to see. Any player that is rated an 80/80 should have the entire world excited about what he could become. The hype should be deafening. There should be a max of one per draft along with some drafts having zero. Any player in real life in the 70's would have that type of hype. If we want to inflate to a handful make them 70's. IMHO someone that wants multiple 80 rated players and complains when they're not there, is no different than the player that says "no, the class has to be based totally on reality. who cares if it's tedious." Both types of complainers are on the fringe.

Having a toggle sounds great, BUT, if I were the developer I wouldn't want to touch with a 10 ft pole. As a non-coder I have no idea how hard/easy this would be or how much time it would take. I think what you'd get is two groups complaining about how their selection doesn't work.

A middle ground is all I'm asking for. A draft where 30 - 60 (60 is very high IMHO but better than what we have now) players are rated 60+. That's enough for two rounds.

Perhaps one 80 and up to 15 in the 70's (still too many but were looking for a middle ground). The 80 is still something to get very excited about and should be based on under the hood scouting that suggests he is the "real deal". He can still bust but is more likely to be an "all timer" unless injuries cut into his career.

The fifteen or so 70's rated players could keep the "more will crash than maintain their rating" model we have now. These are the players that can satisfy the "fun" (not an insult) OOTP users. Still a bit high for my taste, but again we're looking for a middle ground between reality and fun. In this world almost anyone with a lottery pick (whether "earned" or "won" in the draw) has the opportunity to draft a 70 Pot player.

After that throw in some 60's and high 50's to get through the first three or four rounds. Like the current model these guys will have high rates of ending up crashing rather than holding their ratings.

As others have noted, it's not the draft class. It's the presentation of the draft class.

I am happy to see both you and Matt take the time to comment in the discussion. It's good to know it is something you guys are looking at and at least considering ways you could make it better for everyone. For that I say thank you.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by snepp

I'm going to throw out my post from another thread...

Quote:
"Realistic" looking draft class = "Not fun" and players whine

Top prospects "always" decline = "Not fun" and players whine

It's a straight up lose/lose proposition, the devs simply can't win here.
May as well add "not realistic" looking draft class = players whine (my camp)

I don't envy the balancing act required here. The "dual" prospect grading is an interesting approach though, a bit like an expansion on the development risk grading.

I think the answer is simple. If people are going to whine regardless, the focus should be on what is realistic.

[jpeters1734]

it's definitely not fun to see so many high rated draft prospects crash as soon as they are drafted. They do this because the draft pool is inflated and since everything is relative, their ratings normalize once they enter "gen pop".

I'm sorry to say, they simply should not be any 4.5-5 star prospects in the back half of the 1st round

[locuspc]

It seems like you could tone things down without touching development at all, just by reducing the projected potential that's displayed when scouting. I don't think the development is the problem, the problem is the potential ratings that 99% of prospects will never hit.

[CBLCardinals]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I think the answer is simple. If people are going to whine regardless, the focus should be on what is realistic.

This. 100%.

Scouts would be fired on the spot if they suggested a singular rookie draft has 15-25 “Bobby Witt Jr” 80 FV / 5 star potentials.

Makes no sense to me

[luckymann]

Originally Posted by locuspc

It seems like you could tone things down without touching development at all, just by reducing the projected potential that's displayed when scouting. I don't think the development is the problem, the problem is the potential ratings that 99% of prospects will never hit.

Exactly. Not sure why they seem to be having such trouble understanding this, we've made it pretty clear. Nobody wants development touched, but rather scouting. Nobody is saying that the talent pool is too strong, but rather the scouts' initial assessment of it.

I, too, appreciate the time taken by the higher-ups to respond. But it is wasting their time and ours if the response skirts the issue being discussed.

Not trying to be a hard-ass here, but I for one expect better and feel the game deserves better.

Let me have one more pass at it and then I'll shut up for a while and give others a turn.

The process of new players entering the league is, as I see it, a two-pronged one. The engine decrees what the REAL ratings of each player will be both at the start and end of his career, subsequent development-based changes notwithstanding. Then, the OSA and club scouts each generate a set of SCOUTED ratings that are displayed in things like the player profile, Draft Pools, and FA lists.

So, what I think we're all looking for here is also a dual one.

Firstly, that the REAL ratings for players remain as you see fit, with both collective ups and downs decreed and applied randomly or within the context of the overall league environment and settings applied.

But then, more to the point of this entire thread, the SCOUTED ratings are more realistically and fairly distributed. Moreover, the scouting accuracy setting then alters this both by frequency and degree, so that 100% scouting shows the true REAL ratings, VERY LOW scouting misses on both the high and low side by the largest degree and with the most frequency, and the settings in-between those two extremes operate on a gradient, so that the deviation for NORMAL scouting is roughly halfway between 100% and VERY LOW.

I understand that I am coming at this from a layman's perspective and that untold problems present themselves in getting this to work holistically with all of the other relevant elements of the game.

But I honestly believe that, if you can at least move the needle somewhat in this regard, that the plaudits from the majority will drown out any opposing argument and, most importantly of all, greatly improve this facet of the game.

G

[Ratbelly]

The way 26 is working on player grading and drafting feels really good.

[crazyjoedavola]

Originally Posted by Ratbelly

The way 26 is working on player grading and drafting feels really good.

I agree!

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Ratbelly

The way 26 is working on player grading and drafting feels really good.

It’s totally unrealistic and only being done for “fun factors”. I’d like to see draft grades reflect reality.

[CBLCardinals]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It’s totally unrealistic and only being done for “fun factors”. I’d like to see draft grades reflect reality.

THIS. 100%.

The article is 5 years old but still has lots of great data:

https://community.fangraphs.com/analyzing-the-draft/


Here are some impactful snippets:

There is a lot to unpack here. The first thing to examine is the overall success rate of MLB draft picks. There were 45,694 total picks through 2004, and 6,459 of those eventually made it to the majors. That means that 85.86% of draft picks never appeared in an MLB game. Of all the draft picks made, 44,325 of them did not produce more than 5 WAR in their team-controlled seasons. That means 97% of all draft picks produced less than 5 WAR in their team-controlled seasons.

The next thing that stands out is the minimal number of star-level players that are available in each draft. On average there are only 3.15 players available each year that produce 25 or more WAR in the majors. The year with the most of these players was 1981 with eight, and 1974 was the only draft that did not have any players produce 25 or more WAR.

The main takeaway from these tables is that it is extremely difficult to make it to the major leagues and even more difficult to produce at a high level. It is no surprise that it is so hard for teams to build a championship-caliber roster through the draft alone. That brings me to the next part of my analysis.

[Ratbelly]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It’s totally unrealistic and only being done for “fun factors”. I’d like to see draft grades reflect reality.

agree with Matt, having 99% of people graded 45 to 55 while maybe being realistic would be terrible. I will forsake reality for that

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Ratbelly

agree with Matt, having 99% of people graded 45 to 55 while maybe being realistic would be terrible. I will forsake reality for that

I get what Matt is saying but also know that a set of filters would instantly fix any problems with finding a player you want. You're looking at a list of 100 45/55 players. Who do I pick? How can I know? This takes too much time. You set up a filter that sorts out all batter's potentials with >= 40 contact, 35 power, 45 k, 50 eye. And voila your list is now 10 players to pick from. You can pick and choose what skills and what levels to your heart's content to find what you want in seconds. Those filters can be saved and reused for every draft class. I know because I have "Draftable Pitcher" and "Draftable Batter" filters, which I already posted in response to one of your posts. None of this is hard or time consuming, and it's much faster than looking over all of the potentials and then "diving deeper into the stats". Especially when a lot of those overalls are meaningless, and based on inflated individual skill potentials that will never develop so the player can "crash" to the player he was created to be. IE the player the inflated potentials is hiding from us. Now not only are you digging into the player's skills to make a decision, you are also having to ask yourself, "how much regression to I have to anticipate in these skills?" I mean you know they're inflated, right? You know they can't be trusted, yes? And this is the model you are happy with, rather than joining in and saying "we need to find a middle groud"?

So yeah, it doesn't have to be one or the other. There can be a middle ground that brings some reality to a game that is a simulation. In case you missed it the thread is titled

Can we tone down OOTP created draft class overall potentials?

It's not asking for "total reality". It's not saying players are created with too much talent. It's not saying players aren't developing as they should. It's asking to "tone down" the inflated overall potentials. And here's the thing about inflated potentials and player development. As the players develop the absurdity and inaccuracy of the inflated potentials makes the game look bad.

As the game is now there is no fun in drafting a player that is 80 or 65 Pot for that matter because there are so many the projected rating means nothing. The 80 is going to be a 60 if you're lucky. The 65 is going to fall into your dreaded 45 to 55. And here's the kicker... the actual draft players are rated realistically and develop realistically. OOTP gets that right, they just can't show it. Huh You're literally saying you'd rather draft on "pipe dream inaccurate ratings" than the realistic picture the game is capable of showing you.

They've tightened up the trading in v27 and we have users complaining "it's not fun". By the standard used for draft classes they should stop trying to make trading better and just let the users know it's a design decision, to make the game "fun".

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Ratbelly

agree with Matt, having 99% of people graded 45 to 55 while maybe being realistic would be terrible. I will forsake reality for that

Did you mean 26 or 27?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I get what Matt is saying but also know that a set of filters would instantly fix any problems with finding a player you want. You're looking at a list of 100 45/55 players. Who do I pick? How can I know? This takes too much time. You set up a filter that sorts out all batter's potentials with >= 40 contact, 35 power, 45 k, 50 eye. And voila your list is now 10 players to pick from. You can pick and choose what skills and what levels to your heart's content to find what you want in seconds. Those filters can be saved and reused for every draft class. I know because I have "Draftable Pitcher" and "Draftable Batter" filters, which I already posted in response to one of your posts. None of this is hard or time consuming, and it's much faster than looking over all of the potentials and then "diving deeper into the stats". Especially when a lot of those overalls are meaningless, and based on inflated individual skill potentials that will never develop so the player can "crash" to the player he was created to be. IE the player the inflated potentials is hiding from us. Now not only are you digging into the player's skills to make a decision, you are also having to ask yourself, "how much regression to I have to anticipate in these skills?" I mean you know they're inflated, right? You know they can't be trusted, yes? And this is the model you are happy with, rather than joining in and saying "we need to find a middle groud"?

So yeah, it doesn't have to be one or the other. There can be a middle ground that brings some reality to a game that is a simulation. In case you missed it the thread is titled

It's not asking for "total reality". It's not saying players are created with too much talent. It's not saying players aren't developing as they should. It's asking to "tone down" the inflated overall potentials. And here's the thing about inflated potentials and player development. As the players develop the absurdity and inaccuracy of the inflated potentials makes the game look bad.

As the game is now there is no fun in drafting a player that is 80 or 65 Pot for that matter because there are so many the projected rating means nothing. The 80 is going to be a 60 if you're lucky. The 65 is going to fall into your dreaded 45 to 55. And here's the kicker... the actual draft players are rated realistically and develop realistically. OOTP gets that right, they just can't show it. Huh You're literally saying you'd rather draft on "pipe dream inaccurate ratings" than the realistic picture the game is capable of showing you.

They've tightened up the trading in v27 and we have users complaining "it's not fun". By the standard used for draft classes they should stop trying to make trading better and just let the users know it's a design decision, to make the game "fun".

well said and agreed!...It also makes college and summer league stats a bit more pertinent.