Can we tone down OOTP created draft class overall potentials?

[Ratbelly]

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".

I already said that a middle ground is good. I like the way 26 is doing the grading.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Ratbelly

I already said that a middle ground is good. I like the way 26 is doing the grading.

Honestly, the middle ground isn’t even all that realistic. There’s nothing wrong with a strong bell curve where 75% of the players fall into the 45-55 range. As it’s been stated, that’s when you start evaluating by individual tools and of course stats. This is how actual MLB offices operate. They don’t go against industry norms for the sake of making sure the top talent is separated from the pack. If a player is rated a 65..it’s understood through out the industry that his FV is that of an all-star. And 80 would be reserved only for generational players. Those players are rare…very rare.

While we are at it scouts never hand out 25s or 75s either. They will always make a choice between 20 &30 or 70 & 80.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Ratbelly

I already said that a middle ground is good. I like the way 26 is doing the grading.

Honestly, the middle ground isn’t even all that realistic. There’s nothing wrong with a strong bell curve where 75 of the players fall into the 45-55 range. As it’s been stated, that’s when you start evaluating by individual tools and of course stats. This is how actual MLB offices operate. They don’t go against industry norms for the sake of making sure the top talent is separated from the pack. If a player is rated a 65..it’s understood through out the industry that his FV is that of an all-star. And 80 would be reserved only for generational players. Those players are rare…very rare.

While we are at it scouts never hand out 25s or 75s either. They will always make a choice between 20 &30 or 70 & 80.

[jcard]

One necessary but usually omitted parameter of this discussion is whether one is speaking of absolute or league-relative ratings when making comparisons to real MLB scout grade distribution.

[Hrycaj]

After reading this thread my question is how large are these leagues that are seeing so many 80 potential guys? To see for myself I created a fictional game starting in the year 2026. 2 sub, 2 divisions 6 teams each. So a 24 team league with full minors. I set our draft for 20 rounds with the game generating up to 30 rounds worth of players. Right off the bat I didn't see anything crazy. While I agree that the classes are a bit inflated I wasn't seeing the numbers others were. (I should add I used 100% scouting accuracy) What you do notice though is that most guys never reach their potential. However, that is also a product of the injury setting. In my opinion injuries are the #1 deterrent to development. Since this was a modern league I had it set to Very High. It is a trade off though. You will see realistic development (my opinion) but good luck finding outliers that challenge the leaderboard. Which is a whole other discussion. Anyway, after a 10 year sim monitoring each draft class and development here is what I had:

2026 Draft:
80 POT= 7, none reached their potential highest was a 54 OVR
70's POT= 11, 2 reached their peak 78 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 42, 2 reached their peak 67 being the highest OVR

2027 Draft
80 POT= 6, 1 reached the 80 peak OVR
70's POT= 11, None reached their peak with 63 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 32, 1 reached their peak with 69 being the highest OVR

2028 Draft
80 POT= 7, none reached their peak with 74 being the highest OVR
70's POT= 11, 1 reached their peak with 80 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 37, 1 reached their peak with 80 being the highest OVR

2029 Draft
80 POT= 7, 1 reached their peak of 80 OVR
70's POT= 9, 2 reached their peak with 80 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 31, 3 reached their peak with 71 being the highest OVR

2030 Draft
80 POT= 3, 0 reached their peak with 43 being the highest OVR
70's POT= 12, 0 reached their peak with 53 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 30, 1 reached their peak with 63 being the highest OVR

2031 Draft
80 POT= 5, 0 reached their peak with 58 being the highest OVR
70's POT= 12, 0 reached their peak with 57 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 26, 0 reached their peak with 49 being the highest OVR

Since the year is 2036 in game the 2030 and 2031 draft classes have a bit more cooking that could move those numbers but I feel like a trend has presented itself where I can pretty much guess where those draft classes will finish off development wise.

I hope providing some type of data here can help with the discussion. I would be interested to see how things would be different at a lower injury setting. Would it be a slight or vast difference?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Ratbelly

I already said that a middle ground is good. I like the way 26 is doing the grading.

v26 is pretty much the same as v27. Keep in mind I import my game eacah year to the new version. This means most of my over inflated draft class in my v27 game was created in v26 (three years of HS players, plus those that went on to college. and three years of college minus any underclassmen that may have been drafted) . All v27 created was enough to "top off" the number of players I needed to fill the draft. Here is my post from the v26 forum on v26 drafts. In my first post in this thread I show fifteen 80 Pot players. In this v26 post I show eleven 80 Pot. Both should be regarded as unacceptable.

This isn't a v27 problem. It's an on-going problem that was started even before v26.

Link to post that includes a screenshot. https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...57&postcount=5

Link to thread post is in https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...ighlight=draft

Originally Posted by Sweed

I think it has to do with OOTP creating a draft pool with players that are artificially rated too high because some found realistically rated classes to be "not fun". A few versions ago OOTP had realistic draft classes and a vocal group complained there weren't enough highly rated players. They were shown the classes were realistic and then came the "but it's a game and should be fun" posts.

OOTP then made classes "look fun" so the user could get excited about that 30/70 SS they just drafted with the 15th pick. The trade off is all of these players cannot actually be this skilled or all balance goes out of the game. Meaning a lot of guys have to regress to become normal average MLB/MiLB players.

I import my game from version to version and play slowly, ie manage every inning of every game. I just had my second v26 draft and was shocked at how many guys had 65+ overalls. There were way too many being 70+. My draft shows eleven 80 overalls and eleven more 70+ overalls. A quick google search gave me this,

And my OOTP draft class has eleven? Huh?

The only saving grace was I knew enough of these guys would not pan out and I will end up with a normal balance of skilled players. I didn't draft high enough to get any of the 80's, but the AI teams that did are in for a rude awakening.

The only thing you can do is what you are doing. Scout them to very high and then take the time to look deeper into the ones you like at individual skills and personality plusses/minuses as this might help narrow down who might be a bust. This was the path to success in previous versions when the classes were more realistic.

My 2 cents.

For clarity my game is played with default settings for player creation, progression, aging, etc. etc. etc.

It may be time for this guy to join the team and "correct" the situation.

[Baconi]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

After reading this thread my question is how large are these leagues that are seeing so many 80 potential guys? To see for myself I created a fictional game starting in the year 2026. 2 sub, 2 divisions 6 teams each. So a 24 team league with full minors. I set our draft for 20 rounds with the game generating up to 30 rounds worth of players. Right off the bat I didn't see anything crazy. While I agree that the classes are a bit inflated I wasn't seeing the numbers others were. (I should add I used 100% scouting accuracy) What you do notice though is that most guys never reach their potential. However, that is also a product of the injury setting. In my opinion injuries are the #1 deterrent to development. Since this was a modern league I had it set to Very High. It is a trade off though. You will see realistic development (my opinion) but good luck finding outliers that challenge the leaderboard. Which is a whole other discussion. Anyway, after a 10 year sim monitoring each draft class and development here is what I had:

2026 Draft:
80 POT= 7, none reached their potential highest was a 54 OVR
70's POT= 11, 2 reached their peak 78 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 42, 2 reached their peak 67 being the highest OVR

2027 Draft
80 POT= 6, 1 reached the 80 peak OVR
70's POT= 11, None reached their peak with 63 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 32, 1 reached their peak with 69 being the highest OVR

2028 Draft
80 POT= 7, none reached their peak with 74 being the highest OVR
70's POT= 11, 1 reached their peak with 80 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 37, 1 reached their peak with 80 being the highest OVR

2029 Draft
80 POT= 7, 1 reached their peak of 80 OVR
70's POT= 9, 2 reached their peak with 80 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 31, 3 reached their peak with 71 being the highest OVR

2030 Draft
80 POT= 3, 0 reached their peak with 43 being the highest OVR
70's POT= 12, 0 reached their peak with 53 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 30, 1 reached their peak with 63 being the highest OVR

2031 Draft
80 POT= 5, 0 reached their peak with 58 being the highest OVR
70's POT= 12, 0 reached their peak with 57 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 26, 0 reached their peak with 49 being the highest OVR

Since the year is 2036 in game the 2030 and 2031 draft classes have a bit more cooking that could move those numbers but I feel like a trend has presented itself where I can pretty much guess where those draft classes will finish off development wise.

I hope providing some type of data here can help with the discussion. I would be interested to see how things would be different at a lower injury setting. Would it be a slight or vast difference?

To me this numbers still seem pretty crazy. each year, at least half of the first round is taken up by 70+ POT players - projected superstars, essentially. But based on the numbers you provided, less than 10% will live up to this (which is expected because it’s impossible for that many players each draft to be that good). Theres no reason to get excited about these players with superstar level potentials because the chances of them coming even close to that is so small. Also, using 100% scouted accuracy does make a big difference. For the majority that play with scouting on, the upper end potential ratings are considerably more inflated. So you would end up with 1 or more rounds completely filled with 70+ POT guys and probably 1% ever fulfill that.

[Hrycaj]

Originally Posted by Baconi

To me this numbers still seem pretty crazy. each year, at least half of the first round is taken up by 70+ POT players - projected superstars, essentially. But based on the numbers you provided, less than 10% will live up to this (which is expected because it’s impossible for that many players each draft to be that good). Theres no reason to get excited about these players with superstar level potentials because the chances of them coming even close to that is so small. Also, using 100% scouted accuracy does make a big difference. For the majority that play with scouting on, the upper end potential ratings are considerably more inflated. So you would end up with 1 or more rounds completely filled with 70+ POT guys and probably 1% ever fulfill that.

You are right about the scouting accuracy. TBH I typically play stats only but when I test things I do put the ratings on. With a scouting fog of war I can definitely see 2 to 3 rounds of players having a 70+ potential grade. I'm not making any conclusions here either. Everyone's individual perception is valid. I was just trying to add some data to the mix.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

After reading this thread my question is how large are these leagues that are seeing so many 80 potential guys? To see for myself I created a fictional game starting in the year 2026. 2 sub, 2 divisions 6 teams each. So a 24 team league with full minors. I set our draft for 20 rounds with the game generating up to 30 rounds worth of players. Right off the bat I didn't see anything crazy. While I agree that the classes are a bit inflated I wasn't seeing the numbers others were. (I should add I used 100% scouting accuracy) What you do notice though is that most guys never reach their potential. However, that is also a product of the injury setting. In my opinion injuries are the #1 deterrent to development. Since this was a modern league I had it set to Very High. It is a trade off though. You will see realistic development (my opinion) but good luck finding outliers that challenge the leaderboard. Which is a whole other discussion. Anyway, after a 10 year sim monitoring each draft class and development here is what I had:

2026 Draft:
80 POT= 7, none reached their potential highest was a 54 OVR
70's POT= 11, 2 reached their peak 78 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 42, 2 reached their peak 67 being the highest OVR

2027 Draft
80 POT= 6, 1 reached the 80 peak OVR
70's POT= 11, None reached their peak with 63 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 32, 1 reached their peak with 69 being the highest OVR

2028 Draft
80 POT= 7, none reached their peak with 74 being the highest OVR
70's POT= 11, 1 reached their peak with 80 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 37, 1 reached their peak with 80 being the highest OVR

2029 Draft
80 POT= 7, 1 reached their peak of 80 OVR
70's POT= 9, 2 reached their peak with 80 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 31, 3 reached their peak with 71 being the highest OVR

2030 Draft
80 POT= 3, 0 reached their peak with 43 being the highest OVR
70's POT= 12, 0 reached their peak with 53 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 30, 1 reached their peak with 63 being the highest OVR

2031 Draft
80 POT= 5, 0 reached their peak with 58 being the highest OVR
70's POT= 12, 0 reached their peak with 57 being the highest OVR
60's POT= 26, 0 reached their peak with 49 being the highest OVR

Since the year is 2036 in game the 2030 and 2031 draft classes have a bit more cooking that could move those numbers but I feel like a trend has presented itself where I can pretty much guess where those draft classes will finish off development wise.

I hope providing some type of data here can help with the discussion. I would be interested to see how things would be different at a lower injury setting. Would it be a slight or vast difference?

Thanks for taking the time and posting your data. I see you use 100% accuracy. The discussion here for the most part is users using scouts and fog of war. What we think is going on is players are created and develop as they should. I believe your data confirms that, thank you. The issue is the scouts overrate/inflate the ratings for the draft to make the game more "fun" and less tedious. Matt has actually confirmed it is to make the game more "fun". He has also mentioned it is something they can look into improving.

My thought from you numbers is we might be getting an idea of how many players are being inflated to show artificial skill potentials they don't actually have. From a quick look at your numbers it almost appears if you double your numbers you'll get very close to the numbers I see in my scouted game.

If we double your 80 Pot players we have
14, 12, 14, 14, 6, 10.

80 numbers I have posted from my scouted league..11, 15. You'll have to trust me when I say that those numbers have been consistent with other seasons I've played. I only screen shot the two seasons and posted the actual numbers at the time the subject came up. In v26 that meant only in someone else's thread. In v27 I've posted about this a few times in probably three or four threads. After that I decided it was time for someone to put up a thread dedicated to the subject matter.

The other thing to note in your numbers in ONLY TWO 80 Pot players ever reached the projection. While more than would happen IRL (one true 80 every three years?) it is still great to see. The bad part is it highlights that a lot of 80's are being drafted that are "fools gold". And they are "fools gold" as a game design decision.

On to your 60's and 70's numbers. Still in an area where doubling your initial number would be close to my scouted league numbers. It is startling to see how few actually reach their peak. My best guess is those numbers are very realistic and further confirm the "fools gold" issue we now have.

Gee, I wonder where all of the "why did my player not develop/why did my player crash" complaints come from? Along with saying how unrealistic it is. But when it's suggested it's the rating of the draft class that needs to be fixed? The answer is "that's not fun.".

The game is in need of a healthy dose of reality when it comes to how the draft class appears. The game design decision meant to make it fun, makes a fool of the user. Almost every time you draft one of these 60-80 players you either ignore the fact they "aren't that guy" and somehow have fun. Or if you are being real you know they "aren't that guy" and go through the mental gymnastics of trying to decide how much you have to discount that rating to even get in the ballpark of understanding who/what you are drafting.

Answering your question on league size..
I started the thread and my game is a standard 30 MLB game with 5 levels of minor leagues. AAA, AA, A+, A, and R. Default player creation and development. OOTP created draft classes (no feeder leagues). Injuries at "high modern day realistic" (I think that is the wording).

My game is imported over 20+ versions from a time when drafts were "more realistic", "very realistic" (users complained, and I understand their point), and what we have now "over inflated".

I usually get in two seasons per version, and once in awhile three seasons, managing every inning of every game. Each version imports the "left overs" from it's drafts and the new version then "fills in" what is needed to have enough players to fill the draft and restock the HS with a new freshman class.
Not sure why I mention draft class player creation, other than I guess it shows it doesn't matter which version created the players as it's pretty much proven the creation isn't the problem. The players develop away from the inflated ratings into the player they always were, and become a part of a realistic player pool.

Thanks again for posting your data. I think it is very helpful to the discussion.

[Sweed]

Double post due to the way the forum had been glitching lately.

[Hrycaj]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Thanks for taking the time and posting your data. I see you use 100% accuracy. The discussion here for the most part is users using scouts and fog of war. What we think is going on is players are created and develop as they should. I believe your data confirms that, thank you. The issue is the scouts overrate/inflate the ratings for the draft to make the game more "fun" and less tedious. Matt has actually confirmed it is to make the game more "fun". He has also mentioned it is something they can look into improving.

My thought from you numbers is we might be getting an idea of how many players are being inflated to show artificial skill potentials they don't actually have. From a quick look at your numbers it almost appears if you double your numbers you'll get very close to the numbers I see in my scouted game.

If we double your 80 Pot players we have
14, 12, 14, 14, 6, 10.

80 numbers I have posted from my scouted league..11, 15. You'll have to trust me when I say that those numbers have been consistent with other seasons I've played. I only screen shot the two seasons and posted the actual numbers at the time the subject came up. In v26 that meant only in someone else's thread. In v27 I've posted about this a few times in probably three or four threads. After that I decided it was time for someone to put up a thread dedicated to the subject matter.

The other thing to note in your numbers in ONLY TWO 80 Pot players ever reached the projection. While more than would happen IRL (one true 80 every three years?) it is still great to see. The bad part is it highlights that a lot of 80's are being drafted that are "fools gold". And they are "fools gold" as a game design decision.

On to your 60's and 70's numbers. Still in an area where doubling your initial number would be close to my scouted league numbers. It is startling to see how few actually reach their peak. My best guess is those numbers are very realistic and further confirm the "fools gold" issue we now have.

Gee, I wonder where all of the "why did my player not develop/why did my player crash" complaints come from? Along with saying how unrealistic it is. But when it's suggested it's the rating of the draft class that needs to be fixed? The answer is "that's not fun.".

The game is in need of a healthy dose of reality when it comes to how the draft class appears. The game design decision meant to make it fun, makes a fool of the user. Almost every time you draft one of these 60-80 players you either ignore the fact they "aren't that guy" and somehow have fun. Or if you are being real you know they "aren't that guy" and go through the mental gymnastics of trying to decide how much you have to discount that rating to even get in the ballpark of understanding who/what you are drafting.

Answering your question on league size..
I started the thread and my game is a standard 30 MLB game with 5 levels of minor leagues. AAA, AA, A+, A, and R. Default player creation and development. OOTP created draft classes (no feeder leagues). Injuries at "high modern day realistic" (I think that is the wording).

My game is imported over 20+ versions from a time when drafts were "more realistic", "very realistic" (users complained, and I understand their point), and what we have now "over inflated".

I usually get in two seasons per version, and once in awhile three seasons, managing every inning of every game. Each version imports the "left overs" from it's drafts and the new version then "fills in" what is needed to have enough players to fill the draft and restock the HS with a new freshman class.
Not sure why I mention draft class player creation, other than I guess it shows it doesn't matter which version created the players as it's pretty much proven the creation isn't the problem. The players develop away from the inflated ratings into the player they always were, and become a part of a realistic player pool.

Thanks again for posting your data. I think it is very helpful to the discussion.

No problem! Happy to contribute. I think I definitely confirmed what you are seeing when you add in fog of war. It has to be a tough balance for the devs. This is all personal perception but I was not a fan of the draft when it was just chalk. Your first rounders were guaranteed to develop into stars when if you looked at a natural distribution of real life rosters guys came from all sorts of rounds in the draft. For a long time that was not happening in OOTP. I actually like it now where you have a ton of guys that do not develop to that max rating. Whether you want to call them busts or not based on the fact that they didn't live up to the full potential is up for interpretation. However, I do concede that those classes look absolutely bloated potential wise. So if you tighten that up do you lose the chance of late round guys becoming breakout/diamond in the rough types. I don't know. I do know it is a seriously tough thing to balance. A toggle would probably be great here but I'm not sure anything like that is all that easy to implement.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

No problem! Happy to contribute. I think I definitely confirmed what you are seeing when you add in fog of war. It has to be a tough balance for the devs. This is all personal perception but I was not a fan of the draft when it was just chalk. Your first rounders were guaranteed to develop into stars when if you looked at a natural distribution of real life rosters guys came from all sorts of rounds in the draft. For a long time that was not happening in OOTP. I actually like it now where you have a ton of guys that do not develop to that max rating. Whether you want to call them busts or not based on the fact that they didn't live up to the full potential is up for interpretation. However, I do concede that those classes look absolutely bloated potential wise. So if you tighten that up do you lose the chance of late round guys becoming breakout/diamond in the rough types. I don't know. I do know it is a seriously tough thing to balance. A toggle would probably be great here but I'm not sure anything like that is all that easy to implement.

No…development should not be affected…this is just re-grading potentials on the curve. So a players who is an 80 now would be more like a 65…the development should not be affected..just the perceived future values.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

No…development should not be affected…this is just re-grading potentials on the curve. So a players who is an 80 now would be more like a 65…the development should not be affected..just the perceived future values.

Yeah, this is my thought too. The player creation, progress, booms and busts all seem ok. It's only how scouts are rating potentials on the draft page that needs to be toned down.

It is a real shame that OOTP gets the creation/development part so right as shown by realistic career arches. But can't share it with the user in a manner where the potential ratings are only slightly inflated for the draft. Players in the 60's are rare and that type of rating indicates a high level player. If we need inflated players for fun, then inflate the 60's. If they leave the 70-80's for created players that actually have shown that ability to the scouts there will be a reason to be excited when seeing them. And these players should rarely reach that peak. It should be more likely they settle in as a perennial All-Star level 65ish player, or maybe even bust.

[luckymann]

OK so this is from a custom league in 26 that has just done its pool reveal. I think this is right in the sweet spot, and I've certainly not had the same issues regarding lack of development in this league that I've seen with historical-based ones.

341 players in the pool.

• 1 80-rated for POT (0.3%)
• 2 rated in the 70s (0.6%)
• 8 in the 60s (2.3%)
• 25 rated in the 50s (7.3%)
• 98 in the 40s (28.7%)
• 178 in the 30s (52.2%)
• 29 in the 20s (8.5%)
• 0 20-rated

As a reminder, here's the breakdown from the first pool I raised in this thread:



Mean POT for this group is 39.4 v 44.0 in the earlier one.

Scouting is once again LOW.

The main point is that this pool offers a far more balanced boom-expected-bust profile than the first. It allows me to go through the pool using whatever analytical tools I please to try and pick the booms, ascertain those I feel will perform in line, and avoid the busts.

This is how I feel it should be, both challenging and realistic in equal measure.

With the way things are, I am forced to view players in a totally negative way, as if to say which of these guys is going to disappoint me the least? or perhaps which player has the least preordained sunk cost?

To me, that is neither fun nor even remotely realistic.

G

I have attached a csv of the pool for those interested.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by luckymann

OK so this is from a custom league in 26 that has just done its pool reveal. I think this is right in the sweet spot, and I've certainly not had the same issues regarding lack of development in this league that I've seen with historical-based ones.

341 players in the pool.

• 1 80-rated for POT (0.3%)
• 2 rated in the 70s (0.6%)
• 8 in the 60s (2.3%)
• 25 rated in the 50s (7.3%)
• 98 in the 40s (28.7%)
• 178 in the 30s (52.2%)
• 29 in the 20s (8.5%)
• 0 20-rated

As a reminder, here's the breakdown from the first pool I raised in this thread:



Mean POT for this group is 39.4 v 44.0 in the earlier one.

Scouting is once again LOW.

The main point is that this pool offers a far more balanced boom-expected-bust profile than the first. It allows me to go through the pool using whatever analytical tools I please to try and pick the booms, ascertain those I feel will perform in line, and avoid the busts.

This is how I feel it should be, both challenging and realistic in equal measure.

With the way things are, I am forced to view players in a totally negative way, as if to say which of these guys is going to disappoint me the least? or perhaps which player has the least preordained sunk cost?

To me, that is neither fun nor even remotely realistic.

G

I have attached a csv of the pool for those interested.

That top pool of 341 players looks great. Thanks for sharing.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by luckymann

OK so this is from a custom league in 26 that has just done its pool reveal. I think this is right in the sweet spot, and I've certainly not had the same issues regarding lack of development in this league that I've seen with historical-based ones.

341 players in the pool.

• 1 80-rated for POT (0.3%)
• 2 rated in the 70s (0.6%)
• 8 in the 60s (2.3%)
• 25 rated in the 50s (7.3%)
• 98 in the 40s (28.7%)
• 178 in the 30s (52.2%)
• 29 in the 20s (8.5%)
• 0 20-rated

This is a really good pool. Besides having low scouting, did you have any specific settings on to produce this result?

[luckymann]

Originally Posted by ChrisG

[/LIST]This is a really good pool. Besides having low scouting, did you have any specific settings on to produce this result?

No, not as far as I can see. It is a fictional major-league grade league with default PCMs. I'm just about to do a test of the same league on 27 to see what happens. Watch this space.

EDIT Well the pool in the imported 27 version is almost identical to the one in 26. Bizarre.

[PSUColonel]

Everyone is talking about g about ways to make OOTP more difficult..to me…this is ONE such way to help with this without implementing “artificial measures.

[redranger]

I have a question on the draft pool ratings. Are these ratings based solely on the talent only within the draft class? Meaning once the draft is completed and players are signed and distributed throughout the teams minors system, are the ratings dropping or lining up more in line with the overall league?

It seems I’ve seen higher rating while drafting but once I’ve placed them they seem to change more in line with the overall league.

Fortunately I’m coming up on my draft in my league and I’ll pay close attention to this once it completed and player get distributed around the minors


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[luckymann]

Originally Posted by redranger

I have a question on the draft pool ratings. Are these ratings based solely on the talent only within the draft class? Meaning once the draft is completed and players are signed and distributed throughout the teams minors system, are the ratings dropping or lining up more in line with the overall league?

It seems I’ve seen higher rating while drafting but once I’ve placed them they seem to change more in line with the overall league.

Fortunately I’m coming up on my draft in my league and I’ll pay close attention to this once it compketed and punsters get distributed around the minors


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a really good question. Clearly, if that is the case, then it shouldn't be because the scouting / ratings system is standardised across all players.

Hopefully the devs can clarify.

G