Poor talent in recent Draft Years

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by milkman41

While there are some leaner years (2029 compared to 2027 and 2031), the more talent-rich years still seem to be lacking in talent, especially when compared to a draft class generated solely using a OOTP14 major-league startup, as shown below:



So, does anybody have any explanation for this? It really seems like somehow, the conversion process has messed with the talent pool. I understand that the overal draft talent is handled differently between the two versions of the game, but that doesn't to me explain the discrepancy between having <10 players with >50 pot in one game, and then ~3 pages of such players in another game.

Thanks in advance, and sorry for all the (large) images.

The first draft class in the MLB Quickstart is not an accurate point of comparison, as I understand it, due to the addition of the real draft class on top of the OOTP-generated draft prospects. I'd sim forward to 2014 in that pure OOTP14 MLB Quickstart to get a better point of comparison.

[jmarsh123]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

You clearly don't understand how the ratings work in OOTP then. The ratings in and of themselves mean nothing. They only matter in the context of the overall league.

So even if the draft ratings are too low in the early part of that time period after 15 years the only talent you'd have in the league would be from those "pathetic" draft classes. So any new draft classes wouldn't be pathetic since they'd be rated according to the same conventions as the rest of the league.

So if all the drafts are using the lower ratings, then those "lower rated" players are actually highly rated players.

Additionally it's worth noting that in the past the engine uniformly knocked down many ratings of recently drafted players a few months after they were drafted. No it won't do so. So the only real difference in talent coming into the league is what you see at draft time is more realistic and essentially simply anticipates the rating drops that would occur after the draft in prior versions.

I sure like this way a lot better than in the past, where every player drafted almost instantly reverted to a 20 the next year.

While I'll concede I would like to see more players with potential in the 22-39ish zone, this is a lot better than past version. You just have to dig a little deeper on the dreck. I have certain filters set for later drafting rounds to help identify players with 1 big potential skill, good stuff, good velocity, good defense, etc and also look at int/we. It's much more rewarding than just clicking the highest potential player and drafting.

The talent levels seems about where it should be. Some guys will develop, but it's certainly more exception than norm. How many 2nd round picks next month will be described as future major leaguers? Probably very few. Other than Bryce Harper years, how many top five picks legitimately have potential higher than 60's?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

The first draft class in the MLB Quickstart is not an accurate point of comparison, as I understand it, due to the addition of the real draft class on top of the OOTP-generated draft prospects. I'd sim forward to 2014 in that pure OOTP14 MLB Quickstart to get a better point of comparison.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by jmarsh123

While I'll concede I would like to see more players with potential in the 22-39ish zone, this is a lot better than past version.

I absolutely agree with this.

I think the the game doesn't really generate the 20-80 potential and current ratings very well. There seems to be an incredibly small sweet spot where a player will be rated just right so as to get a 22-39 tag. I don't know why that is, and I think it's kind of annoying. To me there should be a ton of players in that range, not only a couple.

In the end though the 20-80 potential tag numbers are merely a shorthand representation of the actual ratings. In reality there's often little to no difference in the actual ratings between a guy who has a '20' tag and one who has a '40' tag. Many guys with a '20' tag can actually be decent prospects who turn into good big leaguers.

So this is annoying but it's simply a cosmetic issue, it's nothing that adversely affects gameplay.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Some good info.

Success Rate of MLB Draft Picks by Slot*|*VFTB

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-77...hl=en_US&pli=1 (Success rate by draft round)

Success and Failure Rates of Top MLB Prospects - Royals Review

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Some good info.

Great stuff!

[milkman41]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Now I'm not quite understanding you. You and I had this discussion earlier in this very thread, where you made that point, but then we found that only a few of the players were the 'real' players, and that it wouldn't account for such a large discrepancy in talent.

I'm simming to the 2014 draft though anyway, we'll see what that looks like.

UPDATE: Well, it looks like I stand corrected, the 2014 draft has 15 players with 50+ potential, so the issue with the OOTP13 converted league may just be the high level of talent already present in the league.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by milkman41

Now I'm not quite understanding you. You and I had this discussion earlier in this very thread, where you made that point, but then we found that only a few of the players were the 'real' players, and that it wouldn't account for such a large discrepancy in talent.

I'm simming to the 2014 draft though anyway, we'll see what that looks like.

I think you misunderstood me or else I wasn't clear.

Either way, there were only three game generated players on your screen shot. All the rest are the real players.

The real players do in fact account for the discrepancy that you're seeing. 2014 will give you a much better idea of what a game generated class looks like.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I'll say to the people who are saying drafting is not fun anymore because the later rounds are a crap shoot, raise TCR! Or at least leave it at 100.I mean most of you guys lowered that because of a reason that has been fix which was high potential players becoming low potential players after a year or so..

[The Wolf]

Well, since our side of the discussion is being ignored, I'm out of here and will fix things in my own game to my own satisfaction. I advise everyone else who isn't enjoying the new system to do likewise.

[David Watts]

Did someone hear the wind blow.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I'll say to the people who are saying drafting is not fun anymore because the later rounds are a crap shoot, raise TCR! Or at least leave it at 100.I mean most of you guys lowered that because of a reason that has been fix which was high potential players becoming low potential players after a year or so..

The primary issue I think we've settled on isn't the change in talent over the long-term. The issue is the lack of granularity in the scouted quality of the draft pool at the time of the draft. That's the "not fun anymore" part that HH20xx convert's been talking about. TCR doesn't have anything to do with that. As I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread, though, if there is more actual granularity in players' individual ratings (as opposed to the overall potential or star ratings) then perhaps the issue is not as serious.

[JMDurron]

For the draft class I have been checking, I have not been using scouting, I have been actually using the editor to look at the real potential ratings of the draft class. It's not a matter of the scouted quality of the draft pool, it's the overall quality of the draft pool.

The issue will be the transition from the previously prospect-packed draft classes of my previous 5-6 years in my MLB Quickstart league to these less-talented draft pools. Draft pick trading was a major part of my strategy for roster building, but now the replacement players for those I am trading away for draft picks are significantly less talented than the players currently populating the league. This means that I will likely need to completely scrap my current roster-building strategy, because until these less talented players (and I understand the point that lukasberger makes about the league's stats eventually being normalized when the talent level evens out) comprise the entire talent pool of the league, there will be a period where teams that build through the draft instead of FA/trades will be totally and utterly boned in my MLB Quickstart. That's a pretty serious transitional problem, even if the end state leads to appropriate statistical outcomes. It also makes pre-draft scouting now that I've partially emptied my minor leagues in prospect-for-draft-pick trades incredibly depressing, as almost anyone outside of the top 5 overall picks is less talented than the player(s) that I got rid of in order to acquire the chance to draft a player with upside more similar to a previously-generated #6 overall pick.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

The primary issue I think we've settled on isn't the change in talent over the long-term. The issue is the lack of granularity in the scouted quality of the draft pool at the time of the draft. That's the "not fun anymore" part that HH20xx convert's been talking about. TCR doesn't have anything to do with that. As I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread, though, if there is more actual granularity in players' individual ratings (as opposed to the overall potential or star ratings) then perhaps the issue is not as serious.

But doesn't TCR has everything to do with late rounders being developed into useful players or not. If you have the setting low as some like to have it, then those crap players in the later rounds won't develop much. If there was a possibility of those players becoming good on a higher rate, then people would draft based on needs and take potential with a grain of salt in those rounds. I don't consider a CF with horribly batting ratings but has great speed and average fielding crap if I know that this 18 year old has a chance to progress higher than his potential ratings suggest.

I can see how the draft can not be fun if someone is playing with settings that makes the potential static as possible.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

As I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread, though, if there is more actual granularity in players' individual ratings (as opposed to the overall potential or star ratings) then perhaps the issue is not as serious.

There really is. Try going into commissioner mode, turning scouting off and looking in the editor at the actual ratings. I think you'll be surprised what you see.

The 20-80 and star ratings aren't working too well right now and do need an overhaul to make them more granular, imo. But I don't think they've ever worked very well in the past either.

That being said, they don't really have much of anything to do with the actual ratings. They're a very, very, very rough guide at best.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

For the draft class I have been checking, I have not been using scouting, I have been actually using the editor to look at the real potential ratings of the draft class. It's not a matter of the scouted quality of the draft pool, it's the overall quality of the draft pool.

The issue will be the transition from the previously prospect-packed draft classes of my previous 5-6 years in my MLB Quickstart league to these less-talented draft pools. Draft pick trading was a major part of my strategy for roster building, but now the replacement players for those I am trading away for draft picks are significantly less talented than the players currently populating the league. This means that I will likely need to completely scrap my current roster-building strategy, because until these less talented players (and I understand the point that lukasberger makes about the league's stats eventually being normalized when the talent level evens out) comprise the entire talent pool of the league, there will be a period where teams that build through the draft instead of FA/trades will be totally and utterly boned in my MLB Quickstart. That's a pretty serious transitional problem, even if the end state leads to appropriate statistical outcomes. It also makes pre-draft scouting now that I've partially emptied my minor leagues in prospect-for-draft-pick trades incredibly depressing, as almost anyone outside of the top 5 overall picks is less talented than the player(s) that I got rid of in order to acquire the chance to draft a player with upside more similar to a previously-generated #6 overall pick.

I definitely understand why you'd be frustrated given your strategy. I would be too.

But the simple fact that such an unrealistic strategy was actually working well for you in the past is one of the best arguments that can be made to show that the previous system was kind of borked.

If it helps you can always up the PCMs a bit and then gradually lower them each year so that the talent drop in the draft is much more gradual.

That might cause some other issues in your league, but then again might be ok. It would all depend on just how extreme you went in making changes to the PCM's.

Or just up the PCM's and keep them up if you really prefer that.

[HH20xx convert]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

There really is. Try going into commissioner mode, turning scouting off and looking in the editor at the actual ratings. I think you'll be surprised what you see.

The 20-80 and star ratings aren't working too well right now and do need an overhaul to make them more granular, imo. But I don't think they've ever worked very well in the past either.

That being said, they don't really have much of anything to do with the actual ratings. They're a very, very, very rough guide at best.

Has anyone tested the 1-100 ratings (especially those that allow ratings that exceed 100 to be reported) to see if more separation (granularity) of prospects is already available in the system? I am a fan of 20-80, but if the solution is available on the 1-100 scale without any adjustments, that is not all bad.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by HH20xx convert

Has anyone tested the 1-100 ratings (especially those that allow ratings that exceed 100 to be reported) to see if more separation (granularity) of prospects is already available in the system? I am a fan of 20-80, but if the solution is available on the 1-100 scale without any adjustments, that is not all bad.

That's what I use, at least in my NCAA mod. And yeah it does create more granularity. It's a much better representation of the real ratings as seen in the editor. Not perfect, by any means, but better.

However it doesn't really help with the capsule format overall/potential ratings. They're still only 20-80 or 1-5 stars and whatever you set the ratings scale to, they still don't really show any separation.

[Thundercrack]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Can I ask what might be a really stupid question? What kind of stats are these leagues producing 10 to 15 years in?

I've been wondering this myself. From what I've gleaned from this thread, stats are still distributed appropriately, it's just the experience of the draft that's been changed. But then, Wolf says every team looks like the Marlins, so who knows. Guess I need to fire up the fictional league and find out.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack

I've been wondering this myself. From what I've gleaned from this thread, stats are still distributed appropriately, it's just the experience of the draft that's been changed. But then, Wolf says every team looks like the Marlins, so who knows. Guess I need to fire up the fictional league and find out.

That Marlin/Astro comment was the one that made me curious as well.