|
||||
|
04-30-2014, 12:04 AM | #21 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: All alone
Posts: 12,612
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
|
Not to you. It was to me.
__________________
__________________ Quote:
Five thousand thanks for a non-modder? I never thought I'd see the day. Thank you for your support. |
|
04-30-2014, 06:16 AM | #22 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 545
|
Nope not to me or you. The mistake would be by the programmers and they did it intentionally so therefore its not a mistake.
__________________
The Numbers Game, Sports Blog |
04-30-2014, 09:33 AM | #23 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,262
|
For what it's worth, I was one of the main haters of the OOTP14 (and now, apparently, OOTP15) draft pool talent level, back in that 20-page discussion. I found that, as my first OOTP 14 draft class matured, there were still enough good, very good, and even studly players reaching my MLB level that it was fine. It really was just a change from a draft pool looking to be stacked, then regressing, to a draft pool looking to be a mixed bag, then a number of players within it growing up to be stars.
I will post a shot of my first superstar studly OOTP14 model draft pick when I get home this evening. He's every bit as good as the guys I drafted in OOTP 13, he just didn't look like it on draft day. |
04-30-2014, 11:27 AM | #24 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: near Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,269
|
I think the problem is that, in this area, realism is slippery.
It is easier to measure what a typical draft class should eventually turn out to be -- the right percentage of stars and productive players during each part of the draft. It is much more difficult to determine what a typical draft class looks like on draft day to real life GMs and head scouts. We know what it looks like to us as fans... lots of future all stars, with all early picks being at least future dependable players (as seen through the lens of team PR), or at least a large group of high percentage prospects (as seen through the published reports of draft experts). But those sources of information are not a reliable way of knowing what it looks like to real life GMs... So each of us creates our own sense of what is realistic. Honestly, I don't know which is nearer to the real life GM experience, the older OOTP system where lots of ammies looked more than capable of competing against current players, and then many fizzled. Or the new system where only a handful look like they have the potential, but you get a steady flow of pleasant surprises. But the change is startling, and causes some problems in online leagues where many members are discouraged by the less exciting draft classes.
__________________
Commish of Dog Days Baseball Commish Pennant Chase Baseball League (PCBL) Commish and Blue Jays GM Extra Innings Baseball |
04-30-2014, 11:42 AM | #25 | |
Major Leagues
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 410
|
Quote:
I think the "fan perspective" (OOTP 13 draft pool) where the players seem more talented on draft day seems more realistic to a lot of people because that's the way they see it as fans of real life teams. As a huge Braves fan myself, I remember having unrealistically high opinions of many high round draft picks (Cody Johnson, Jon Gilmore, Brett DeVall, Matt Lipka, Sean Gilmartin) because the Braves beat writers and bloggers mainly covered the positive aspects of their skillsets and tended to talk about their potential in terms of their ceiling rather than their floor. Now, I personally like the "GM perspective" better (OOTP14-15) because I do not have the disappointment of seeing my top picks get their ratings knocked down, but I will be the first to admit that I have no idea how realistic it is compared to what a real life GM is looking at on draft day. I would like to think that GM's don't see 3rd and 4th round picks as sure-fire major league talent, like they looked in OOTP 13, and so I tend to believe that the new way is more realistic and like it much more. |
|
04-30-2014, 12:21 PM | #26 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,291
|
Quote:
|
|
04-30-2014, 12:28 PM | #27 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking for a place called Leehofooks
Posts: 8,820
|
Quote:
|
|
04-30-2014, 12:41 PM | #28 | ||
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,757
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
04-30-2014, 12:57 PM | #29 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,325
|
I guess it boils down to this:
Would you rather have a draft class with "presumed" studs through scouting, and have them fall apart because they weren't that good in the first place -- or see guys who may not be that good in the first place and see how they pan out because the engine doesn't hit them with the ugly stick right off jump street... You are never going to please everyone... I would go so far as to say that MOST of us are NOT casual baseball fans -- but I'll tell you this much, a CASUAL baseball fan MIGHT have an idea of the first pick for their organization, and that is about it. Look at my hometown Tigers. We've had TWO players selected in the first round since the year I was BORN (I'll be 36 this year) that could be legitimately considered stars (Verlander and Gibby.) They blew a first overall on Matt Anderson. a third overall on Eric Munson. See where I'm going with this? It is the way of the MLB draft that even high round picks RARELY pan out anywhere near their draft status.
__________________
Manager - Motor City Marshals Perfect Manager/Discord Name: jaysdailydose |
04-30-2014, 01:04 PM | #30 |
All Star Starter
|
My problem with the new draft system is, once you get past the first 10 or so players, there is really nothing that separates any of the remaining guys in the draft. You can look at some things such as work ethic, durability...stuff like that but all my eyes see are a bunch of equal (terrible potential) players. I feel like, after my first round pick, I might as well let the computer draft because I don't get any info from my scout that differentiates any of the players in a meaningful way. That's not "fun" for me.
I feel that IRL when it's time to make a 7th round selection, teams have their eyes on a few certain players for whatever reason. I've checked out long before that in OOTP. Maybe the scouting module needs to be upgraded to allow us to scout high school and college players during the year while we play. We could then have more info on those players and have fun trying to figure out what chances to take. Some feedback from the scouts referencing the draft would be helpful..."wouldn't consider drafting him in first few rounds"..."maybe worth a shot in the later rounds"...you could go on and on. The draft pool isn't suddenly released to MLB a month before the draft...they have been following guys for a long time. I know OOTP is a game and can't follow everything exactly...I would just like more scout input into my draft day decision making rather than shots in the dark. Speaking of AI drafting...does the AI take into consideration what your organizational strengths and weaknesses are when drafting? There are times when you want to take the best player available but there comes a point where, if your team is last in 3B in all the minors, the AI might want to consider drafting a decent 3B prospect before they are all gone. Tremendous game that eats up far too much of my time. Great discussion on this topic. |
04-30-2014, 01:10 PM | #31 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,291
|
This discussion is reminding me why I like the Baseball America Prospect Handbook. They put a potential grade on all prospects, and then have a secondary grade that tells you the likelyhood that they reach that potential. So you know that so-and-so has a high ceiling in terms of potential, but maybe he's not likely to reach that potential. Or a guy like Manny Machado would've been a five-star prospect with a very high chance of fulfilling that potential.
Not sure if OOTP would be able to add that secondary rating, but it might be worth discussing prior to OOTP 16. |
04-30-2014, 01:20 PM | #32 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NJ, US
Posts: 1,998
|
Quote:
I try to use feeder leagues whenever I can. That way you can follow players from the time they are as young as 14/15 if you choose and get stats on how they play for several seasons in HS and/or COL. Using feeders I don't have to rely on how many "Stars" a player has, I can judge them by their stats. I'm doing testing on feeders in v15 and I am liking what I see with the new options on when players become eligible for the draft and am also liking the quality of players being produced. Last edited by byzeil; 04-30-2014 at 01:26 PM. |
|
04-30-2014, 01:30 PM | #33 | |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 255
|
Quote:
|
|
04-30-2014, 01:36 PM | #34 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,452
|
Quote:
I think there's a middle-ground between option 1 (lots of great prospects who slowly die off) and option 2 (a bunch of mediocre looking players who eventually rise and shine). The ideal system has a collection of 2-5 star players that run through the first 2-3 rounds of a draft, and is linked to a development system that BOTH "kills" 40-50% or so of the early picks and reaches down and creates a scattering of great finds in the lower parts of the draft. So you should leave draft day with 1-2 guys (with 3-5 stars?) you're really excited about being players some day, 1-3 guys (with 2-3 stars?) you figure have a good chance to help you some day, and a handful f unknown lottery tickets. Of the first group, 1 should generally yield a real player (often a star). Of the second group, 1 should yield a major leaguer of some value (and occasionally a star). Of the third group, several should wind up playing, a few should be real players, and a rare bird should be a star. At the end of the day, (IMHO) part of this issue is related to the separation of the player creation process, the scouting process, and the player development (rating progression) process. [he says, working with two-three year old thinking ] Last edited by RonCo; 04-30-2014 at 01:42 PM. Reason: Typo! |
|
04-30-2014, 01:40 PM | #35 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,452
|
There is really no reason that the draft pool has to look so flat.
|
04-30-2014, 01:49 PM | #36 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,325
|
By the same token, sir, it didn't used to look so flat and would get that way. I'd much rather see a flatter "looking" pool where I may be surprised than a not-so-flat pool that is only going to degrade.
__________________
Manager - Motor City Marshals Perfect Manager/Discord Name: jaysdailydose |
04-30-2014, 01:51 PM | #37 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,452
|
As I said before that post, I think there's a middle ground that is both more realistic and more fun.
|
04-30-2014, 01:54 PM | #38 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,325
|
Quote:
For the record, in a league that can accomodate it, I have endorsed feeders for years. If you dislike the draft classes that are generated its a big deal. (Obviously historicals can't use, but what would be the point?) Don't think I am attempting to disparage your opinion, just trying to provide counterpoint and maybe help others, too.
__________________
Manager - Motor City Marshals Perfect Manager/Discord Name: jaysdailydose |
|
04-30-2014, 01:57 PM | #39 | |
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,757
|
Quote:
OOTP is not like Madden, where anyone with a rating below 60 or so is trash. Guys can have some low ratings and still be decent players. Heck right this minute I'm adding real Italian League minor leaguers into the db. Most of them have current ratings in the teens and potential ratings from 20-60 or so. There's plenty of difference in OOTP even among those kind of guys. That 20-60ish ratings range takes players with the ability to play in leagues, either well or badly, all the way from the Italian minor leagues or Czech league or whatever all the way up to US class A ball at the high end of the scale. There's a TON of difference between a guy with a 30/200 rating in OOTP and a guy with a 60/200 rating. That may only show up as a point or two in the draft screen, if you're using the 1-10 rating scale, but that point or two is the difference between a career Italian minor league player and a guy who's a genuine US minor league caliber player who's likely to make it to class A ball or even higher in the US minors. Last edited by Lukas Berger; 04-30-2014 at 02:02 PM. |
|
04-30-2014, 02:12 PM | #40 | |
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,757
|
Quote:
Additionally, your description implies that there should be something like 2 stars and 5+ real players per team per draft. That's really unrealistic, if you compare it to what teams typically get out of the real draft. If a team got that out of a specific draft IRL it would be considered one of the greatest drafts ever, if not the greatest. Look how crazy everyone's been going about the Cardinals' 2009 draft, which has yielded something like 2 stars (depending on whether you think Matt Carpenter is a star) and 3 solid MLB players. Depending on how you define "star" most teams don't even get one star per year out of the draft and many, many times a given team will only get a couple MLB bench or AAAA type guys out of their entire draft in a given year. Last edited by Lukas Berger; 04-30-2014 at 02:17 PM. |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|