Anyone else getting extra thin draft pools?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by thklein

If we're going for realism, a scout should be giving me a player's ceiling and the likelihood that they reach that ceiling. A player with a sky high ceiling but a low likelihood of reaching that ceiling might have the same overall rating as a player with a lower ceiling but a higher likelihood of reaching that ceiling.

I have always felt this would be a nice addition to scouting reports. Baseball America has rated guys in this manner for almost a decade.

[TNCubsFan]

IMO the draft is only the start. For me the path is Personnel, Draft, Player Development, then the Show. They all work hand in hand. If you are looking at them as separate things you are missing opportunities in the GM side of the game.

I am in love with the draft pools my game is generating for me. It was said that OOTP was changing this part of the game and it really shows. There is now a actual, to me, reason to consider what sort of monies are going into which parts of the scouting budget. For the first time in a long time I am right around 60% of my scouting budget into Draft and international. On top of that I have the best scout in both of those that I could hire.

I start with development personnel. Yes I want coaches that are positives on the level they are working so style there isnt as important as it is on the Major League team. The pitching and hitting coaches on the other hand are extremely important hires both for the organisation and the draft philosophy I work under.

With that in mind my hitting coaches are Power, Patience, Neutral. Because I draft on Contact, Eye, Defense/Speed in the 3rd round and later. My coaches are there to develop the talents that they dont bring to the table.

My pitching coaches are Power, Neutral, Control. Since I draft power pitchers almost exclusively, and very rarely, I focus on what they are bringing to the table to develop even further. This also plays into trade strategy where I am happy to take a risk on a big arm with a blemish because I have the people in place to develop them.

In player development I dont worry about a draft class being good or bad as much as I worry about maximizing the talent we took out of it. That leads back to the previous paragraphs about paying attention to your personnel. My best measuring stick on that is what the other teams are asking for in trades. If they are asking for talent that was drafted in the 6th to 12th rounds then I am doing very well in player development. Rule 5 is also another good indication of how you are doing in player development.

The last link is the Show which is entirely populated with players taken from the draft, whether from my drafts or another teams. Player development has taken those mid round players, the occasional late round gems, and players traded for helping fill out the 25/6/7 man roster so that the big FA commitments are few in a perfect world.

My schedule season moves quickly even though I sim out each day. The off season moves slowly for me because its when I put the work in for the new season ahead of the organisation. Its the way I play and enjoy the game. It dosent have to be the way you enjoy the game. I am only hoping to point out some ways of looking at things that maybe you havent seen or thought of in that way. Either way, have a blast playing the game your way and enjoy!

[TNCubsFan]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I have always felt this would be a nice addition to scouting reports. Baseball America has rated guys in this manner for almost a decade.

I always felt that "Work Ethic" more or less filled that slot for us.

[qcbandits]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

The AI does it and it’s more prevalent when you set up service year limits.

Also if you want to see more break out stars from the later rounds, then raise talent randomness.

Not asking for breakout stars, bc quite a few of those late rounders that get pushed aren't because they were sleepers but bc they played well coming into their MLB systems. I guess in the end, what I'm trying to say is the AI promotes mostly off ratings it seems. While in real life its more a combination of stats and ratings. This is why I tweak the settings for AI eval to make it a bit heavier on stats

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by thklein

If we're going for realism, a scout should be giving me a player's ceiling and the likelihood that they reach that ceiling. A player with a sky high ceiling but a low likelihood of reaching that ceiling might have the same overall rating as a player with a lower ceiling but a higher likelihood of reaching that ceiling. Maybe there is a way to dig into the numbers and figure this out on my own, but this isn't my job. I don't want to spend hours doing a deep dive into the ratings of 100 2.5 star potential draft prospects. Maybe others enjoy that, and that's fine. That's not fun for me. And I'm guessing it's not fun for most people.

Realism does not mean just giving me a glob of prospects with similar ratings with little to distinguish them. That's not realistic, and it's not fun.

These images are the draft pools from the same league, same season, same settings, same scout. The only difference is one is from the original OOTP 20 league and the other is from the exported OOTP 21 league. Which draft would be more fun to participate in? A change was made that makes the game less fun for most people.
And I never noticed an excess of good players in the OOTP 20 league.

But whatever. I'll just go with my scouting director recommendations and get on with my life.

Did you even see this post from Lukas showing the real draft 2020 class? Highest rated guy 55 (future value), 4th rated guy is a 45. Now you have to read the report to see the #1 guy is rated a 70 hitter. Sounds a lot like OOTP and sorting by category, doesn't it?

The only difference between your 20 and 21 view is... 21 is more realistic. Thank goodness Markus and co. strive to improve the game every year and make it more realistic.

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

This is a fictional draft pool. It has nothing to do with the real draft pools I was talking about. So we're talking at cross purposes.

But the idea that any "realistic" draft pool has a 70 or two or a few 60's? Not true. See the following for the year's real life draft pool. Not a 60 to be found and only three guys at 50 or above. And yet some sources, for instance Perfect Game, say the following about it: "This draft is a very strong one, maybe not historically good, but very strong"

https://www.fangraphs.com/prospects/...rt=-1,1&type=0

Feel free to let your scout do it, it is up to you.

Is it really that hard to build a view for pitchers and one for batters that show actual ratings instead of what really is a vague overall? I've seen guys with a 70 or 80 and I wonder where did that come from, I have a guy rated 65 that I would take over them 6 days a week and twice on Sunday once I look into the details. And if you use stars it's even worse.

Build the views, sort by potentials, IE stuff, contact, etc. Have work ethic in you views, or anything else you can think of that will aid you in your decision. It really doesn't take that long.

Or do as Lukas has said you can... Change PCM, and you can have your good old, unrealistic, drafts with multiple players rated as HOF material. The tools are there for you to make the game almost anything you want it to be.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by thklein

If we're going for realism, a scout should be giving me a player's ceiling and the likelihood that they reach that ceiling. A player with a sky high ceiling but a low likelihood of reaching that ceiling might have the same overall rating as a player with a lower ceiling but a higher likelihood of reaching that ceiling. Maybe there is a way to dig into the numbers and figure this out on my own, but this isn't my job. I don't want to spend hours doing a deep dive into the ratings of 100 2.5 star potential draft prospects. Maybe others enjoy that, and that's fine. That's not fun for me. And I'm guessing it's not fun for most people.

Realism does not mean just giving me a glob of prospects with similar ratings with little to distinguish them. That's not realistic, and it's not fun.

These images are the draft pools from the same league, same season, same settings, same scout. The only difference is one is from the original OOTP 20 league and the other is from the exported OOTP 21 league. Which draft would be more fun to participate in? A change was made that makes the game less fun for most people.
And I never noticed an excess of good players in the OOTP 20 league.

But whatever. I'll just go with my scouting director recommendations and get on with my life.

That’s in the written reports. In reality, a person’s likelihood of reaching their potential is based off of injury history, how raw they currently are and mental make up. All of this is in the written report.

Also a scout that is focus on tools will be more radical with his ratings vs a scout who is focus on skill who are more conservative and values how close the player are to his potential at a given skill.

However, I would like to see some sort of player comparison on the player’s scouting page. So we can get a quick glance on how good the player can be.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by TNCubsFan

I always felt that "Work Ethic" more or less filled that slot for us.

Yeah, that's how I use it. Work ethic + intelligence makes them even more likely to fulfill that potential. But it could also mean they're capable of exceeding potential.

I just think that idea would enhance the scouting experience and also give us useful information.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by qcbandits

Not asking for breakout stars, bc quite a few of those late rounders that get pushed aren't because they were sleepers but bc they played well coming into their MLB systems. I guess in the end, what I'm trying to say is the AI promotes mostly off ratings it seems. While in real life its more a combination of stats and ratings. This is why I tweak the settings for AI eval to make it a bit heavier on stats

That’s not how talent change randomness work. Players don’t put up terrible minor league stats then magically become MLB all stars.

Correct, if you don’t want ratings influencing decisions too much, tweak AI evaluation.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by TNCubsFan

I always felt that "Work Ethic" more or less filled that slot for us.

Totally agree.


I stay far away from lazy, slow to catch on, etc.. players. I don't care if they project to be a 5* at first glance. I have seen those players develop, but it's typically much later in their careers.

[Imperialism32]

I think the problem is this: In real life, when your team has a top-5 draft pick, you're excited about drafting a potential superstar. You read the scouting report and you know exactly what kind of player the draft pick could become.

Let's use the 2013 draft as an example.

Mark Appel went 1/1. Here's his BaseballAmerica scouting report from his senior year in college:

Appel picked up where he left off last year, after he turned down $3.8 million from the Pirates as the eighth overall pick. As a senior, he fine-tuned his stuff and graduated with a degree in management science and engineering. He shows everything scouts look for in a frontline pitcher. He's 6-foot-5 and 215 pounds with a clean delivery, and he is a solid athlete who played basketball in high school. Appel's fastball sits in the mid-90s and gets as high as 98 mph, and he holds his velocity deep into games. His slider is a plus pitch that generates swings and misses with its sharp, late break. Under Stanford pitching coach Rusty Filter--who was Stephen Strasburg's pitching coach at San Diego State--Appel has gotten a little more downhill with his fastball and has improved his changeup as a senior, and it should be at least an average third offering. Appel has improved every year at Stanford and dominated as a senior, and he should move quickly through the minor leagues.

And at number 2, here's Kris Bryant:

Bryant has shown huge raw power since his high school days in Las Vegas, and has blossomed into college baseball's premier slugger. He posted a 1.081 OPS and nine homers as a freshmen, then a 1.154 OPS and 14 long balls as a sophomore, but he has taken his game to new heights as a junior, posting a 1.357 OPS and 25 home runs (seven more than any other Division I player) through 49 games. Opponents have pitched him very carefully, but he has remained patient, posting a 56-31 walk-strikeout mark. Bryant's best tool is his plus-plus righthanded power, allowing him to launch towering shots over the light standard in left field or hit balls over the fence to the opposite field. He has adopted a wider base and a simpler approach at the plate this year, and he has impressed scouts with his ability to turn on inside fastballs or go the other way with sliders over the outer half. His plate discipline and ability to consistently barrel up a variety of pitches make him a safe bet to be at least an average hitter, and many scouts think he'll be better than that. Bryant's arm gives him another above-average tool. His athleticism gives him at least a chance to stick at third, although he'll need plenty more repetitions to master the position. Some scouts project him as a prototypical right fielder. He has average speed and can be faster under way, and he has shown good instincts in right and center.

In most OOTP drafts, the highest potential ratings you get from non-closers tends to be in the low 60s at best (20-80 scale). In the class posted earlier in this thread, the highest potential for a hitter was 50!

Now read the Kris Bryant scouting report and tell that's a 50-potential player. Of course not! And Bryant wasn't a once-in-a-generation prospect like Bryce Harper... There are guys with Bryant-level scouting reports every year. You can read that scouting report and instantly envision what kind of star player that could be, and he turned out to be exactly that. You can read Mark Appel's scouting report and envision exactly what kind of star pitcher he could be... but he didn't meet that, obviously.

In an OOTP draft the top two picks might have 56 and 54 potential. That's crazy compared to real life. Kris Bryant didn't only have superstar potential once he got into the Cubs organization and they developed him. It was universally agreed that he had superstar potential as a high school senior.

In the OOTP universe Appel would have started as (let's say) a 56 potential SP and seen that number dwindle quickly. Bryant would have started as (let's say) a 54 potential 3B and seen that number grow. But that's not realistic! He always had insane potential.

It would better model real life if Appel (who I'm using as the stand-in for the top available pitcher in any given draft) had something like 74 potential and Bryant had 72 potential. Then as they developed Appel's potential would drop as scouting reports indicate he's not showing the same stuff as he did in college, and his stats would lag. Meanwhile Bryant destroyed minor-league pitching from day 1 so his OVR rating would quickly climb toward his potential.

These are extreme-ish examples of a draft bust and a draft superstar. Jon Gray went 3rd that year. His potential should have started around 71 or 72, and based on scouting reports you could envision him becoming an ace. Well, his fastball was as good as advertised but the rest of his game didn't totally pan out, but he's still an acceptable major league pitcher. So his POT would go down, slower than Appel's, while his OVR would increase, slower than Bryant's, until they meet somewhere around 50ish (or whatever an average MLB pitcher is).

Put into greater context, Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg would have been 80 POT in their draft years. Again, this was universally agreed. But OOTP *never* produces hitters or SPs with 80 potential in the draft pools. And sure Harper fell short of becoming the best player in the sport but Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey Jr. are two other examples of guys who should have been 80 POT in the draft pool and DID develop into that.

Appel as the top pitcher might have been 74, but in a different year the top pitcher might be a 76 (like a David Price level prospect) or an 80 (like a Strasburg). Or maybe it's a weak pitching year and the top guy is only 69 or 70 like in 2008 when Brian Matusz was the top one taken - and I assure you no one mistook Matusz's ceiling for Price or Strasburg's.

And this still allows for guys picked later to break through. Mike Trout, picked 25th, might only have 58 potential when he's in the draft pool. But then he gets into the Angels system and it's clear everyone underestimated him, so his POT shoots up from there.

Saying that the best hitter in the draft each year has the ceiling of a barely above average major leaguer does not reflect reality.

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Totally agree.


I stay far away from lazy, slow to catch on, etc.. players. I don't care if they project to be a 5* at first glance. I have seen those players develop, but it's typically much later in their careers.

I do too, with the caveat that I will take a flyer late in the draft when you're sorting through no-bat catchers and crummy relief pitchers. Sometimes the tools end up useful, backup SS or designated PH or similar...

[Imperialism32]

Semi-related but OOTP to me has suffered from a squeeze to the middle with their rating system. One 48 OVR SP could be a consistently above average MLBer and another can hardly hack it in AAA. And yes I understand you've got to go deeper and look at their stats and their individual ratings but doing that only highlights how useless the OVR ratings really can be.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Imperialism32

I think the problem is this: In real life, when your team has a top-5 draft pick, you're excited about drafting a potential superstar. You read the scouting report and you know exactly what kind of player the draft pick could become.

Let's use the 2013 draft as an example.

Mark Appel went 1/1. Here's his BaseballAmerica scouting report from his senior year in college:

Appel picked up where he left off last year, after he turned down $3.8 million from the Pirates as the eighth overall pick. As a senior, he fine-tuned his stuff and graduated with a degree in management science and engineering. He shows everything scouts look for in a frontline pitcher. He's 6-foot-5 and 215 pounds with a clean delivery, and he is a solid athlete who played basketball in high school. Appel's fastball sits in the mid-90s and gets as high as 98 mph, and he holds his velocity deep into games. His slider is a plus pitch that generates swings and misses with its sharp, late break. Under Stanford pitching coach Rusty Filter--who was Stephen Strasburg's pitching coach at San Diego State--Appel has gotten a little more downhill with his fastball and has improved his changeup as a senior, and it should be at least an average third offering. Appel has improved every year at Stanford and dominated as a senior, and he should move quickly through the minor leagues.

And at number 2, here's Kris Bryant:

Bryant has shown huge raw power since his high school days in Las Vegas, and has blossomed into college baseball's premier slugger. He posted a 1.081 OPS and nine homers as a freshmen, then a 1.154 OPS and 14 long balls as a sophomore, but he has taken his game to new heights as a junior, posting a 1.357 OPS and 25 home runs (seven more than any other Division I player) through 49 games. Opponents have pitched him very carefully, but he has remained patient, posting a 56-31 walk-strikeout mark. Bryant's best tool is his plus-plus righthanded power, allowing him to launch towering shots over the light standard in left field or hit balls over the fence to the opposite field. He has adopted a wider base and a simpler approach at the plate this year, and he has impressed scouts with his ability to turn on inside fastballs or go the other way with sliders over the outer half. His plate discipline and ability to consistently barrel up a variety of pitches make him a safe bet to be at least an average hitter, and many scouts think he'll be better than that. Bryant's arm gives him another above-average tool. His athleticism gives him at least a chance to stick at third, although he'll need plenty more repetitions to master the position. Some scouts project him as a prototypical right fielder. He has average speed and can be faster under way, and he has shown good instincts in right and center.

In most OOTP drafts, the highest potential ratings you get from non-closers tends to be in the low 60s at best (20-80 scale). In the class posted earlier in this thread, the highest potential for a hitter was 50!

Now read the Kris Bryant scouting report and tell that's a 50-potential player. Of course not! And Bryant wasn't a once-in-a-generation prospect like Bryce Harper... There are guys with Bryant-level scouting reports every year. You can read that scouting report and instantly envision what kind of star player that could be, and he turned out to be exactly that. You can read Mark Appel's scouting report and envision exactly what kind of star pitcher he could be... but he didn't meet that, obviously.

In an OOTP draft the top two picks might have 56 and 54 potential. That's crazy compared to real life. Kris Bryant didn't only have superstar potential once he got into the Cubs organization and they developed him. It was universally agreed that he had superstar potential as a high school senior.

In the OOTP universe Appel would have started as (let's say) a 56 potential SP and seen that number dwindle quickly. Bryant would have started as (let's say) a 54 potential 3B and seen that number grow. But that's not realistic! He always had insane potential.

It would better model real life if Appel (who I'm using as the stand-in for the top available pitcher in any given draft) had something like 74 potential and Bryant had 72 potential. Then as they developed Appel's potential would drop as scouting reports indicate he's not showing the same stuff as he did in college, and his stats would lag. Meanwhile Bryant destroyed minor-league pitching from day 1 so his OVR rating would quickly climb toward his potential.

These are extreme-ish examples of a draft bust and a draft superstar. Jon Gray went 3rd that year. His potential should have started around 71 or 72, and based on scouting reports you could envision him becoming an ace. Well, his fastball was as good as advertised but the rest of his game didn't totally pan out, but he's still an acceptable major league pitcher. So his POT would go down, slower than Appel's, while his OVR would increase, slower than Bryant's, until they meet somewhere around 50ish (or whatever an average MLB pitcher is).

Put into greater context, Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg would have been 80 POT in their draft years. Again, this was universally agreed. But OOTP *never* produces hitters or SPs with 80 potential in the draft pools. And sure Harper fell short of becoming the best player in the sport but Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey Jr. are two other examples of guys who should have been 80 POT in the draft pool and DID develop into that.

Appel as the top pitcher might have been 74, but in a different year the top pitcher might be a 76 (like a David Price level prospect) or an 80 (like a Strasburg). Or maybe it's a weak pitching year and the top guy is only 69 or 70 like in 2008 when Brian Matusz was the top one taken - and I assure you no one mistook Matusz's ceiling for Price or Strasburg's.

And this still allows for guys picked later to break through. Mike Trout, picked 25th, might only have 58 potential when he's in the draft pool. But then he gets into the Angels system and it's clear everyone underestimated him, so his POT shoots up from there.

Saying that the best hitter in the draft each year has the ceiling of a barely above average major leaguer does not reflect reality.

Outside of the fillers about their high school career. Nothing in those written reports are anything different than what you would see in an OOTP written report for a guy rated as a 60 potential.

[Imperialism32]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Outside of the fillers about their high school career. Nothing in those written reports are anything different than what you would see in an OOTP written report for a guy rated as a 60 potential.

I guess my disagreement is with the overall rating system then. If OOTP is capable of generating a Bryce Harper or Stephen Strasburg level prospect every five years or so (and it should) then I see no reason that prospect shouldn't have 80 potential.

Instead of a scale roughly like this:

20 OVR - Low minor leaguer
25 OVR - AA/AAA type guys
30 OVR - "Quadruple A" guys who play well in AAA but should be bench players only in the majors.
35 OVR - Bench/reserve MLBers
40 OVR - Below-average MLBers, among the worst-rated starters at their position
45 OVR - Fringe-average MLBers
50 OVR - Average MLBers
55 OVR - Barely above-average MLBers
60 OVR - Above average MLBers, capable of making an ASG once or twice in their career
65 OVR - Solidly above average to star level
70 OVR - Stars
75+ OVR - Superstars

We get:
20 OVR - Minor leaguers
25 OVR - Minor leaguers
30 OVR - Minor leaguers
35 OVR - "Quadruple A" guys who play well in AAA but should be bench players only in the majors.
40 OVR - Below-average MLBers, among the worst-rated starters at their position
45 OVR - Who knows! Could be a decent MLBer, could be trash, but so many players are rated in the 40-60 range
50 OVR - Who knows! Should be solid MLBers but again so many players exist in this range that "50 OVR" means nothing
55 OVR - Good MLBers
60 OVR - Stars
65 OVR - The true superstars, and also average relief pitchers
70 OVR - Actually good relief pitchers
75+ OVR - Great relief pitchers

It seems to me that everything gets compressed into that 40-55 range which renders the entire rating system mostly pointless.

Maybe there are settings I can mess with to help but I haven't found them yet. And I'm not saying I want my scale to eliminate randomness. If a 45 OVR guy randomly has a 4 or 5 WAR season I will understand that's the randomness of real life at work (Scooter Gennett's 2018 season is the first one I thought of... He was kind of a fringe-average guy who popped out to have a big year, and that's delightful!)

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Imperialism32

I guess my disagreement is with the overall rating system then. If OOTP is capable of generating a Bryce Harper or Stephen Strasburg level prospect every five years or so (and it should) then I see no reason that prospect shouldn't have 80 potential.

Instead of a scale roughly like this:

20 OVR - Low minor leaguer
25 OVR - AA/AAA type guys
30 OVR - "Quadruple A" guys who play well in AAA but should be bench players only in the majors.
35 OVR - Bench/reserve MLBers
40 OVR - Below-average MLBers, among the worst-rated starters at their position
45 OVR - Fringe-average MLBers
50 OVR - Average MLBers
55 OVR - Barely above-average MLBers
60 OVR - Above average MLBers, capable of making an ASG once or twice in their career
65 OVR - Solidly above average to star level
70 OVR - Stars
75+ OVR - Superstars

We get:
20 OVR - Minor leaguers
25 OVR - Minor leaguers
30 OVR - Minor leaguers
35 OVR - "Quadruple A" guys who play well in AAA but should be bench players only in the majors.
40 OVR - Below-average MLBers, among the worst-rated starters at their position
45 OVR - Who knows! Could be a decent MLBer, could be trash, but so many players are rated in the 40-60 range
50 OVR - Who knows! Should be solid MLBers but again so many players exist in this range that "50 OVR" means nothing
55 OVR - Good MLBers
60 OVR - Stars
65 OVR - The true superstars, and also average relief pitchers
70 OVR - Actually good relief pitchers
75+ OVR - Great relief pitchers

It seems to me that everything gets compressed into that 40-55 range which renders the entire rating system mostly pointless.

Maybe there are settings I can mess with to help but I haven't found them yet. And I'm not saying I want my scale to eliminate randomness. If a 45 OVR guy randomly has a 4 or 5 WAR season I will understand that's the randomness of real life at work (Scooter Gennett's 2018 season is the first one I thought of... He was kind of a fringe-average guy who popped out to have a big year, and that's delightful!)

If you are using default relative ratings then this simply isn't true.

Looking at my save right now...

out of 1500 players in MLB / MILB, only 260 are 50 OVR.

55 OVR = 149
50 OVR = 260
45 OVR = 314
40 OVR = 249

That is roughly a 55 - 45 split between fringe-average to above-average players vs the rest who range from scrub to elite.

[Imperialism32]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

If you are using default relative ratings then this simply isn't true.

Looking at my save right now...

out of 1500 players in MLB / MILB, only 260 are 50 OVR.

55 OVR = 149
50 OVR = 260
45 OVR = 314
40 OVR = 249

That is roughly a 55 - 45 split between fringe-average to above-average players vs the rest who range from scrub to elite.

Thanks for this. I run a fictional league but keep it closely modeled to real life (besides, I don't think that would affect the player rating system). I will take a closer look at my file when I get home.

I suspect my issue is ultimately with Lukas' post about "potential" really being more like a 50th percentile, which is counter-intuitive to me. And wondering if there's a way to make "potential" truly mean "potential" and accepting that out of 30 first-round picks only five or six will actually reach that ceiling, and only two or three will stay there for more than a handful of years.

[Sin44]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

The AI does it and it’s more prevalent when you set up service year limits.

Also if you want to see more break out stars from the later rounds, then raise talent randomness.

Is it possible to raise talent randomness playing in challenge mode?

[byzeil]

Something else to remember Real Life vs In game OOTP.

In real life we as fans are not seeing the professional team's scouting reports. We are seeing Fangraphs or some "experts" ratings. Now these guys may be good at producing these lists but what we don't know is what is in the team's internal reports, we don't get to see them. And I don't mean the publicity articles talking about the great player we just pick at #7 overall. Those reports are written for the fan not for the internal consumption of the organization.

I'd guess that those internal reports would seem less optimistic, more critical, than the public scouting reports. Professional scouts are really going to avoid overrating a prospect because missing on prospects is going to hurt their chances of being employed.

When we are playing OOTP our scout is giving us those internal reports while OSA would be more like the public ones. So it makes sense that our scout's report are going to be less 'exciting' and you are going to see few superstar projections.

As for having to dig through a bunch of 2-2.5 star players to try to figure out who has potential and who doesn't? Well that is realistic. I score AA baseball games and there are scouts at all the games, often over time multiple scouts from the same organization. They are there because they are trying to find the diamond in the rough. Maybe not even the diamond but may the guy that just make the roster as a utility guy. Same goes for the scouts looking at the amateur level. MLB draft is very different from the NFL & NBA drafts and I would guess closer to the NHL(though I don't know much about the NHL).

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Sin44

Is it possible to raise talent randomness playing in challenge mode?

I don’t think so.

Note that raising It also increases the chance of 1st round busts

[byzeil]

Here is a recent article about Jimmy Rollins and how the scouting report ratings was were below what Rollins turned out to be but the scout's evaluations of his tools said he should be a high pick.

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelph...eport-phillies

A quote from the article...

It's somewhat surprising then, that the highest future grade given to Rollins in a Phillies draft report in the spring of '96 was a 55 on the scouting scale from 20 to 80. Poole marked Rollins down as a future 55 for fielding ability, range, body control and aggressiveness. The lowest grades were 40 for raw power and power production and 45 for running speed.