Anyone else getting extra thin draft pools?

[andyhdz]

baseball amateur draft ≠ nfl or nba draft

[greenOak]

This is really just about sematics and how to define potential. You could absolutely make the argument that everyone in the first round should be rated 70+, or that nobody in the first round should be rated above 60.

For example, looking at the Top 100 prospects on fangraphs there are only three players rated at 70 or higher. The first overall pick Adley Rutchsman is rated as a mere 60. Nevertheless they give him almost a 30% chance of becoming a 70+ value player. Even most of the 50FV prospects are given a 5-10% chance of becoming 70+ value. You could argue all these players should be given 70-80 potential since that is that is their true ceiling, but baseball scouting typically doesn't work like that - OOTP similarly. In game you can expect a number of those 60 grade prospects to become 70+ players at their peak.

I'd also be interested in seeing what the draft classes look like. I'd also be interested in seeing what the typical path through the minors of the highest rated prospects looks like in this version.

[wallewalls]

Originally Posted by Giants44

I have done ZERO actual analysis on this (I know OOTP does and other users probably have as well) But the anecdotal evidence from my first few v21 seasons is that there does seem to be less potential then in the past - some of this could be very much as designed because the OWA still rates many players higher. It is my "outstanding" scout and the ability to now scout year round and not just for 30 days that leads my organization to know they have lower potential.

I think what is missing from the discussion is the player POTENTIAL not what they turn out to be.

While I agree that historically most drafts only turn out a few outstanding players - when drafted most teams think the top guys have tremendous potential.

a better reflection would be 10-15 players in each pool who are potential 70+ ( I hate star ratings) but only a few actually reach that potential.

I mean that's just not true. I just went back to the FanGraphs 2019 list that was updated post-2019 draft (https://www.fangraphs.com/prospects/...items=100&pg=0 if you wanna check my work). Only 5 players from the 2019 draft are in the top-100. it's not Gospel of course, but unless you have a top 5 pick, you shouldn't be expecting a superstar. that's because in baseball, even players who can be top-10 picks realistic best case scenario is "above average regular", which is still a good player but far from a superstar. compared to football or basketball, i can see why some might be disappointed, but its reality. yes, GMs hope on draft day that they can be more, but that requires player development.

[qcbandits]

Originally Posted by Giants44

I have done ZERO actual analysis on this (I know OOTP does and other users probably have as well) But the anecdotal evidence from my first few v21 seasons is that there does seem to be less potential then in the past - some of this could be very much as designed because the OWA still rates many players higher. It is my "outstanding" scout and the ability to now scout year round and not just for 30 days that leads my organization to know they have lower potential.

I think what is missing from the discussion is the player POTENTIAL not what they turn out to be.

While I agree that historically most drafts only turn out a few outstanding players - when drafted most teams think the top guys have tremendous potential.

a better reflection would be 10-15 players in each pool who are potential 70+ ( I hate star ratings) but only a few actually reach that potential.

That would be way too many superstar players. You have to figure in the developmental cycle as well. This game is not meant to be easy. You don't draft superstars... You draft potential superstars that your team develops into superstars. This is not the NFL draft where you draft to fill holes immediately. Your most fast tracked drafted is probably 2 to 3 years from helping your team.

[Bears5122]

I'd be curious to see how the fictional draft classes look to those first 3 years.

[itsmb8]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

We rate the draft prospects to fit in seamlessly with the matrix used for the players and prospects already in the roster set and to match the talent distribution you see in the real draft.

Look at the ratings of players in the real draft on sites like MLB Pipeline and Fangraphs and then compare those to the top prospects on their lists (where you won't see anyone graded as an 80 overall potential btw, except Franco on fangrpahs. In the draft, pipeline has 3 guys rated 60 overall, fangraphs has none). Then do the same in OOTP.

You'll see that most drafts will have one, maybe two guys that rate in the top 10 prospects immediately.

Having a bunch of 80 potential draft picks in each draft when we only only have something like 30 guys with 80 potential in all of the whole MLB roster set (probably only half or so of whom ever came through the draft), including current MLBers, would be overkill and completely unrealistic.

This is for the first 3 years btw, where we include and rate the real players for those drafts. Starting year four, you get the dev engine creating fictional players.

Dont forget, how many current players with an overall rating of 70+ out of 80 had a potential of that in the draft.

Id say for every 70+ potential prospect that reaches that potential, theres a handful of 40-60 potential draftees that outperform their potential.

[chazzycat]

I'm in agreement with OP, something seems off to me. I have been playing the base game for like 6 years so I'm pretty familiar with how drafting typically plays out.

I totally understand what everyone is saying, I'm not expecting impact players outside the top few picks. I get that later rounds are fliers, many will bust, etc. That's all good and realistic.

But my past two seasons (2nd and 3rd overall) have just had absolutely dreadful draft classes. The first one was normal but after that it's been awful. I have literally lost interest starting in the second round because there are no exciting prospects left already. And I don't mean "all star"...I mean "platoon role player ceiling" or "borderline useful bullpen arm". Even those guys are all gone already by the second round.

[qcbandits]

There are draft classes like that in real life, the last few have been terribly top heavy

Also are you playing the real life game or fictional? Bc the real MLB game absolutely does not have this going on. There's more than enough 3 star specs to run into the 3rdnir 4th round

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

I'm in agreement with OP, something seems off to me. I have been playing the base game for like 6 years so I'm pretty familiar with how drafting typically plays out.

I totally understand what everyone is saying, I'm not expecting impact players outside the top few picks. I get that later rounds are fliers, many will bust, etc. That's all good and realistic.

But my past two seasons (2nd and 3rd overall) have just had absolutely dreadful draft classes. The first one was normal but after that it's been awful. I have literally lost interest starting in the second round because there are no exciting prospects left already. And I don't mean "all star"...I mean "platoon role player ceiling" or "borderline useful bullpen arm". Even those guys are all gone already by the second round.

It's about development...what many are failing to realize is that a bunch of the draftees you think are below average or worse, will actually develop beyond expectations.

[Sin44]

I agree with the original poster. I would like to see beefed up potential for draft classes.

I'm finding it hard discerning between good players and normal players. Wish there was an option to change this

[qcbandits]

Why would the game strive to be unrealistic?

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Sin44

I agree with the original poster. I would like to see beefed up potential for draft classes.

I'm finding it hard discerning between good players and normal players. Wish there was an option to change this

You don’t read the scouting reports?

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Sin44

I'm finding it hard discerning between good players and normal players.

Welcome to reality. If it was easy Mike Trout wouldn't have been the 25th pick of the first round.

[endgame]

No one should discount the weight of OOTP's philosophical bent over the last few years to ease presentations of draft classes toward audience demands. This was discussed thoroughly, and not without dissenting views, over those versions. It is possible I'm misreading direction or intent, but I've perceived a leaning toward a return to the realism and accurate portrayals of baseball for which OOTP is known. I count that a good decision.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Sin44

I agree with the original poster. I would like to see beefed up potential for draft classes.

I'm finding it hard discerning between good players and normal players. Wish there was an option to change this

This is VERY realistic

[UltimateAverageGuy]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

And that 3 star guy can develop into a 5 star guy over time. Too many players of OOTP don't understand how the MLB draft and player development actually works in real life and want instant gratification. The reality is any player who makes to the Majors is a success story, and very few actually do make it that far.

Amen, someone with sense

[Sin44]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This is VERY realistic

I read the reports and flip back and forth between my scout and the OSA. But it's hard to get excited when I have the 5th pick in the draft and I'm deciding between 2.5 stars.

I would prefer my scout to be all in on a player. Let me give an example.

Lets say my scout is bullish on a Centerfield prospect, and he thinks that player is going to be a 4 star or 5 star potential player. The OSA has that player going 12th in the mock draft and the OSA says hes a 3.5 star.

My scout might be wrong and when I sign him, his actual potential is revealed.

I think where I'm losing the fun in scouting and drafting is, I request reports on the entire first round and my scout says the majority are 2 star to 2.5 stars. No 4 stars. No 3.5 stars. No 5 stars.

What about the kid who is injury prone and slips to the second round and is a diamond in the rough?

I'm not asking for realism to be sacrificed. I'm asking for storylines around the prospects that dynamically change how they are perceived by the OSA and Mock drafts and other drafting teams.

I know that that those 2.5 stars can develop into 5 star players. But the hype of picking between 15 2.5 stars with the 5th pick is what is nagging me.

[qcbandits]

Originally Posted by Sin44

I read the reports and flip back and forth between my scout and the OSA. But it's hard to get excited when I have the 5th pick in the draft and I'm deciding between 2.5 stars.

I would prefer my scout to be all in on a player. Let me give an example.

Lets say my scout is bullish on a Centerfield prospect, and he thinks that player is going to be a 4 star or 5 star potential player. The OSA has that player going 12th in the mock draft and the OSA says hes a 3.5 star.

My scout might be wrong and when I sign him, his actual potential is revealed.

I think where I'm losing the fun in scouting and drafting is, I request reports on the entire first round and my scout says the majority are 2 star to 2.5 stars. No 4 stars. No 3.5 stars. No 5 stars.

What about the kid who is injury prone and slips to the second round and is a diamond in the rough?

I'm not asking for realism to be sacrificed. I'm asking for storylines around the prospects that dynamically change how they are perceived by the OSA and Mock drafts and other drafting teams.

I know that that those 2.5 stars can develop into 5 star players. But the hype of picking between 15 2.5 stars with the 5th pick is what is nagging me.

You must be playing fictional then. Bc if you were playing the MLB roster set, then your draft would be a ot deeper. I'm very familiar with the ratings on the MLB draft set as I've spent the last month or so in the pools making facegens

[sprague]

If you want more of a "good player" draft and less focus on development you can play like I play.


Drop talent randomness way down, to 25 or below...sometimes I play at 10 or even 5


Then up your player ceation modifiers to like 1.025,


You will get better players...less movement of potential.


It is not the "realism" way OOTP is showing, but I prefer to play with a more NHL, NFL style draft and few minor leagues so this works for me

[endgame]

Originally Posted by sprague

If you want more of a "good player" draft and less focus on development you can play like I play.

Drop talent randomness way down, to 25 or below...sometimes I play at 10 or even 5

Then up your player ceation modifiers to like 1.025,

You will get better players...less movement of potential.

It is not the "realism" way OOTP is showing, but I prefer to play with a more NHL, NFL style draft and few minor leagues so this works for me

A reasonable approach, reasonably stated.