So what's the consensus on the draft?

[tejdog1]

Disclaimer: written by a Mets fan about the Mets 2013 draft.

The thing with OOTP is - there aren't players like Ivan Wilson, or if there are, you don't know it. Wilson was a 3rd rounder in the draft that the Mets took. Scouting report:

Wilson is all kinds of raw right now, but for a team that likes to draft athletic kids and try to teach them how to play baseball, he's got enough ceiling (above-average regular) to be appealing in the third round or so. Wilson is strong and well-built at 6-foot-3, 220 pounds with good bat speed but a deep load that bars his lead arm and creates excessive length, meaning he can't always get to the potentially plus power from his wrist strength and big hip rotation. His swing path is also very inconsistent, and like many kids from very rural high schools he doesn't recognize offspeed stuff well yet. He's an average runner, a little slow out of the box and better underway, with plenty of arm for right field.

Wilson reminds me a lot of Jamie Jarmon, a very crude prep outfielder from Delaware whom I rated as a third-rounder last year and was drafted in the second round by Texas, after which he struggled to make contact in his first summer in pro ball. Jarmon's a long-term project, as is Wilson, and if Jarmon could go 83rd overall in a stronger draft, Wilson should go in that area as well.

OF, Ivan Wilson, Ruston HS, La, 6'3 220, R/R, very strong, physical specimen, throws ave when sets up to throw to bases, has good hand speed and strength in his swing, bat goes to the ball, runs very well once underway, 4.27 out of the box from RH side, tracked the ball well in the OF, best suited for either corner, projects to hit for HR power, Some Joe Carter comparisons for me. 4-7 round type follow for 2013. Showed much better confidence then he did during the Breakthrough Series in Durham.

Wilson's combination of tools and athleticism is among the best of this year's prep outfielders. He is listed at 6-foot-3, 220 pounds with good strength and plus speed. Wilson, out of Ruston H.S. (La.), has good power and can hit home runs to any part of the ballpark. He takes advantage of his power-speed combination thanks to good instincts on the basepaths. Wilson has excellent range in the outfield and enough arm for right field if he can't stay in center field. By mid-May, he still hadn't committed to college, leaving scouts wondering about his signability.

-Mayo

We never get those kind of reports/scouting stuffs in OOTP. Wilson's got a super high ceiling, but he's a HUGE SUPER risk to get there, it's very likely he flames out in short season ball. But there's stuff to dream on there, big arm, lots of speed, potential power, 5 tool potential, etc... that's what OOTP draft classes lack in the current version beyond round 2 at the latest.

[redsoxaholic]

This may sound stupid but I haven't noticed a difference between OOTP 14 and OOTP 12 (skipped 13) in terms of the draft. I did just get 14 when it was on sale but I have basically always simulated after round 1 in the draft, in both OOTP's. I never noticed an abundance of flame-outs or more/less 5 star potential players in either version. Maybe if I looked for a difference I would notice something but in OOTP 12 occasionally I would have a guy that the computer drafted in the 20th round etc. make it big for me. I haven't noticed in 14 yet because I'm not necessarily far enough in to have a ton of prospects make it yet. It could be because I don't micromanage too hard and move through seasons pretty quickly though too.

I will say this though; in 12 there would always be a ton of high potential relievers at the top of the draft that the computer wouldn't touch for a few rounds so I would always be "stuck" with a great bullpen, and I have noticed that the computer does draft relievers in this version early on, which is better, if it does make it more challenging to have a great bullpen.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by redsoxaholic

This may sound stupid but I haven't noticed a difference between OOTP 14 and OOTP 12 (skipped 13) in terms of the draft. I did just get 14 when it was on sale but I have basically always simulated after round 1 in the draft, in both OOTP's. I never noticed an abundance of flame-outs or more/less 5 star potential players in either version. Maybe if I looked for a difference I would notice something but in OOTP 12 occasionally I would have a guy that the computer drafted in the 20th round etc. make it big for me. I haven't noticed in 14 yet because I'm not necessarily far enough in to have a ton of prospects make it yet. It could be because I don't micromanage too hard and move through seasons pretty quickly though too.

I will say this though; in 12 there would always be a ton of high potential relievers at the top of the draft that the computer wouldn't touch for a few rounds so I would always be "stuck" with a great bullpen, and I have noticed that the computer does draft relievers in this version early on, which is better, if it does make it more challenging to have a great bullpen.

When people call the draft model in OOTP14 "new', it's a mistaken use of the word. The model in OOTP13 was "new" (and was deeply problematic) and the model in OOTP14 returns, more or less, to the model used in OOTP12 and in earlier versions of the game. So if you skipped 13, you won't notice a big change.

And yes, the AI evaluation of high-quality relievers (and of pitchers with 2 good pitches and a rudimentary third pitch) was changed a lot in OOTP14, for the better. The AI will now draft top college closers at the end of the 1st round, just like real life teams do.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

The thing with OOTP is - there aren't players like Ivan Wilson, or if there are, you don't know it.

Wilson's got a super high ceiling, but he's a HUGE SUPER risk to get there, it's very likely he flames out in short season ball. But there's stuff to dream on there, big arm, lots of speed, potential power, 5 tool potential, etc... that's what OOTP draft classes lack in the current version beyond round 2 at the latest.

Those scouting reports seem to contradict each other. When I read phrases like:

"He's an average runner, a little slow out of the box and better underway"

"best suited for either corner"

I don't get the impression we're talking about someone with "lots of speed" or with plus OF range. Wilson sounds like a raw 2-tool guy to me: plus power, plus arm. He's got two average-ish tools (speed and glove) and one minus tool (bat). He's the kind of guy I'd expect to have ratings like 42/63/38 Con/Pow/Eye in OOTP with a plus arm, good RF defense, slightly above average speed, and very low current ratings. I find guys like that all the time in OOTP drafts in the 3rd round - guys who, if they reach their potentials, won't be all that exciting, but who could be regulars or stars with a bit of a potential boost.

I do agree with you completely that OOTP can do a much better job both modeling risk/reward for prospects, and of conveying risk information to users. When I open up a draft prospect's profile, it should be obvious to me if I'm looking at a high risk/high reward kind of player, or a lower ceiling guy with a better chance to get there. It takes a bit of work to figure that out right now.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by injury log

When people call the draft model in OOTP14 "new', it's a mistaken use of the word. The model in OOTP13 was "new" (and was deeply problematic) and the model in OOTP14 returns, more or less, to the model used in OOTP12 and in earlier versions of the game. So if you skipped 13, you won't notice a big change.

And yes, the AI evaluation of high-quality relievers (and of pitchers with 2 good pitches and a rudimentary third pitch) was changed a lot in OOTP14, for the better. The AI will now draft top college closers at the end of the 1st round, just like real life teams do.

I don't disagree with you about the realism: yes. the current draft is more realistic.

It's just not any fun any more, and I and others used to get a lot of enjoyment out of the draft. I'm not saying that we should go back, just that in our continuous quest for more realism we lost something fun along the way.

So, yes, you're right about the draft. But I still feel a loss.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The old method wasn't perfect either. I admit that I was frustrated from time to time when too many prospects flamed out. But no more frustrated than I am now looking at a draft class containing 90% 0-WAR players.

In real life, the MLB Draft consists for 40 rounds, plus two compensation rounds, so approximately 1,200 players are chosen. If 90% of them are 0 WAR or below, that means 120 of them (or four rounds worth) are 0.1 WAR or above. That's probably slightly high, if you ask me.

I think the OOTP MLB quickstart defaults to 30 rounds (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so that's 90 players (or three rounds' worth) at 0.1 WAR or above. Is three rounds of legitimate MLB prospects realistic? I would say that's about right.

I understand your frustration, but my point is that the current draft pools are much more realistic, and realism has always been a goal of Markus' development team.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by injury log

Those scouting reports seem to contradict each other. When I read phrases like:

"He's an average runner, a little slow out of the box and better underway"

"best suited for either corner"

I don't get the impression we're talking about someone with "lots of speed" or with plus OF range. Wilson sounds like a raw 2-tool guy to me: plus power, plus arm. He's got two average-ish tools (speed and glove) and one minus tool (bat). He's the kind of guy I'd expect to have ratings like 42/63/38 Con/Pow/Eye in OOTP with a plus arm, good RF defense, slightly above average speed, and very low current ratings. I find guys like that all the time in OOTP drafts in the 3rd round - guys who, if they reach their potentials, won't be all that exciting, but who could be regulars or stars with a bit of a potential boost.

I do agree with you completely that OOTP can do a much better job both modeling risk/reward for prospects, and of conveying risk information to users. When I open up a draft prospect's profile, it should be obvious to me if I'm looking at a high risk/high reward kind of player, or a lower ceiling guy with a better chance to get there. It takes a bit of work to figure that out right now.

Exactly. Wilson is actually a really, really good example of what I mean when I've talked about fans getting way too excited about draft picks and greatly overrating their potential.

That tejdog1 (and quite a few other Mets fans too, to be fair) see Wilson as some kind of five tool guy shows a very large amount of rose-coloured glasses type optimism. Even the most optimistic un-biased reports about him don't say anything about five tools, or star potential.

To quote one of the reports quoted by tejdog

he's got enough ceiling (above-average regular)

And that's a pretty optimistic report compared to some I've seen on him.

His speed is 6.6/6.7, somewhat above average, but not plus. He's unlikely to have the range to stick in center.

As you note, he's really a 2 tool player, with major, major questions about the most important tool for a baseball player, hitting. His ability to make contact is such a question that he's highly unlikely to ever amount to anything. Even if you simply look at his absolute peak potential, you're looking at a solid power hitting corner outfielder with decent athleticism and issues making contact.

So if everything breaks right for him, he has a peak of being somewhat like the 2011-2013 version of Alfonso Soriano, but is also extremely unlikely to ever reach that peak.

Is that potential so great, that you just can't get someone like this in the 3rd to 5th rounds or later in current OOTP drafts? I really don't think so.

[Orcin]

Let's strip away all of the discussion about what is realistic and what is not. No one wants year after year of over-performing draft pools that destory the competitive balance in a league. I am not, and I don't believe anyone else is, arguing that the results from the current methodology are bad. In fact, in post #9, I said that my league was fine. In post #31, I agreed that the new system is fine, i.e. produces results that I like. The issue is how we get there, not where we end up.

I would like to see more promise in the draft pool, with more prospects that are viewed through rose-colored glasses and then don't pan out. I would prefer fewer of these than we once had, but I still want to see prospects with (perhaps false) major league potential in round 4 myself. That would make the draft exercise more fun for me. I don't see why that would ruin the game for anyone. If it stays the way that it is, I will still be playing and enjoying the game. I just won't put as much time and money into the draft, and put more into scouting the minors.

The OP asked what the state of the draft was now. I don't see why negative opinions are not as valid as positive ones, especially considering the concept of "fun" is such a subjective one.

[The Wolf]

Can't argue with you at all on that, Orcin.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Let's strip away all of the discussion about what is realistic and what is not. No one wants year after year of over-performing draft pools that destory the competitive balance in a league. I am not, and I don't believe anyone else is, arguing that the results from the current methodology are bad. In fact, in post #9, I said that my league was fine. In post #31, I agreed that the new system is fine, i.e. produces results that I like. The issue is how we get there, not where we end up.

I would like to see more promise in the draft pool, with more prospects that are viewed through rose-colored glasses and then don't pan out. I would prefer fewer of these than we once had, but I still want to see prospects with (perhaps false) major league potential in round 4 myself. That would make the draft exercise more fun for me. I don't see why that would ruin the game for anyone. If it stays the way that it is, I will still be playing and enjoying the game. I just won't put as much time and money into the draft, and put more into scouting the minors.

The OP asked what the state of the draft was now. I don't see why negative opinions are not as valid as positive ones, especially considering the concept of "fun" is such a subjective one.

I don't think anyone's saying it would "ruin" the game.

And in regards to what makes the draft fun - I'll quote someones response from earlier in this thread -

You like green, I like blue. Both colors work fine. Neither color is wrong.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Let's strip away all of the discussion about what is realistic and what is not. No one wants year after year of over-performing draft pools that destory the competitive balance in a league. I am not, and I don't believe anyone else is, arguing that the results from the current methodology are bad. In fact, in post #9, I said that my league was fine. In post #31, I agreed that the new system is fine, i.e. produces results that I like. The issue is how we get there, not where we end up.

I would like to see more promise in the draft pool, with more prospects that are viewed through rose-colored glasses and then don't pan out. I would prefer fewer of these than we once had, but I still want to see prospects with (perhaps false) major league potential in round 4 myself. That would make the draft exercise more fun for me. I don't see why that would ruin the game for anyone. If it stays the way that it is, I will still be playing and enjoying the game. I just won't put as much time and money into the draft, and put more into scouting the minors.

The OP asked what the state of the draft was now. I don't see why negative opinions are not as valid as positive ones, especially considering the concept of "fun" is such a subjective one.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone say that your opinion, or anyone else's, isn't valid. People (myself included) are just saying why they don't like the type of draft you want, just like you're explaining why you don't like the way the draft currently works.

It's been a healthy discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

And in regards to what makes the draft fun - I'll quote someones response from earlier in this thread -

This comment was in regard to whether the draft produced realistic results, not whether the draft was fun to do.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone say that your opinion, or anyone else's, isn't valid. People (myself included) are just saying why they don't like the type of draft you want, just like you're explaining why you don't like the way the draft currently works.

It's been a healthy discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with your conclusion. Perhaps I am just over-reacting to the use of phrases like "demonstrably wrong" in response to my characterization of the old model as "fine".

[markprior22]

For me, most of the issue revolves around the scouting reports themselves. They are very poorly written and most don't reflect any type of "realistic" scouting. If a scout tells me "a little leaguer could hit this guy" I want to know A) what the heck is this guy doing in a MLB draft or B) what the heck is my guy doing scouting MLB? It is a fine line between giving too much information and keeping suspense but when a team drafts a guy, I assume they see some possible future. When the Cubs drafted Hayden Simpson there had to be something they liked. I know that pick had a lot to do with money but I'm sure they wanted to take someone they felt at least had a chance. Like I mentioned in another thread about Trevor Rosenthal... Cards drafted him in 21st round. He obviously left something to be desired or he wouldn't have been drafted that low. However, he also had to bring SOMETHING to the table that at least intrigued the Cardinals. Did they think he just needed another pitch, more speed, refinement, etc, etc? Who knows...even though he was a 21st round pick, they saw something worth taking a shot on. That scout didn't come back saying "this guy might make a decent broadcaster someday."



I think tejdog1 hit it perfectly in his post. Reports that detailed probably won't be in OOTP anytime soon but definitely headed in the right direction. I think if we got better scouting reports, it would alleviate many of the issues people have with the current system.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I agree with your conclusion. Perhaps I am just over-reacting to the use of phrases like "demonstrably wrong" in response to my characterization of the old model as "fine".

True, that was probably a poor choice of words on his part, but I don't want to speak for him.

Seems like it comes down to a fun vs. realism argument. I agree with you 100% that the draft is less fun than it was before. But I prefer realism over fun in this instance.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by markprior22

For me, most of the issue revolves around the scouting reports themselves. They are very poorly written and most don't reflect any type of "realistic" scouting. If a scout tells me "a little leaguer could hit this guy" I want to know A) what the heck is this guy doing in a MLB draft or B) what the heck is my guy doing scouting MLB? It is a fine line between giving too much information and keeping suspense but when a team drafts a guy, I assume they see some possible future. When the Cubs drafted Hayden Simpson there had to be something they liked. I know that pick had a lot to do with money but I'm sure they wanted to take someone they felt at least had a chance. Like I mentioned in another thread about Trevor Rosenthal... Cards drafted him in 21st round. He obviously left something to be desired or he wouldn't have been drafted that low. However, he also had to bring SOMETHING to the table that at least intrigued the Cardinals. Did they think he just needed another pitch, more speed, refinement, etc, etc? Who knows...even though he was a 21st round pick, they saw something worth taking a shot on. That scout didn't come back saying "this guy might make a decent broadcaster someday."



I think tejdog1 hit it perfectly in his post. Reports that detailed probably won't be in OOTP anytime soon but definitely headed in the right direction. I think if we got better scouting reports, it would alleviate many of the issues people have with the current system.

This is an important point -- the scouting reports aren't the greatest. If they could be beefed up a bit, that might help us feel like the one-star guys could possibly turn out to be better than that.

As for your example of Rosenthal, he was a shortstop for most of his career in college and had just started pitching when he was drafted. But he was regularly in the low to mid 90s even though he had little pitching experience. So there probably weren't many teams that knew about his potential on the mound.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

After a great deal of play, I have concluded that it's more realistic but not nearly as much fun.

This.

I use to walk away from a 25 round draft thinking I got 21 possible starters. Now I walk away thinking I might have a decent backup in the majors, and a couple guys who might at least challenge for a backup spot in AA, and a bunch of guys I like because they have cool names or personalities, but will be selling Ickey Dogs in 3-4 years.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Rizon

This.

I use to walk away from a 25 round draft thinking I got 21 possible starters. Now I walk away thinking I might have a decent backup in the majors, and a couple guys who might at least challenge for a backup spot in AA, and a bunch of guys I like because they have cool names or personalities, but will be selling Ickey Dogs in 3-4 years.

^ This

[kingcharlesxii]

Originally Posted by Rizon

This.

I use to walk away from a 25 round draft thinking I got 21 possible starters. Now I walk away thinking I might have a decent backup in the majors, and a couple guys who might at least challenge for a backup spot in AA, and a bunch of guys I like because they have cool names or personalities, but will be selling Ickey Dogs in 3-4 years.

I don't think either of those is particularly desirable and there's probably a happy medium somewhere in there. I want to feel like I landed a guy or two who will probably start and some guys who could start if things break right but will probably be a AAAA/reserve type on average.

I think OOTP really needs more high-risk guys in the draft pool for later rounds (and they need to be apparent to the person playing that they are high risk) but that would be a pretty big change to the player creation and development model. EDIT: Reason being that I don't think OOTP really creates the "raw athlete" type of prospect correctly. They should have high ceilings but very low floors.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Rizon

This.

I use to walk away from a 25 round draft thinking I got 21 possible starters. Now I walk away thinking I might have a decent backup in the majors, and a couple guys who might at least challenge for a backup spot in AA, and a bunch of guys I like because they have cool names or personalities, but will be selling Ickey Dogs in 3-4 years.

The thing is that some of those guys who you're thinking of as being AA reserves and selling Ickey Dogs in 3-4 years will in fact be good MLB players. That's how the dev model works.

As I tried to mention in the previous draft thread, some of the issue here is simply in changing our preconceptions of what a future MLB player looks like at draft time in OOTP.

That the ratings are initially lower doesn't mean that any given 3rd round pick or 8th round pick is any less likely to become an MLB player in OOTP14 than he was in 13.

It just means that it's necessary to stop looking at the ratings the exact same way we did in OOTP13 and to recognize the need to re-train our brains to understand that yes, this guy without what seems to be incredible all-star potential still has the potential to be a solid MLB player, if things go right with his development.