Whom Do I Take 1st Overall?

[Klew1986]

I have the #1 overall pick in my fictional game. It's 2012 and I expanded from 16 to 18 teams prior to the season and too over the Sacramento expansion team. I am unsure of who to draft. I have it narrowed down to two players (see below).

Since it's the first year of my expansion team, I don't have much in the way of good minor league players. So this is a very important draft to begin the building process of my franchise. Budget is not an issue to me, so I will pay whatever I need to in order to sign either of these players.

Here are my thoughts on both...(i use 1-100 scale)

Ferrell could be a stud OF for 10-15 years and a potential Hall of Famer. He is 22, but isn't very developed yet, so that kind of worries me.


or...
Garza, he could be my ace for 10-15 years and anchor my rotation. However, I have seen many SP flop before reaching Double-A.

[FightingIgs]

I'd be concerned that both of them are 22 and haven't gotten anywhere near their potential, but that seems pretty normal for a lot of college kids in the draft pool. As much as 'Hodge Podge' looks like he could have a great future, I too have seen plenty of those guys flame out early. If it were me, and considering your situation, I'd go the safer route and pick Joe the OF...

[stannis]

Both prospects look slightly sketchy as there's so much room for improvement that they could fall way short. It depends a lot on what you have in your team, and what you might reasonably expect to get over the next 5 years; and on what coaching talent you have on board (if you're using Coaching and Player Development, that is).

Ferrell looks underdeveloped even for a college prospect: wouldn't a top college prospect typically have better than 29/100 for contact? Would be interesting to know what his splits are like: there is little point taking a #1 pick who can only ever end up as a platoon.

I don't think Garza's third pitch is necessarily strong enough to be an ace? Or perhaps it is and when combined with his strong two pitches will be enough - but only if you have, or are capable of acquiring by the time you bring him up, a solid infield defence, especially up the middle, as he will obviously be a groundball pitcher. I like his personality rating, though: sounds as though he has Leadership and Intelligence, which can help with development.

Um...Garza by a nose, for me. But I think both are (a) good prospects who (b) are unlikely to help you win in the short-term.

[Tyler87898]

Can you post what both of their work ethic and intelligence ratings? I've been looking at these ratings in my recent draft and am seeing that the better the work ethic, the better chance they have at reaching their potential (though I have no hard evidence, I'm pretty sure it's been like this.) When I draft, if someone has a work ethic of below "normal," I usually won't draft them at all, no matter how good their scouting reports look.

[Klew1986]

Originally Posted by Tyler87898

Can you post what both of their work ethic and intelligence ratings? I've been looking at these ratings in my recent draft and am seeing that the better the work ethic, the better chance they have at reaching their potential (though I have no hard evidence, I'm pretty sure it's been like this.) When I draft, if someone has a work ethic of below "normal," I usually won't draft them at all, no matter how good their scouting reports look.

Ferrell is Low Work Ethic and Low Intelligence; Garza is Low Work Ethic and Very High intelligence.

[CatKnight]

Then pass on both. You can't afford to take a chance on that low work ethic with your very first pick. I agree with Tyler, I've noticed in fictional leagues work ethic has an influence on reaching your potential.

[Tyler87898]

If it has to be inbetween these two players, I would pick Garza because starting pitching is very important if you want to win.

EDIT: I too, would pass on both.

[ezpkns34]

personally, i'd pass on both if they both have low WE unless there's really just a huge dropoff to the next tier of spects (at which point I'd draft the one of them you think is more likely to land you the better return via trade)

[dawg_gone]

Or, if draft pick trading is allowed, trade down for a later pick plus something-something?

[raginhood]

Originally Posted by FightingIgs

I'd be concerned that both of them are 22 and haven't gotten anywhere near their potential, but that seems pretty normal for a lot of college kids in the draft pool. As much as 'Hodge Podge' looks like he could have a great future, I too have seen plenty of those guys flame out early. If it were me, and considering your situation, I'd go the safer route and pick Joe the OF...

While I agree with most of what he said, PITCHING is key as there just aren't that many great pitchers in the game (gamewise or real life). I ALWAYS go for pitcher prospects as there are a lot more batters/fielders to pickup that will still have great stats near that one you showed. Remember a batter is only as good as the pitcher is weak. But, of course you only get that pitcher every 5 days, you get that batter everyday. So, it is a tough call but I'd still go the pitcher.

[JMDurron]

I believe I would go with Ferrell. Given the same problems with both players (low WE, underdeveloped for college prospects), I've found that positional players tend to develop slightly more reliably than pitchers, particularly when it comes to developing power as opposed to the starter developing his control rating. Control, for whatever reason, always seems to develop more slowly for pitchers than any other rating does for any other type of player. The underdevelopment plus the fact that control is the strongest part of that pitcher's profile would make me stay away from him and go for the position player.

[Scottiedog]

Frankly, I'd avoid both since they have bad work ethics. Ferrell scares me more because he has low IQ and ethics...bad mix.
I'd look around and see who else is a available...the next best guy may not have as high a ceiling...but if he develops into a solid player it's better than a guy flaming out in minors IMO.

[raginhood]

When I draft, if someone has a work ethic of below "normal," I usually won't draft them at all, no matter how good their scouting reports look.

Some guys are just born with "TALENT" and don't need to work for it or be intelligent. Just look a Josh Hamilton for example.

[sc_superstar]

Have to agree here, if you had to pick the guys who would go 3-4-5 after these two who would they be? Cause both these prospects seem to be huge risk picks which is not what you want at #1

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by Scottiedog

Frankly, I'd avoid both since they have bad work ethics. Ferrell scares me more because he has low IQ and ethics...bad mix.

If low IQ and ethics means that a player won't develop, then OOTP has a realism problem.

[Scottiedog]

JD your on a roll man lol. With The Rocket ya also have throw in the "Plays for the of money, not the game" thing too lol.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by Scottiedog

JD your on a roll man lol. With The Rocket ya also have throw in the "Plays for the of money, not the game" thing too lol.

Well, let's be honest here. Players who are well-known enough that we actually know that they have low IQ and low ethics (Gary Sheffield also comes to mind, whereas Bonds was a high IQ guy, IMO) are generally going to be the stars of the game, and those stars are going to tend to make some serious money. I think there's some selection bias at play there.

I mean, if we find out that Luke Scott has some ethical issues*, then we'd have a broke, dumb player without any ethics. It's just harder to hear about those guys.

*This whole conversation was made possible by referring to "work ethic" as "ethics", which are two totally different concepts. I don't think many steroid users have been accused of having low work ethic, since you generally use them to recover more quickly between workouts or from injuries, which the lazier players wouldn't bother with. I would never accuse Clemens or Sheffield of having low work ethic, just low ETHICS, so your shorthand was basically the genesis of this entire tangent.

[Mecza]

This conversation leaves me wondering whether low work ethic and/or low IQ players tend to get busted for drug use more often in OOTP.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by Mecza

This conversation leaves me wondering whether low work ethic and/or low IQ players tend to get busted for drug use more often in OOTP.

Personally, the combination I'd look for is High Work Ethic, Low IQ, High Greed players. You need the combination of the gym rat to get the most from the PEDs, the guy dumb enough to get caught when the league's barely trying, and the high greed incentive to take the risk for the big payday.

[nebradska]

Originally Posted by JMDurron

I don't think many steroid users have been accused of having low work ethic, since you generally use them to recover more quickly between workouts or from injuries, which the lazier players wouldn't bother with.

That's the thing though--one doesn't even have to exercise to gain significant muscle mass from steroids.