Realistic draft classes and possible ways to differentiate large player groups

[Sweed]

With the realistic draft classes coming back in the patch some users say it is too hard, tedious to know who to pick. I thought it might be good to discuss possible ways users can navigate the crowded middle and lower areas of the draft without cluttering up the thread discussing the why's or if's it was needed.

In another thread (link is posted below) I posted some ideas on how users could look at the draft that, I think, will make differentiating players less tedious. And who knows some naysayers may come away liking the realistic classes. I'm only going to make a dry list of my ideas for navigating the new real draft from that post, and leave out any other comments.

1. change the 20/80 scale by 5's to just the 20/80 scale. This will show you ratings by one, ie 43/80 vs 45/80. Not sure why but users complain about this? Too much info? A cheat? In the x5's world both should show as a 45 after rounding. All x1's does is allow your scout to say both are 45's but I think one is slightly better than the other. Even with that you still need to look at skills because 43/80 may be better suited to your needs than 45/80. This change does not include individual skills like contact, power etc. They will still be seen as 20-80 by 5's.

2. Users could try going to the 1-100 scale for just the draft to get the granularity they are missing with realistic ratings. After the draft go back to their 20/80.

3. Make filters to sort the "all the same" group of players. An individualized prioritization of skills you want in your players is at your fingertips.

4. When you get to the lower rounds change the "relative league" setting to AAA, AA, A+, A as needed. Each step will make the differences in players more visible. The further down you go in the draft, the more likely you are actually drafting to fill you minor league teams. With this method you can still see MLB potentials(toggle back and forth) and player traits to decide if this guy has a chance to be a "boom" player. This is something I've done for many years in OOTP during the draft. It not only differentiates players better, it also lets me decide just what level I will assign my players to after the draft. It is a powerful tool.

For any interested and full disclosure this a link to the post it it's entirety. https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...&postcount=118I would hope any response to the full post is made in that thread, and that this one thread is kept for ideas on how to draft with the realistic model. But at the end of the day anyone can post here or there. We've dealt with muddy waters before.

I have never used stars for player evaluation. Any ideas on that by me would be my "best guess". That guess would be using idea 1 or 2 from the list. Those that use stars will surely know better than me.

The thread is open for any ideas...

[Orcin]

I have used #4 for the draft for many years. It is a great way to find the best prospect (in your scout's opinion of course) among a group of similar players.

My ideas for the later rounds:
- I look at personality traits to decide between similar players.
- I look for college starters that can transition to the bullpen, i.e. two strong pitches with lower stamina.
- I value players with good fielding attributes that might be able to play multiple spots.
- I try to draft shortstops and center fielders over corner positions, again looking for utility players.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I have used #4 for the draft for many years. It is a great way to find the best prospect (in your scout's opinion of course) among a group of similar players.

My ideas for the later rounds:
- I look at personality traits to decide between similar players.
- I look for college starters that can transition to the bullpen, i.e. two strong pitches with lower stamina.
- I value players with good fielding attributes that might be able to play multiple spots.
- I try to draft shortstops and center fielders over corner positions, again looking for utility players.

All good ideas. I've done all of those too.

[ultramegaOK]

I honestly don't understand what the point of the draft is beyond the first two rounds. Has anyone ever had a player with a super low potential go up and beyond their low ratings? Has anyone actually had a "Pujols" or "Tom Brady"?

[md40022]

Originally Posted by ultramegaOK

I honestly don't understand what the point of the draft is beyond the first two rounds. Has anyone ever had a player with a super low potential go up and beyond their low ratings? Has anyone actually had a "Pujols" or "Tom Brady"?

I've had plenty of guys turn into serviceable middle relievers, fringe starting pitchers who can come up from AAA and fill-in for an injured guy, or utility position players. You're right that you probably won't find a Tom Brady, but I've definitely had guys provide some use over the years.


A lot of guys who became a part of trade packages to help my team in other areas as well.


What I actually HAVEN'T had in a verrrrrrrryyyy long while is a 1st or 2nd round pick who ended up being really good. I think mostly all of us are in that exact same boat, too. That's the point of this entire discussion. The crash & burn rate of all those 5 star guys has been way too high. And being that there was literally 30 or more 5 star guys in any given draft before the patch, you didn't wan't the "fix" to be that those guys just developed better because there shouldn't be that many Hall of Fame caliber studs entering the league in one given draft. So, the correct fix was for there not to be so 5 star guys all entering the draft at once.


But to your point about drafting beyond the first 2 rounds, this thread right here provides some real good insight with ways to go about it. I particularly like adjusting the ratings to reflect minor league levels as opposed to MLB level once I hit the middle rounds, because that helps differentiate between that massive clump of guys. That's discussed in the thread, along with other good points - such as drafting a lot of SS with the intention of flipping them to 2B or 3B at some point.

[Highlander]

One thought that might help with the prospect issue is in having the game rate them in a different way. If any of you are fantasy baseball players, you may know the site baseballhq.com. They rate prospects with a number and letter. The number gives their potential and the letter tells how likely they are to reach that potential. It is a dynamic rating. The numbers go from 1-10 with 10 being rare HOF potential and the letters go from A-E with A being the most certain to reach that potential. If our scouts rated guys in a similar way it could really differentiate players based on both potential and how likely they are to reach it. You could choose between a 9E and a 7B for example. Or a 6A and an 8D. If there was a way to incorporate something like this into OOTP, I think it would be very helpful. Just a thought.

[locuspc]

Originally Posted by Highlander

One thought that might help with the prospect issue is in having the game rate them in a different way. If any of you are fantasy baseball players, you may know the site baseballhq.com. They rate prospects with a number and letter. The number gives their potential and the letter tells how likely they are to reach that potential. It is a dynamic rating. The numbers go from 1-10 with 10 being rare HOF potential and the letters go from A-E with A being the most certain to reach that potential. If our scouts rated guys in a similar way it could really differentiate players based on both potential and how likely they are to reach it. You could choose between a 9E and a 7B for example. Or a 6A and an 8D. If there was a way to incorporate something like this into OOTP, I think it would be very helpful. Just a thought.

I was hoping the "development risk" would enable something like that. Unfortunately whatever it's measuring it doesn't seem to be likelihood of reaching potential.

[koohead]

Originally Posted by ultramegaOK

I honestly don't understand what the point of the draft is beyond the first two rounds. Has anyone ever had a player with a super low potential go up and beyond their low ratings? Has anyone actually had a "Pujols" or "Tom Brady"?

Short answer is yes...but rarely...and that's the point.

[koohead]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I have used #4 for the draft for many years. It is a great way to find the best prospect (in your scout's opinion of course) among a group of similar players.

My ideas for the later rounds:
- I look at personality traits to decide between similar players.
- I look for college starters that can transition to the bullpen, i.e. two strong pitches with lower stamina.
- I value players with good fielding attributes that might be able to play multiple spots.
- I try to draft shortstops and center fielders over corner positions, again looking for utility players.

Personality traits in the late rounds is definitely something I use as well. When all other things are equal or I'm splitting hairs, these traits at least answer the question of "who would I rather have on the team".

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by ultramegaOK

I honestly don't understand what the point of the draft is beyond the first two rounds. Has anyone ever had a player with a super low potential go up and beyond their low ratings? Has anyone actually had a "Pujols" or "Tom Brady"?

Yes. Many times while playing out a game I'll look at opposing players with good to great ratings and find they were drafted in the later rounds. I'm not saying there are tons but the screen I'm attaching shows 6 players at 50+ in my league that were drafted round 15 or later.

Are they Brady or Pujols? If I went into the history of my league and searched long enough I'd probably find one or two. But to make it quick I'm just going to check my current season's MLB players. The closest in that screen is the 60/60 SP that in MLB terms is a star. I'd say "Brady or Pujols" would be a big ask as they are generational. Perhaps just having normal everyday players with some stars mixed in would be a better test?

It's not hard to check your current league and find out what you have. List all MLB players. Use/make a view that shows what round they were selected in along with their current OV/Pot and include any stats ratings you'd like in that view. I'll attach a screen on one specific SP that was taken in the 19th round of a 20 round draft(what I use now, used to be 25 rounds) . I'll also attach my MLB player list sorted with the lowest rounds selected first in my "how acquired" view. Red arrows on the player's card are the summer he was drafted. He's also marked in the MLB player screen with an arrow. Note he's not the only 50+ player on that screen, and there are more if I scroll down.

[BaseballATeam]

Originally Posted by ultramegaOK

I honestly don't understand what the point of the draft is beyond the first two rounds. Has anyone ever had a player with a super low potential go up and beyond their low ratings? Has anyone actually had a "Pujols" or "Tom Brady"?

Many. OOTP has a feature they call TCR (I believe it's Talent Change Randomness) that arbitrarily buffs or nerfs some players. There's also the dev lab, which I tend to set to a large number so teams can actually have some cool outcomes. If you see a 70 power in the 9th round with 20/25 K's, why not run him through the dev lab to see if you can get that second number up to 30 or 35. If you succeed, you probably have a 30 HR bopper on your hands.

[Joelman111]

I’ll echo the Talent Change Randomness (TCR) setting mentioned above. The baseline is 100. If you want to see more late-draft gems, I’d bump that up to 120 or maybe even as high as 140. This should shake up your draft and allow your later rounds to have more meaning. Be aware that this will also lead to more busts in earlier rounds as well- the TCR just introduces more randomness in how much players’ trajectories can change over time

[Wally the Green Monstah]

This is really my first full year playing OOTP. I'm loving the patch they did to the draft. It really makes the middle-late rounds more interesting. Earlier in the cycle there were so many 70's-80's.

I'm a tools guy so I just look for guys that have a potentially good to elite trait and a decent enough profile elsewhere. I figure with the room for error in the scouting that some of those fringe ratings might turn serviceable to good. I also value personality more here. I think it gives them more of a fighting chance.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by Wally the Green Monstah

This is really my first full year playing OOTP. I'm loving the patch they did to the draft. It really makes the middle-late rounds more interesting. Earlier in the cycle there were so many 70's-80's.

I'm a tools guy so I just look for guys that have a potentially good to elite trait and a decent enough profile elsewhere. I figure with the room for error in the scouting that some of those fringe ratings might turn serviceable to good. I also value personality more here. I think it gives them more of a fighting chance.

Yep..and which I'd imagine is how the later rounds work IRL. Guys with multiple good tools get picked in 1-5 or whatever, guys with one good tool and/or good traits that could lead them to improve others get 5-20. Obviously that's a huge oversimplification, but you just have to select for different things than you may have before.

People also forget that a 45 guy can even be, like, a platoon OF. That can be a good thing to have.

[ChrisG]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Yes. Many times while playing out a game I'll look at opposing players with good to great ratings and find they were drafted in the later rounds. I'm not saying there are tons but the screen I'm attaching shows 6 players at 50+ in my league that were drafted round 15 or later.

Are they Brady or Pujols? If I went into the history of my league and searched long enough I'd probably find one or two. But to make it quick I'm just going to check my current season's MLB players. The closest in that screen is the 60/60 SP that in MLB terms is a star. I'd say "Brady or Pujols" would be a big ask as they are generational. Perhaps just having normal everyday players with some stars mixed in would be a better test?

It's not hard to check your current league and find out what you have. List all MLB players. Use/make a view that shows what round they were selected in along with their current OV/Pot and include any stats ratings you'd like in that view. I'll attach a screen on one specific SP that was taken in the 19th round of a 20 round draft(what I use now, used to be 25 rounds) . I'll also attach my MLB player list sorted with the lowest rounds selected first in my "how acquired" view. Red arrows on the player's card are the summer he was drafted. He's also marked in the MLB player screen with an arrow. Note he's not the only 50+ player on that screen, and there are more if I scroll down.

100%! And the simple fact is that it is exceedingly rare in this era for a generational player to come from outside of the top rounds.

People forget that.

If you look at the top 40 active players by bWAR who came from the draft, bold is anyone beyond round 3. First rounders (incl supplemental) have asterisks.

1. Mike Trout*
2. Justin Verlander*
3. Mookie Betts (round 5)
4. Max Scherzer*
5. Freddie Freeman
6. Aaron Judge*
7. Paul Goldschmidt (round 8)
8. Manny Machado*
9. Chris Sale*
10. Nolan Arenado
11. Francisco Lindor*
12. Bryce Harper*
13. Marcus Semien (round 6)
14. Andrew McCutchen*
15. Jacob deGrom (round 9)
16. Carlos Correa*
17. Giancarlo Stanton
18. Christian Yelich*
19. Corey Seager*
20. Alex Bregman*
21. Gerrit Cole*
22. Matt Chapman*
23. Matt Olson*
24. George Springer*
25. Trea Turner*
26. Zack Wheeler*
27. J.T. Realmuto
28. Aaron Nola*
29. Trevor Story*
30. Anthony Rendon*
31. Sonny Gray*
32. Cody Bellinger (Round 4)
33. Byron Buxton*
34. Max Fried*
35. Dansby Swanson*
36. Kevin Gausman*
37. Max Muncy (Round 5)
38. Kyle Tucker*
39. Kris Bryant*
40. Brandon Nimmo*

If I did this right, only 6 of the 40 came from Round 4 or later, only 3 of whom were drafted in Round 6 or later.

Not a single player in this was picked beyond Round 10.

A full 30 out of 40 (75%) came out of the first round alone.

Point is: Generational talent almost exclusively comes out of the top 5 rounds and disproportionately from the 1st.

And anyone who doubts that that's the view in baseball: Look at how many people talk about how astoundingly low Aaron Judge and Mike Trout were drafted -- yet still in the first round.

Just to use a different metric, using fWAR this time bc their list is easier to parse - but broadly the same idea, here is the list of the top 100 WAR players overall in baseball (for simplicity, that includes international) picked from rounds 5-20:

34. Hunter Brown (Round 5)
53. Jarren Duran (Round 7)
60. Nathan Eovaldi (Round 11)
66. Bryan Woo (Round 6)
77. Mookie Betts (Round 5)
93. Zach McKinstry (Round 33)
94. Steven Kwan (Round 5)

Unless I missed one or two, that's it! And without digging too deep, if you very roughly assume that US/CAN/PR make up about three-quarters of that list, that's still only 7 out of 75 (9.3%), with 2 out of 75 (2.6%) coming from a double-digit round.

Scouts are actually really good at identifying future talent!