re: Weak Draft?

[Curtis]

Sorry to start a new thread on the same topic, but I can't access my previous thread. (Clicking on it takes me to a Chamber's Dictionary page.)

"I think this has to do with the talent level in that specific part of the world,I know I read about this somewhere but I can't remember where."

This may be true in general, but should not apply in this specific case, since Japan has the same baseball rating as the U.S.

The PCMs are slightly lower than in an MLB league, averaging .96 instead of 1.00. If that's enough of a difference, then that's a poor design decision. I'm thinking there's a different explanation.

Both of the other two responders in the other thread mention low potential ratings. That wasn't a problem here. Potentials remained fairly high right up until the end. I ended up keeping ten of the twelve players, and the other two I packaged into an eight-for-three trade.

I DID have the problem someone mentioned with too many relief pitchers among the draftees. I took the highest available potential in each round, and that meant I ended up with one left fielder (first round) and eleven MRs. I can stand that this year (I was weak everywhere; now I'm potentially spectacularly strong at MR), but if it happens again next season, it could be a serious problem.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Sorry to start a new thread on the same topic, but I can't access my previous thread. (Clicking on it takes me to a Chamber's Dictionary page.)

I saw that too - what's funny is I have a player on my fictional team named Chambers and thought OOTP forums were starting to speak to me

I DID have the problem someone mentioned with too many relief pitchers among the draftees. I took the highest available potential in each round, and that meant I ended up with one left fielder (first round) and eleven MRs. I can stand that this year (I was weak everywhere; now I'm potentially spectacularly strong at MR), but if it happens again next season, it could be a serious problem.

Glad that wasn't just me. Weird.

But yeah - it's happened to me every year, the draft is stacked with MR's, and they don't even start to get drafted until round 3 or 4 despite their 4-5 star (or 70's for those who use numbers) ratings since there's such a glut of talent at the position.

I did the same thing though, the first year I loaded up on MR's because frankly, I was weak in my bullpen. But now it's a little annoying where there is not other top talent at other positions.

[Corsairs]

Holy mackerel, that mess in the old thread was of my creation! Somehow one of my Firefox plugins inserted a load of garbage into the end of my response. I've taken it out now, but I'm afraid the damage is done. Ugh, major apologies. Anyway, here is the response I typed previously (sans the excess garbage):

I don't think this problem is due to the players being from Japan. I'm also noticing a steady talent deflation in the test version of my online league. We're a 24-team league that drafts 480 players from a pool of about 500. The pool is populated exclusively through our two feeder leagues (no generated players). We're two years into play and so far the talent has been pretty much what I would call "normal" in that the first round is filled with 4.5-5* potential players and a slow drop-off occurs after that (we reach only 1* potentials left around round 7-8). That works just great and is just what I'm looking for.

What I'm noticing in my test league, however, is that a couple years from now the talent falls off the face of the Earth. This coincides with the time that the last of the players generated when the league was first created leave the feeder leagues. The players generated after the "Big Bang" aren't anywhere near the talent of those original players. This despite the fact that the only change I've made to the default PCMs league-wide is to slightly increase the "Avoid Ks" saber PCM in the feeder leagues.

Once the "Big Bang" players leave the system, we're routinely into nothing but 1* potentials by the 2nd round. The top starting pitchers are usually rated 50-50-50 (on a 1-100 scale), and there are only a couple of those at best. And while this is in a league with scouting on (and thus you can have erroneous scouting reports), these low ratings hold true no matter what scout is judging the pool (as commish I can access all the teams and use their best scouts to grade talent).

As we approach our 3rd amateur draft, I would love to know what's causing this issue and see if someone can suggest a remedy.

[phillosopherp]

I am just following the thread and don't have anything to add just want to ask a question of the last poster. Is this phenomenon something that occurs for multiple drafts year after year after year? I could actually kind of see it as a "weak year" kind of thing if it only happens maybe once or twice in a row and then back to a "normal" type draft. Just wondering......

[Corsairs]

Originally Posted by phillosopherp

I am just following the thread and don't have anything to add just want to ask a question of the last poster. Is this phenomenon something that occurs for multiple drafts year after year after year? I could actually kind of see it as a "weak year" kind of thing if it only happens maybe once or twice in a row and then back to a "normal" type draft. Just wondering......

Yes, this is something that occurs absolutely every draft after we've gotten five years into our league's existence and the last of the original "Big Bang" players have exited the feeder leagues. I've simmed as far as 200 years into the future, checking each draft. The results are the same every single year: The newly generated players just aren't as good.

[PhillieFever]

This really is pretty odd,my league is historical with no draft so I have nothing to add experience wise but I am on the verge of starting a fictional league so I'm definitely interested about the outcome here.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

This really is pretty odd,my league is historical with no draft so I have nothing to add experience wise but I am on the verge of starting a fictional league so I'm definitely interested about the outcome here.

What Corsairs said about the 'big bang' has been verified anecdotaly(sp) by any number of posters through the years.

I'm not sure whether that's what I'm seeing or not, because the starting players in my universe were pretty weak. I really didn't think an average of .96 PCM would make that big a difference, but virtually no pitchers have green (and none at all blue) Stuff ratings, and the same for batters' Power ratings. (Stuff was set to 1.00 and Power to .95.) There also don't seem to be many fast players, including few with large fielding ranges. On the other hand, Turn Double Play is MUCH higher than I expected.

This IS a converted 2006 league, just holding its amateur draft for the first time (I play VERY slowly), so that may be a factor, and I should have mentioned it in my initial post.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Afino

But yeah - it's happened to me every year, the draft is stacked with MR's, and they don't even start to get drafted until round 3 or 4 despite their 4-5 star (or 70's for those who use numbers) ratings since there's such a glut of talent at the position.

I did the same thing though, the first year I loaded up on MR's because frankly, I was weak in my bullpen. But now it's a little annoying where there is not other top talent at other positions.

Sorry for the dola — brain hasn't begun functioning properly.

If this does happen in future seasons I will plan to arrange the MRsin the draft in alphabetical order and edit every other guy by adding 120 to his endurance, then redesignating them starters.

To make it fair I should probably drop every other starter by the same amount (or multiply their endurance by .4 or something) and redesignate them MRs, but it would be hard to do that without dropping back down half of the guys I'd already 'promoted'. Well, a little pen-and-paperwork should take care of it. Difficult as it was for me to believe, NO starting pitchers went in the first round of the draft, and only three in the first three rounds. Incredible.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by Curtis

What Corsairs said about the 'big bang' has been verified anecdotaly(sp) by any number of posters through the years.

I'm not sure whether that's what I'm seeing or not, because the starting players in my universe were pretty weak. I really didn't think an average of .96 PCM would make that big a difference, but virtually no pitchers have green (and none at all blue) Stuff ratings, and the same for batters' Power ratings. (Stuff was set to 1.00 and Power to .95.) There also don't seem to be many fast players, including few with large fielding ranges. On the other hand, Turn Double Play is MUCH higher than I expected.

This IS a converted 2006 league, just holding its amateur draft for the first time (I play VERY slowly), so that may be a factor, and I should have mentioned it in my initial post.

(I'm responding to both of your posts here kinda - wish there was a multiquote option!)

Odd.

I have a lot of the same issues (hardly any pitchers with green - and none at blue - Stuff ratings, and very few with blue Power ratings) but I attribute that to playing in 1953 where Power numbers aren't what they are today for the most part. Personally, I don't find it to be an issue because there's a fair balance of "ace" SP's and legitimate HR threats in my fictional universe. There's a lot of double plays too, but I've chronicled that previously.

What I was thinking about doing was manually creating some fictional players (especially SP's), editing them for higher potential, and adding them to the next year's draft pool (since I think you have that option)

I hope that will fix it.

Starting pitchers did go #1 and #2 in my most recent draft (which pissed me off because I had the #3 pick and wanted one of the two), but then there was a HUGE dropoff in talent to the next non-MR player.

[koohead]

Here's my 2 cents.

My drafts are horribly weak from a potential rating perspective. only 10-15 players are blue/green on a 20-80 scale with maybe another 15-20 in the yellow and everyone else in the 20s. yes I have scouting on, but have scouting accuracy set to high and have a 10/9 scout...I would think he is accurate.

However...looking at player historys, players are developing into green rated palyers after 2-3 years in the minors. Many players drafted with 30 potential ratings (round 7-13) have ended up as start to All-Star caliber players in my universe, developing into 60-70 overall rated players. I don't know if this is the engine, the development settings I'm using (believe I'm using Skydog and RonCo's settings for my leagues) but I kind of like this. Sure the top picks of a draft usually are "sure things" in terms of becoming major league players but I'm enjoying seeing players develop in the minors out of nothing and becoming day to day key contributers of a major league club.

[phillosopherp]

Originally Posted by koohead

Here's my 2 cents.

My drafts are horribly weak from a potential rating perspective. only 10-15 players are blue/green on a 20-80 scale with maybe another 15-20 in the yellow and everyone else in the 20s. yes I have scouting on, but have scouting accuracy set to high and have a 10/9 scout...I would think he is accurate.

However...looking at player historys, players are developing into green rated palyers after 2-3 years in the minors. Many players drafted with 30 potential ratings (round 7-13) have ended up as start to All-Star caliber players in my universe, developing into 60-70 overall rated players. I don't know if this is the engine, the development settings I'm using (believe I'm using Skydog and RonCo's settings for my leagues) but I kind of like this. Sure the top picks of a draft usually are "sure things" in terms of becoming major league players but I'm enjoying seeing players develop in the minors out of nothing and becoming day to day key contributers of a major league club.

If this is the case then I would be happy with it. As I said I am just following the thread and have no data on this. If the OP is experiencing this can he please say so. My worry is that there is not any development with these guys and they are crap and cause a deflation in talent. That would be something that I would consider a game breaker.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Afino

(I'm responding to both of your posts here kinda - wish there was a multiquote option!)

I have a lot of the same issues (hardly any pitchers with green - and none at blue - Stuff ratings, and very few with blue Power ratings) but I attribute that to playing in 1953 where Power numbers aren't what they are today for the most part.

As I hope I am showing here, there IS a multi-quote option on this board. To utilize it, don't hit the Quote button. Instead hit the " button on each post you wish to quote from. After you've gotten them all, hit Reply. They should appear in your message box in the same order in which you selected them.

After reading your post I checked in my game to see whether I was using 1968 settings, which I have in other games. As nearly as I can tell I'm using the default, which would be either 2006 (it's a converted 2006 game) or 2008. Is there any way to tell for certain? I did find that my Stuff PCM was set to .95 rather than the 1.00 I thought.

Originally Posted by phillosopherp

If the OP is experiencing this can he please say so. My worry is that there is not any development with these guys and they are crap and cause a deflation in talent. That would be something that I would consider a game breaker.

I'm sorry that I can't help you concerning how players develop. That's not my issue (which was why no one in my league got immediate help from the draft, which various threads over the years had led me to expect). I play so slowly that after two years I'm only three months into my first season. It may be decades before I have any idea how players develop, especially because I'm using .6 and .7 modifiers to development speed and .25 for the rate of random change.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by Curtis

As I hope I am showing here, there IS a multi-quote option on this board. To utilize it, don't hit the Quote button. Instead hit the " button on each post you wish to quote from. After you've gotten them all, hit Reply. They should appear in your message box in the same order in which you selected them.

That's my fault for being dumb and not seeing it. Used to other buttons for the multi-quote on other vbulletin-based boards

After reading your post I checked in my game to see whether I was using 1968 settings, which I have in other games. As nearly as I can tell I'm using the default, which would be either 2006 (it's a converted 2006 game) or 2008. Is there any way to tell for certain? I did find that my Stuff PCM was set to .95 rather than the 1.00 I thought.

I'd assume you're using 2006 as your default as well.

Really, my only suggestion is write down (or take a screenshot of) the current settings, import the settings again using 1968 and then again with 2006 (or 2008) and compare the results to what you were currently using.

That's the only way I can think of how you could confirm it. I suggest using a screenshot to restore the rest of your original settings if you do or don't find an issue.