Everyone in the draft pool sucks-- is this normal?

[Craig3410]

In the draft pools in my default roster set, it seems like nobody in the pool's any good. For example, in the 2017 pool, one guy's got 4.5 star potential, one guy's got 4 star potential, one's got 3-star potential, 5 have two-star potential, one's got 1.5 potential, and that's it for anyone >1.

It's a 30-round draft, and only nine guys are non-1 st. potential?

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by Craig3410

In the draft pools in my default roster set, it seems like nobody in the pool's any good. For example, in the 2017 pool, one guy's got 4.5 star potential, one guy's got 4 star potential, one's got 3-star potential, 5 have two-star potential, one's got 1.5 potential, and that's it for anyone >1.

It's a 30-round draft, and only nine guys are non-1 st. potential?

First thing is this,do you have scouting turned on? If you do ,it just means that your scout isn't enamored with any of the draftees.If scouting is off,it could just be that the draft class is weak overall,it does happen(thnk this year's NBA draft)

[BMD]

Originally Posted by Craig3410

In the draft pools in my default roster set, it seems like nobody in the pool's any good. For example, in the 2017 pool, one guy's got 4.5 star potential, one guy's got 4 star potential, one's got 3-star potential, 5 have two-star potential, one's got 1.5 potential, and that's it for anyone >1.

It's a 30-round draft, and only nine guys are non-1 st. potential?

The problem is how much importance you are assigning to these scouting reports. Most of these players with 1 star potentials are still future hall of famers and should be compensated accordingly with large cash bonuses and guaranteed major league contracts.

sincerely yours,
Scott Boras

[Manny 14]

Originally Posted by BMD

The problem is how much importance you are assigning to these scouting reports. Most of these players with 1 star potentials are still future hall of famers and should be compensated accordingly with large cash bonuses and guaranteed major league contracts.

sincerely yours,
Scott Boras

Thank you for that

[BillyMadison]

This is totally a fundamental flaw. You think in real life scout don't think there is a potential difference in 3rd rounders than the 50th rounders? There is too many players at each extreme and not enough in the middle when it comes to potential (too many close to 80, too many close to 20, not enough 30-65).

[JWay]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

This is totally a fundamental flaw. You think in real life scout don't think there is a potential difference in 3rd rounders than the 50th rounders? There is too many players at each extreme and not enough in the middle when it comes to potential (too many close to 80, too many close to 20, not enough 30-65).

I disagree, looking at the MLB draft coverage, outside of the first 3 rounds there is a lack of any huge potential, most of the players are flawed and most of them even if they fix the one flaw lack the talent to make up for it in other areas. In all honesty inside the first round is the only area where most of the talent is, outside of that round even lacks much fun.

The baseball draft just is not that exciting, mostly because most players take 2 -5 years to reach the majors, and those players make up a very small percentage of the draft overall. OOTP does this well in having many good talent guys make it, bust, and having most of the no talent guys bust, and having some of them figure something out. Its great.

[sfeldkamp]

I agree with JWay. The potential stars rating comes from that players current potential ratings. From a given draft class how many players should even contribute in the majors for a each team? I think 1 - 3 is realistic. So there should only be 30 - 90 players with more than 1 star again based on their current potential.

Everyone else needs a talent boost to have a realistic shot at the majors. This is exactly like real life baseball. Please don't change a thing!

[PAtricapillus]

I would agree with Craig3410 (OP), yes, I know that drafting and developing a star can be difficult, but for the most part, draftees in the first three rounds have a decent shot at making it, compared to the later rounds.

I think there should be a solid group of 4-5 star potentials, blue-chippers, that are available, especially in the first round, and not just middle relievers.

Aren't there modifiers to alter the amateur-draft player creation?

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by PAtricapillus

I would agree with Craig3410 (OP), yes, I know that drafting and developing a star can be difficult, but for the most part, draftees in the first three rounds have a decent shot at making it, compared to the later rounds.

I think there should be a solid group of 4-5 star potentials, blue-chippers, that are available, especially in the first round, and not just middle relievers.

Aren't there modifiers to alter the amateur-draft player creation?

Not at home to look at X to see if there is anything new. But there weren't modifiers to alter the draft. If you wanted more talent in the draft you would want make it create for many more rounds than you need.

But JWay is right, there aren't as many "blue-chip" type players in a major league draft. In the NFL you expect to get a starter in the third round. But, in the majors anything beyond the first round is a bonus.

Here's a link to a third round on a baseball reference page. i picked that one at random but you can search, you're not gonna' find a lot of star players in the third round. You might find one or two in a given year that even were starters for a couple of seasons in the bigs. And most never make it to the majors.

[dawurm9]

Drafting seems broken IMO, or maybe it is scouting? Either way, the draft process is incredibly ungratifying. My team is generally picking in the late 1st round due to good W-L records, and the talent that is left on the board feels more like 4th or 5th round picks, as opposed to a 1st round pick. By the time my 2nd round pick comes around I'm already looking at my MR options, since every decent batter and SP are off the board.

I generally let the AI autocomplete it after some picks - which always feels wrong, but I can't stand picking through round after round of 1 star talent.

[NomarHits400]

Originally Posted by JWay

I disagree, looking at the MLB draft coverage, outside of the first 3 rounds there is a lack of any huge potential, most of the players are flawed and most of them even if they fix the one flaw lack the talent to make up for it in other areas. In all honesty inside the first round is the only area where most of the talent is, outside of that round even lacks much fun.

The baseball draft just is not that exciting, mostly because most players take 2 -5 years to reach the majors, and those players make up a very small percentage of the draft overall. OOTP does this well in having many good talent guys make it, bust, and having most of the no talent guys bust, and having some of them figure something out. Its great.

I totally agree, but here's the thing: I wish OOTP could have some way for scouts to take a one tool guy and say- with improvement- this guy could be an MLB player. So, perhaps the guy is a one star plalyer with 5% chance of developing into a 3 star...Where a first round draft pick is also a 1 star player with a 30% chance of being a 3 star or better. If Markus could implement THAT sort of system- I know I for one would actually draft past the first round or two.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by NomarHits400

I totally agree, but here's the thing: I wish OOTP could have some way for scouts to take a one tool guy and say- with improvement- this guy could be an MLB player. So, perhaps the guy is a one star plalyer with 5% chance of developing into a 3 star...Where a first round draft pick is also a 1 star player with a 30% chance of being a 3 star or better. If Markus could implement THAT sort of system- I know I for one would actually draft past the first round or two.

Yeah, i wish the scouting reports were more positive. But the truth is those one star players do have a chance to make it to the pros. And the higher their potential ratings the better chance they have at making it to the pros.

[Afino]

The game creates plenty of 4 and 5 star players.



They're just all MR's.

[kq76]

Considering how many busts there are in the draft and how long it takes most players to get to the majors, you should be thankful to have a handful of >1 star potential players.

(in case some don't get it, that's not directed at the OP)

[packersfan]

I think the draft pool is just fine...a few great potentials and a lot of unprovens...just like real life. For example Hernan Irribarren. He was undrafted and signed by the Brewers and is now a prospect with a shot at the majors. Probably a one star in the game. I drafted a pitcher in the 29th round, but I needed some outfielders badly on my Rookie team, so I converted him to outfield and now a year later he is still tearing it up with a .300 + batting average in Single A. On the other hand, my top pick, who my scouting director did not recommend was blown up in Rookie ball for a 8.00+ ERA and is a long way from the majors it seems. The potential and overall stars fluctuate greatly depending on performance. The game starts out with few players having many overall stars even proven vets...but after one season my ML team (Brewers) is loaded with talent reflected by the stars which I take with a grain of salt...always check stats!!!

[PAtricapillus]

Originally Posted by kq76

Considering how many busts there are in the draft and how long it takes most players to get to the majors, you should be thankful to have a handful of >1 star potential players.

(in case some don't get it, that's not towards the OP)

Overall, since the 1965 draft, about 14% of the players drafted had reached the majors. Baseball Cube has the draft lists with players and their highest level attained.

The number of 1st rounders who had made it from 1990-1996 was 68%, generally between 60-75% of 1st rounders made it each year. Naturally that number will decrease the further down the draft you go.

Just because they make it, doesn't mean they were impact stars, some were cup of coffee types.

In OOTP6.51, I see the 5 star-Middle Reliever glut and after the first couple rounds, I don't bother to draft players since they are all 1 star, I let the computer pick 'em. There aren't even many 2 or 3-stars.

I think there should be more high potential players, say enough to stick around for the first 3 or 4 rounds. I would say that most players taken in the first couple rounds in real life would be considered high potential, or high risk/high reward players.

That doesn't mean they will reach their potential, but they are viewed by scouts as being high reward, which I would call a 5 blue-star prospect, a 5 tool high school star that has a great potential to make it, that's if they can navigate the minors.

When I think of 1 blue star players, I just don't think of someone having great potential. Maybe that's my mistake.

[conception]

My biggest beef with the draft is that even with a ridiculous scouting budget, it is still very hard to tell which guys in the draft are worth picking in the first round and which should be more project players. In the end we only have our scout and OSA and stats in a feeder league and that is still not that helpful. With the way scouting is, I could take the same guy in the tenth round that I almost took in the first. It's almost impossible to tell who the guys are that only my scout loves from the others.

[Phillies_WFC_2008]

Originally Posted by Craig3410

In the draft pools in my default roster set, it seems like nobody in the pool's any good. For example, in the 2017 pool, one guy's got 4.5 star potential, one guy's got 4 star potential, one's got 3-star potential, 5 have two-star potential, one's got 1.5 potential, and that's it for anyone >1.

It's a 30-round draft, and only nine guys are non-1 st. potential?

What type of scout are you using? Neutral, Ability, or Tools? The reason I asked is because I have noticed that an Ability scout usually projects a pretty bleak draft pool, whereas a Neutral or Tools guy usually projects more potential for the draftees.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by PAtricapillus

...

When I think of 1 blue star players, I just don't think of someone having great potential. Maybe that's my mistake.

I'm not sure why you quoted me (I was being sarcastic), but I think we're on the same side.

Forgetting the argument going on right now about whether some high % of the draft should have potentials of 20 out of 80, the OP doesn't specify how many teams are in his league, but assuming it's a reasonable #, he should certainly have more than 9 >1 star potential guys in his draft. Assuming he's being truthful about that #, something's up here. I complain about not enough 20 out of 80 guys and my leagues' drafts aren't nearly that bad.

Re-reading sfeldkamp's post it seems some of us might be confusing the words potential and current. If we're talking current overall stars in the draft, then, yeah, it can be pretty rare the player with multiple stars. Assuming the OP is talking about potential overall stars, like it sounds like he is, then that's way off from my OOTPX league (12 teams, players for 12 rounds) where about half of the players are 1.5 stars. I think that's wildly different from what most of us experience with our leagues.

Maybe it's the type of scout as Phillies questions above. I haven't played with them much to know.

[bwd]

I think the bigger question is how often do 1 star players develop into decent or even great major leaguers in the game? IRL there are tons of examples of all-star caliber players that went in late rounds and suddenly had something click a couple years later. Does this happen?

Overall, I certainly think that there are far too few average prospects. I think that if you took money out of the actual MLB draft (ya right) and all teams drafted just on projections, their draft wish-lists would have a lot of the same names... certainly at least into the 5th round. But in OOTP, it seems like most year's the scouts are telling me "there are some good players in the first two rounds to look at, but after that it's a total crap shoot."

Like someone else said I often only draft the first couple of rounds and then sim it, because why bother?