[Corsairs]

While I don't have the answer you're looking for, I did find something that was interesting to me at least. Here are the number of players rated 1.5* potential or higher by OSA with scouting turned off in your league:

5*: 81
4.5*: 58
4*: 37
3.5*: 26
3*: 14
2.5*: 49
2*: 59
1.5*: 51

And here are the number of players rated 1.5* potential or higher by a "perfect" scout who favors ability with scouting accuracy set to "Normal" and equivalent scouting budgets throughout the league:

5*: 3
4.5*: 10
4*: 9
3.5*: 9
3*: 6
2.5*: 23
2*: 31
1.5*: 33

Talk about a dramatic difference! I've been unwilling to run this test in my own online league since, well, I play in it and I don't want to be gaining any unfair advantages. But seeing this here, it makes me understand how we can have both "I'm seeing talent inflation" and "I'm seeing talent deflation" threads. Those seeing inflation aren't using scouts, while those seeing deflation are.

thomamon, there's nothing in your setup that jumps out at me as being "wrong". I see you've significantly lowered one of your PCMs, but that one change shouldn't be affecting anything. The feeder PCMs seem to be at default. It all looks pretty standard. I would agree that there seems to be an inordinate number of players rated as 5* talent (more than any other rating level between 1.5* and 4.5*). Why that would be and what can be done about it, I have not a clue.

It seems like there are two things worth considering here:

1. Do leagues tend to produce too much high-level talent at default settings?
2. Should scouting at the "Normal" level be quite so inaccurate?

[thomamon]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

While I don't have the answer you're looking for, I did find something that was interesting to me at least. Here are the number of players rated 1.5* potential or higher by OSA with scouting turned off in your league:

5*: 81
4.5*: 58
4*: 37
3.5*: 26
3*: 14
2.5*: 49
2*: 59
1.5*: 51

And here are the number of players rated 1.5* potential or higher by a "perfect" scout who favors ability with scouting accuracy set to "Normal" and equivalent scouting budgets throughout the league:

5*: 3
4.5*: 10
4*: 9
3.5*: 9
3*: 6
2.5*: 23
2*: 31
1.5*: 33

Talk about a dramatic difference! I've been unwilling to run this test in my own online league since, well, I play in it and I don't want to be gaining any unfair advantages. But seeing this here, it makes me understand how we can have both "I'm seeing talent inflation" and "I'm seeing talent deflation" threads. Those seeing inflation aren't using scouts, while those seeing deflation are.

thomamon, there's nothing in your setup that jumps out at me as being "wrong". I see you've significantly lowered one of your PCMs, but that one change shouldn't be affecting anything. The feeder PCMs seem to be at default. It all looks pretty standard. I would agree that there seems to be an inordinate number of players rated as 5* talent (more than any other rating level between 1.5* and 4.5*). Why that would be and what can be done about it, I have not a clue.

It seems like there are two things worth considering here:

1. Do leagues tend to produce too much high-level talent at default settings?
2. Should scouting at the "Normal" level be quite so inaccurate?

I know what your saying, I look at nothing but the draft players in these league files and I hate even doing that. That is why I was hoping to have someone else look at it that wasn't in the league.

I ran another test over night that didn't have all those 5 star players, and I only had two different settings. One was we had 3 feeder leagues and the second was we had Random Talent Change set to 50% which is what we have in the league now. So now my test is going to be to go back to 2 feeder league and keep the RTC at 50% and see what happens.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by thomamon

I don't think I have a roster size set. But that problem doesn't have anything to do with too much talent, does it?

Larger rosters = more graduates.

More graduates = more draftees.

More draftees = more talented players.

You should be producing 600 new players or less for your draft, IMO.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

Talk about a dramatic difference! I've been unwilling to run this test in my own online league since, well, I play in it and I don't want to be gaining any unfair advantages. But seeing this here, it makes me understand how we can have both "I'm seeing talent inflation" and "I'm seeing talent deflation" threads. Those seeing inflation aren't using scouts, while those seeing deflation are.

thomamon, there's nothing in your setup that jumps out at me as being "wrong". I see you've significantly lowered one of your PCMs, but that one change shouldn't be affecting anything. The feeder PCMs seem to be at default. It all looks pretty standard. I would agree that there seems to be an inordinate number of players rated as 5* talent (more than any other rating level between 1.5* and 4.5*). Why that would be and what can be done about it, I have not a clue.

It seems like there are two things worth considering here:

1. Do leagues tend to produce too much high-level talent at default settings?
2. Should scouting at the "Normal" level be quite so inaccurate?

Thanks for this information, however in my 60+ year solo league I don't use scouts or coaches and I have definite talent deflation.

My set up is MLB with three levels of minors and no feeder leagues. I have a 15 round draft but produce 17 rounds worth of players. One difference is my draft is held on March 15th in the pre-season. My minor league rosters are 30 in AAA and AA and unlimited in A

Should I increase the number of draft rounds?

[thomamon]

Originally Posted by RchW

Thanks for this information, however in my 60+ year solo league I don't use scouts or coaches and I have definite talent deflation.

My set up is MLB with three levels of minors and no feeder leagues. I have a 15 round draft but produce 17 rounds worth of players. One difference is my draft is held on March 15th in the pre-season. My minor league rosters are 30 in AAA and AA and unlimited in A

Should I increase the number of draft rounds?

Color me confused! I've never seen talent decrease.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by RchW

Thanks for this information, however in my 60+ year solo league I don't use scouts or coaches and I have definite talent deflation.

My set up is MLB with three levels of minors and no feeder leagues. I have a 15 round draft but produce 17 rounds worth of players. One difference is my draft is held on March 15th in the pre-season. My minor league rosters are 30 in AAA and AA and unlimited in A

Should I increase the number of draft rounds?

To answer your question, while I would use sixteen rounds of draft for three levels of minors, the consensus around the forum is that fifteen is ideal. You might want to consider generating more rounds to draft from, however. I like to create twice as many rounds as I'm drafting, and in the early going this isn't creating too many good players. I have only a very limited feeder league (six feeder teams to support twelve organizations).

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Curtis

To answer your question, while I would use sixteen rounds of draft for three levels of minors, the consensus around the forum is that fifteen is ideal. You might want to consider generating more rounds to draft from, however. I like to create twice as many rounds as I'm drafting, and in the early going this isn't creating too many good players. I have only a very limited feeder league (six feeder teams to support twelve organizations).

So 15 round draft, 20 rounds of players?

[Curtis]

"So 15 round draft, 20 rounds of players?"

Could you try that, then sim ahead twenty years and see if matters improve? I think posters like 1998Yankees would likely advise generating twenty rounds instead of the thirty I would try.

[thomamon]

Originally Posted by Curtis

"So 15 round draft, 20 rounds of players?"

Could you try that, then sim ahead twenty years and see if matters improve? I think posters like 1998Yankees would likely advise generating twenty rounds instead of the thirty I would try.

I think 30 is definitely too many.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by thomamon

I think 30 is definitely too many.

You're probably right, but I'm generating 24 rounds of players for twelve rounds of draft and running out of potential draftees (potential 21+) in the eighth round.