Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,190

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    I'll hold off declaring this update as not improving the draft, but with three drafts in the pipeline now, none have showed much improvement. I think I've noticed more red potentials to make 2nd round picks a little more valuable, but with a #7 and #9 picks in two of the drafts, the talent at those points was fairly dismal. Out of all three, I don't know that I saw more than 1-2 players I'd even be excited to pick at #1. Hopefully it has just been a bad roll of the dice so far.
    Last edited by Grimm; May 25, 2018 at 12:23 PM.
    Current
    MLB Remake-D. Tigers-1976-2059 and 2088- WS:2-1
    MLB Classic-Det Tigers-1993-2076 and 2125- WS:3-3
    Tilted Tables-S. Pilots 1991- WS:2-6
    CSFBL Justice-W.M. Whitecaps 2093-
    League of Legends-T.C. Walking Dead 2077- WS:0-2
    League of Champions-M. Marlins 2066-
    PGML-Musk. Clippers 2033-

    Past

    Coors Field-LA Dodgers WS:7-2
    MLB Remake AAA-Gwin Braves 2074-2089 WS:0-1
    MLB Remake AA-Read Phillies 2070-2086 WS:2-0
    Justice-C.B. Bonds 2042-2058 WS:1-1

  2. #52

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    All of the drafts I've seen have been very deep. I've gotten guys at the end of the first round that would have been top 10 picks in years past. As you know, I prefer talent scarcity, so I wish I was seeing the "meh" results others have reported. To me, it's WAY too much talent. Top teams will never drop off, because they'll get guys at #24 that can slot in to replace their aging declining guys, and first round picks will probably never be traded again. I know I won't be giving them up, unless I have no scouting. So, teams that are bad aren't getting anything significantly better in drafts than the good teams are getting, and may never catch up. The upside is that tanking is pointless, I guess.
    2ML - Padres 1906, 1909, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1942, 1945, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1971
    BD - Antarctica 1993,1994, 1996, 2004, 2005, 2019, 2041, 2044, 2046
    CBF - Duck 2053, 2056, 2058, 2060, 2070, 2071, 2075, 2077, 2087, 2088, 2091, 2092, 2102, 2105,2106, 2107, 2116
    CWS - UNC 1953, 1954, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1979
    HR - Phillies 1901, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1917, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1934
    CarL - Port Royal 2026
    61-48 in WS

  3. #53

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulpecula View Post
    Top teams will never drop off, because they'll get guys at #24 that can slot in to replace their aging declining guys
    If scouting were changed to be less accurate and predictable then this problem could easily be solved. To me the problem is not really about draft depth but about the fact that it's way too easy to tell how good a player is going to be, even with less than full scouting.

    I'm sure I've said this before but I'll say it again: there is absolutely no reason why potential ratings should be displayed with the same accuracy as actual ratings. In real life it's much easier to accurately judge a player's current ability than to project his ceiling. CSFBL should be the same way... and if it were, it would solve a lot of these problems with the draft.

    Think about it... Vulpecula brings up a good point: this is going to drastically increase the value of a first round pick to the point that people aren't going to want to trade it. That's because the reward associated with this pick is high and the risk is low. To fix this imbalance, the risk needs to be increased, and the way to do that is to decrease accuracy on scouting potential ratings.

    Of course the other problem with scouting is that it's too easy for teams to artificially inflate their scouting points by manipulating front office expenses right before the 4/1 sim by signing minimum salary players that they have no intention of actually playing... But I suppose that's a discussion for another post (although it is related to the issue at hand, because it allows top teams to achieve higher scouting levels than they should reasonably be able to attain).

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    4,024

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    While im totally on board with no potentials or letter grade drafts (not full on letters only for rosters) it can be demoralizing to strike out on players the genuinely look good and get stuck like the cleveland browns. If there were also hard to discern signs like college GPA/test grades or minor league stats, that could help with the removal of potentials or letter grades
    ↓ Teams & WS ↓
     
    2016: 3,437-3,070 (.528) ~ 4 WS
    2017: 8,035-6,518 (.552) ~ 8 WS
    2018: 2,112-1,890 (.528) ~ 4 WS

    Only 1 full season below 64 wins

    TMLAnaheim Angels(1959-)1964, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1972, 1976
    CarLKingston Clownfish(2017-)2022, 2027, 2031, 2032
    LEGJuan More Inning(2033-)2045, 2046, 2047, 2051
    DodgersCalifornia Beach Bums(1950-)1953, 1955
    GOATUnderpants Gnomes(1994-)1997, 1998
    CWSStanford Cardinal(1977-) 
    TCLMisty Mountain Hoppers(2101-) 
    CBFFerenginar Monsoons(2114-) 
    CFAnaheim Mighty Fudge(2011-) 

    Sweet-1886, 1888, 1891, 1892, 1897, 1898, 1900
    WBC-1925, 1928, 1930 | AA-2100 | ThrowB-2018 | TP-1983 | BD-2038 | AAA-2101

  5. #55

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulpecula View Post
    All of the drafts I've seen have been very deep. I've gotten guys at the end of the first round that would have been top 10 picks in years past. As you know, I prefer talent scarcity, so I wish I was seeing the "meh" results others have reported. To me, it's WAY too much talent. Top teams will never drop off, because they'll get guys at #24 that can slot in to replace their aging declining guys, and first round picks will probably never be traded again. I know I won't be giving them up, unless I have no scouting. So, teams that are bad aren't getting anything significantly better in drafts than the good teams are getting, and may never catch up. The upside is that tanking is pointless, I guess.
    The worst team will have pick 25. Couldn't you argue that bad teams will get premium talent with their first two picks?

    To the admins, the drafts are more interesting. Thank you for the changes. The best change, like mentioned before, is the increased middle infield options. Especially middle infielders that can play d and hit. Thank you!

  6. #56

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_T View Post
    While im totally on board with no potentials or letter grade drafts (not full on letters only for rosters) it can be demoralizing to strike out on players the genuinely look good and get stuck like the cleveland browns. If there were also hard to discern signs like college GPA/test grades or minor league stats, that could help with the removal of potentials or letter grades
    I don't even think potentials need to be removed entirely, just made to be less accurate. Like maybe viewed with half the scouting as actual ratings. So if you have 8 pts of scouting, you see actuals at 4 pts and potentials at 2 pts or something like that. But I also think it could work for potentials to be eliminated entirely and replaced with either stats or a scouting report or something like that.

    It is demoralizing when a player becomes a bust, for sure, but that's the way it is in real life and I'd rather play a realistic game than one where there's little to no guesswork involved. Like right now I can look at a 17-year old with 45 actuals and 90 potentials and be like "he's definitely going to eventually be an all-star player when he develops" when in real life a player like that would be much less of a sure thing.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,190

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by EtaCar927 View Post
    If scouting were changed to be less accurate and predictable then this problem could easily be solved. To me the problem is not really about draft depth but about the fact that it's way too easy to tell how good a player is going to be, even with less than full scouting.

    I'm sure I've said this before but I'll say it again: there is absolutely no reason why potential ratings should be displayed with the same accuracy as actual ratings. In real life it's much easier to accurately judge a player's current ability than to project his ceiling. CSFBL should be the same way... and if it were, it would solve a lot of these problems with the draft.

    Think about it... Vulpecula brings up a good point: this is going to drastically increase the value of a first round pick to the point that people aren't going to want to trade it. That's because the reward associated with this pick is high and the risk is low. To fix this imbalance, the risk needs to be increased, and the way to do that is to decrease accuracy on scouting potential ratings.

    Of course the other problem with scouting is that it's too easy for teams to artificially inflate their scouting points by manipulating front office expenses right before the 4/1 sim by signing minimum salary players that they have no intention of actually playing... But I suppose that's a discussion for another post (although it is related to the issue at hand, because it allows top teams to achieve higher scouting levels than they should reasonably be able to attain).
    this for sure. Look at the first round for any RL league draft, and there is normally plenty of talent to go around. But realizing that talent is another thing entirely. I would think the easiest solution would be to add more unpredictability to reaching potentials. I'd like to see more guys with top level potentials in the first round, but make it so some of those players don't hit their potentials, whether they develop way too slow, or just have a cap of some percentage. At least make it feel like everyone made out getting players they like in the first two rounds of the draft, but just add that twist so some of them don't develop.

    As an aside, this may also be a bit of a deterrent for tanking as getting that high pick doesn't mean you get that all star player.
    Current
    MLB Remake-D. Tigers-1976-2059 and 2088- WS:2-1
    MLB Classic-Det Tigers-1993-2076 and 2125- WS:3-3
    Tilted Tables-S. Pilots 1991- WS:2-6
    CSFBL Justice-W.M. Whitecaps 2093-
    League of Legends-T.C. Walking Dead 2077- WS:0-2
    League of Champions-M. Marlins 2066-
    PGML-Musk. Clippers 2033-

    Past

    Coors Field-LA Dodgers WS:7-2
    MLB Remake AAA-Gwin Braves 2074-2089 WS:0-1
    MLB Remake AA-Read Phillies 2070-2086 WS:2-0
    Justice-C.B. Bonds 2042-2058 WS:1-1

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •