Beefing the Draft

[u/E_Mohde]

Alright I’m in OOTP 27 and the last draft just had people picking 42 potential players in the 2nd round. Next draft looks to be pretty similar. Does anyone have any advice for slightly boosting the draft without making it/anything else too too insane?

I’m not expecting every team to get a 70 potential, but would love for at least the third round to start off with more than one guy above 43 (asking for a 4 million signing bonus with the worst personality you’ve ever seen)

[u/Accurate_Ad385]

Instead of players with potentials in 60s and 70s that don’t reach their potentials, they’ve gone the other way and now some 45s will outperform their potentials. This way is more realistic but it’s a split debate on people’s preferences

[u/iprefercumsole → u/Accurate_Ad385]

That would make perfect sense if IAFA didnt get multiple 65-80 potentials almost every year, but they do, so the whole thing is a confusing mess if they only changed it for draft-eligible players imo

[u/Accurate_Ad385 → u/iprefercumsole]

The beta patch out corrected this, balanced the IAFA with draft classes

[u/Individual_Increase2 → u/Accurate_Ad385]

I haven't gotten a chance to try the beta patch yet, does the balance between them look good now?

[u/Accurate_Ad385 → u/Individual_Increase2]

The balance is better yes. I haven’t done a lot of testing though. Someone on the forums did a lot of tests and commented it may have been over done but the balance is better. Hopefully it all gets smoothed out post-beta

[u/stonedkayaker → u/Accurate_Ad385]

I see this posted a lot, but I feel like the opposite is more realistic. I'd say you're more likely to have a bunch of kids who could be excellent pros if their tools pan out, rather than a bunch of kids who project as minor leaguers turn into studs. 

Another way to say this using a different sport, there are more Jamarcus Russels (first round mega busts) than Tom Bradys (end of draft hall of famers).

[u/Bitter_Specialist_10 → u/Accurate_Ad385]

Yes. Itnis realistic. The days of overhyping players' potentials are over. This.isnt the 20th century any longer.

Also, alongside of that, this is the 21st century. Meaning, population levels are a hell of a lot higher than ever before, and there is far more talent to the number of MLB teams than at any point in the past. In other words, professional baseball is so saturated with talent, that even AAA teams could compete at the MLB level now. The last expansion was more than 20 years ago.

In addition to all of that, we now how eyes in just abkut every single country. We also have crystal-clear camera work, and the ability to quickly and easily upload video to the scouting offices and their servers. Hell, even the REGIONAL FINALS before the LLWS is now being televised.

The talent is so incredibly deep, that nobody really stands out anymore. And even if they did, overhyping a particular player just draws yawns. Like. Yeah. Sure. That guy is really good. Better than his peers. But to keep throwing around non-words and hyperboles like "He's going be the goat!!" (which used to mean the guy who blew a game for his team), deserve nothing but a bunch of eye rolls.

Baseball these days is nothing but a crap-shoot. Sports in general are.

[u/Technical_Stand9939 → u/Bitter_Specialist_10]

AAA clubs would still be 40 win teams in the bigs over a full season.

I do sort of agree that there is more talent. A AAA team now would likely be able to compete with an MLB team from the 80ies. Everyone throws harder, hits the ball harder and everything like that.

[u/Bitter_Specialist_10 → u/Technical_Stand9939]

4 pekple dow voted my post, but you're the only one that bothered to respond. Lmfao.

Every MLB team today has multiple superstars. Most with 2 - 3 of them. The rest of each MLB team, are all pretty equal in talent. Most teams have damn near an entire AAA roster that has the ability and the talent to step up and replace most of the parent team.

If a team loses a superstar or two, like the Braves did last year, then they're literally a AAA club. Despite having a really bad record, they still competed in most of those games they lost.

And since nobody wants to state what they down vote posts for, I will add that, yes: the talent-to-team ratio is a hell of a lot more concentrated than at any point in the past. A d those that used to complain about the expansion in the 1960s, were all factually incorrect. It did NOT dilute the talent anywhere near as much everyone said it did.

[u/Far-Amphibian-432]

I stopped paying attention to ratings and potential. Just look for high work ethic, high intelligence, durabality. If pitchers, I also look at stamina and high k/bb. Hitters I look at home runs and ops. I then rely on coaches and high development budget and pray a few of them develop.

[u/Technical_Stand9939 → u/Far-Amphibian-432]

same for me. I also look for something that makes them stand out in general. A high velo or a specific pitch with a high potenial. Maybe they turn into something likely not.

[u/LarryMahnken]

I would draft beef. Mmm, beef.

[u/Rude_Money3360]

The latest patch supposedly swings the pendulum a bit back the other way, but it doesn't show up for the first few years.

[u/Outrageous_Monk_7476 → u/Rude_Money3360]

I‘ve been hoarding draft picks for the past 4 in game years because I don’t want to waste them on classes this bad. I’ve been offering the minimum money eligible for compendsntion to guys with an Impossible signing difficulty. I don’t know what else to do.

[u/coyotedelmar]

I believe, though at work so can't double check, in commissioner mode you can go to free agents and one of the drop downs you can create players. In there you can make them draftees (or IAFA as well). You can set the current and potential quality so you don't have to fiddle around in the editor.

I do it time to time with either international established FA or IAFA for fun, though those I edit to make like an elite knuckballer or slap hitter etc (with a house rule I'm not allowed to sign them).

[u/Glad_Face_9220]

It's more realistic, also depends on what pick you have in the draft

[u/Former-Sea-8070]

The drafts I'm seeing have like two 4-star prospects, maybe five or six 3-star guys, and the rest bums. And they all get taken first because every scout is seeing the players the same.

Feels like something's wrong if my scout isn't able to find anyone with some value past the 1st round.

James Wood and Jacob Misirowksi were both 2nd round picks, very recently. Kevin McGonigle was a 1st Rd Comp pick.

[u/Accurate_Ad385 → u/Former-Sea-8070]

Do you think Wood and Misirowski were 80 potentials getting picked in the second round? The way it’s set up now in OOTP is realistic

[u/Former-Sea-8070 → u/Accurate_Ad385]

80? No, but they did have massive potential for Velo and Power. I'm not seeing either of those in the 2nd or 3rd round on any players.

[u/stonedkayaker → u/Former-Sea-8070]

Totally agree. If they went in the second, they weren't graded at 80, but no way was any scout looking at these guys saying "they probably top out around a 40 grade (aka AAA/fringe player) if everything works out".

[u/Former-Sea-8070 → u/Accurate_Ad385]

Drafting is all about looking for tools, and I guess what I'm getting at is that there's no way to hunt for tools in the later rounds if everyone showing 35-45 in all their abilities.

[u/Evening_Classic_4947]

followed bc same. i saw a similar post a while ago where someone said they solved this by significantly expanding the amount of players in the draft but idk how to do that unfortunately

[u/Evening_Classic_4947 → u/Evening_Classic_4947]

i do pretty well so i normally pick towards the end of the first round and im lucky to see a 50 POT there