Discussion Forum

Forum >> Discussions >> New Draft Questions & Comments  

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function
#67551	08/10/2019 3:08:15 pm	Jan 15th, 2042	Ignore
amalric7 Joined: 01/20/2016 Posts: 2237 New York Lancers V.4	So 18pot Hough turns out (so far) to 'only' be a 17pot. Oh the disappointment!
#67831	08/23/2019 7:05:29 am	Mar 14th, 2042	Ignore
lostraven Joined: 07/02/2016 Posts: 1269 Corvallis Ravens II.1	Still would like to see High School and College draft pools split apart again.
#67879	08/24/2019 12:37:12 pm	Mar 16th, 2042	Ignore
Benchwarmer Joined: 01/06/2015 Posts: 445 Inactive	+1 to separate High School and College pools. They each performed a very different function under the old draft, and those options were taken away when the pools were combined.
#67881	08/24/2019 1:42:58 pm	Mar 16th, 2042	Ignore
BUDude Joined: 05/05/2019 Posts: 54 Inactive	Another +1 to that. I think having them separate allows a more nuanced drafting strategy.
#67975	08/29/2019 10:16:44 pm	Apr 7th, 2042	Ignore
Eric83 Joined: 02/06/2018 Posts: 56 Brentwood Bearcats III.1	+1 from me too. I'm having trouble finding quality high school players now. My AAA is overflowing and I have 2 players in single-A and no one in Rookie ball right now.
#68878	10/18/2019 8:00:56 am	Oct 8th, 2042	Ignore
lostraven Joined: 07/02/2016 Posts: 1269 Corvallis Ravens II.1	If I have this right... 1. Up to 2039, the draft pool was completely wiped in the offseason, and a batch of new players were introduced for 10 rounds of picking. 2. Starting in 2040, the draft pool was seeded with a new batch of players, but i. picks went down to eight rounds and ii. either ALL or an unknown percentage of the remaining players in the draft pool REMAINED in the pool, with a small allotment of new players getting added the following start of the season. Assuming these points are correct, I will ask this: what was the reasoning for going down to eight rounds from 10? We are now finishing three seasons into this change, and while I'm overall happy with the changes, I am now left wondering if we should go back up to 10 rounds of drafting. "WHY?" you exclaim. Because we'd have two more rounds to pick and release utter garbage players that will only continue to clog up the draft pool otherwise. Admittedly, I don't know what Steve's formula is currently for managing the remaining players in the draft pool during the season turnover. Are some of the players with high career ERAs and low AVEs (i.e., a programmed threshold) in the amateur leagues (i.e, Latin, HS, Asian, etc.) retiring? Is anyone retiring? Or do all the crap players we've all passed over stay in the pool, with only a small quantity of quality players getting injected back in? All of this is to say that I suspect the draft pool will continue to be slim pickings if there aren't retirements. If there aren't retirements, I argue I'd rather have two more rounds of draft if only to pull out more garbage from the pool in order to get a slightly greater number of better players during the refresh. Example, assuming no one retires and the pool just gets filled up to max again: Arbitrarily say there are 1000 players to start. After eight rounds, 300 players remain. The next season 700 players are added. Making a huge assumption that Steve's code has a small range of percentages for pools of players to be created—e.g., three to five percent created have actual POT of 14–16, twelve to fourteen percent have actual POT 13, etc.; totally arbitrary number but it gives you the idea—then at best, 35 players get added that have an actual POT of 14–16. (700 * 0.05) However, in this scenario, if we had two more rounds to remove junk from the pool and got it down to say 200 players remaining, then 800 new players get added. Math: 800 * 0.05 = 40, so at best you add five more 14–16 POT actuals. AGAIN, tons of assumptions, but you see my point. In other words, unless some of the worst of the worst retires from the pool, it's theoretically better for us to have two more rounds of cleaning up the pool to have a slightly better chance of adding better players during the season turnover. TL;DR: I don't mind the carryover of undrafted prospects from season to season, but either the real hot garbage prospects need to retire at greater rates or we need to go back to 10 rounds to better thin the pool, for a slightly improved chance at better players in the first few rounds.
#68881	10/18/2019 2:19:54 pm	Oct 8th, 2042	Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9599 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I think more picks will just drain more talent. So not sure it would achieve that effect. I liked having 10. I would vote for going back to 10, but there may be some balancing issues (particularly with talent) that Steve is trying to get a better handle on with 8.
#68894	10/18/2019 6:56:59 pm	Oct 12th, 2042	Ignore
hurstdm Joined: 01/18/2017 Posts: 576 Murfreesboro Moo Cows VI.5	Ravens: I don't mind the carryover of undrafted prospects from season to season, but either the real hot garbage prospects need to retire at greater rates or we need to go back to 10 rounds to better thin the pool, for a slightly improved chance at better players in the first few rounds. +1, largely agree, except that the Moo Cows haven't drafted a player since 2041, Round #2. Part of the reason for this is we're comfortable with the Cow minors. But part of the reason is that the draftees are frequently - to quote the Ravens - "hot garbage". I genuinely wonder why anyone would draft now just to do the "catch and release" thing for other teams to possibly benefit. I'm not sure it'll "clean the pool" to go to 10 rounds. But a secondary reason for 10 rounds is just to add some excitement, maybe? The draft ought to be a fun, engaging curveball every week for the player base. There's two less of those now. Why? We are now finishing three seasons into this change, and while I'm overall happy with the changes, I am now left wondering if we should go back up to 10 rounds of drafting. Three seasons in, I'm still not overall happy with the changes. Actually, I think I like literally none of the draft changes. In the draft suggestion thread, I suggested adding some kind of Arm/Range verbal report to the scouting for draftees, but I disagree with just revealing the number value. It's not as fun. Also, the player pool as designed seems to be "hot garbage". I've got a 20 year old on my draft board right now sporting a big, fat 5.90 ERA. Ugh, no. Are the "draft threads" sparser and less discussed because it's less overall fun? Here's the Round 7 thread. Did anyone bother with a 2042 Round 8 thread?
#68905	10/19/2019 1:05:34 pm	Oct 12th, 2042	Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9599 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I disagree with just revealing the number value. It's not as fun. I agree with you. I would rather we just had a fuller scouting report. I like the stats. But between the stats and the scouting report, it really shouldn't be necessary to show the actual numbers until we draft. #hidethenumbers
#68933	10/21/2019 4:49:27 am	Oct 20th, 2042	Ignore
ESac Joined: 09/05/2016 Posts: 340 San Antonio Defenders V.14	#hidethenumbers +1

| |

Reply