Broken Bat - Suggestions: Draft Preferences

Forum >> Suggestions >> Draft Preferences

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#29748	01/28/2016 8:11:18 am
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9595 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Well this is why I mentioned the option of selecting to focus on a specific skill instead of a position. However I completely disagree with the concept that a position filter would have no utility because that position hinges on the fallacy that a player's initial training has no value. If I NEED a catcher a 22 year old 1B is not going to help me (especially if he is a lefty). Its going to take 5 years to get the 1B trained to C. I don't want a 27 year old catcher five years from now. I probably needed a 24 year old C two years from now. That is why it is a fallacy to think initial training has no value. If I need a catcher and you show me 10 catchers, likelihood is I can find at least one good guy. If you show me 5 pitchers and 3 left handed OFs (current method), I am far less likely to be able to fill my need. You guys are looking for the 100% how can I have total control solution. But a 20% how can I improve my control is still an improvement.

#29749	01/28/2016 8:18:26 am
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5198 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	In your example above, the 2B probably has a ss, so he would be included. I think it is a gigantic leap to assume he would ss. Also, would preferences really fill my board with small letter players? Thought the whole idea was to get someone who knew how to play the position. Is the current scenario any more realistic? Yes it is. GM: "Scout 14. How was your trip to Taiwan? How'd that pitcher look?" Scout 14: "Ok. Decent velocity and command. Might be a back end starter." GM: "What else did you see?" Scout 14: "They had a real nice 1B. Crushed the ball. Could run too. Could probably use him in the OF if need be. SS on the other team was super smooth in the field, but doesn't look like much of a bat. I caught a series from the cross town rival. They had a high velocity arm with a great breaking ball, but no lasting power. He might be a nice bull pen arm. And they had a great looking 3B. Professional ABs. Good pop. Good speed. Could play his position. Ya, I know we already have a couple 3Bs in the system, but he was probably the best prospect I saw." GM: "Ok. Thanks Scout 14. Btw - Why are you Scout 14 when we only have 1 Scout? Wish we had a bigger budget. Oh well. There's our board."

#29750	01/28/2016 8:19:57 am
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9595 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I'm assuming position assignment is somewhat random as well If this is true, then this is another place for potential improvement. While I would agree that player attributes should be mostly random, it would also make sense to have position templates. So for instance: High School Catcher Hitting: 0 - 20 Bat Control: 0 - 20 Plate Discipline: 0 - 20 Power: 0 - 20 Speed: 0 - 20 Fielding: 0 - 20 Range: 0 - 20 Arm: 10 - 20 Throws 95% righty College OF Hitting: 6 - 20 Bat Control: 6 - 20 Plate Discipline: 0 - 20 Power: 5 - 20 Speed: 5 - 20 Fielding: 5 - 15 Range: 10 - 20 Arm: 8 - 20 Throws 65% righty

#29751	01/28/2016 8:21:58 am
Carcharoth Joined: 07/16/2015 Posts: 149 Inactive	If player generation is completely random (or even mostly), there is no reason why a player having training at a position will have a build appropriate for the position. I'm not sure how random the process is, so I would probably wait for Steve to confirm. Sorry writing this when you posted Rock. Updated Thursday, January 28 2016 @ 8:26:26 am PST

#29752	01/28/2016 8:22:33 am
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9595 Haverhill Halflings III.1	You've completely missed the point of emulation vs. replication. Also, would preferences really fill my board with small letter players? Of course. You are looking for someone with experience in that position. Small letter is experience. If you only showed primary positions you would be filtering out too much.

#29753	01/28/2016 8:31:05 am
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5198 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	GM: "Scout 14. What's your report on that Catcher from Virginia Tech?" Scout 14: "I didn't look at him, ..." This is the crux of expanding the slate. You make the slate large enough in the first round so hopefully your scout does "look at him". Occasionally he still won't. Bad scouts are bad. Expanding the slate solves the problem without putting these weird artificial blinders on your scouts. Because players are not necessarily trained in their optimal position from the draft, drafting based on position won't really change anything; it will pull just as random a group of players from an even smaller subset of the complete pool. A very clear, succinct description of the problem with preferences. Thanks Carcharoth. I will let you have the last word Rock777. My parting comment is: Expanded slates = good Drafting by preference = bad

#29754	01/28/2016 8:38:18 am
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5198 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Sorry. One other thought. For me, drafting by preference would be much more palatable if it only guaranteed 1 player from the position. Ie., you want a pitcher. You select P. It guarantees there will be 1 P on your slate (assuming there is still 1 left in the pool). The rest of your slate fills normally. This would ensure your scout "looks at him". It lets the rest of your board fill organically. It does not create of ton of little sub-pools. The only other version of preferences that makes sense to me is pitchers vs. position players. Think there may be merit to that. Again, I think expanding the slate is a wonderful idea. Refining that should be the focus of discussion rather than other possible changes. Updated Thursday, January 28 2016 @ 9:01:57 am PST

#29774	01/28/2016 12:16:46 pm
jonny6 Joined: 10/12/2013 Posts: 48 Inactive	Wouldn't everyone just draft all pitchers then? I can always piece together a decent lineup in free agents and waiver claims but pitchers are definitely the hardest to get

#29782	01/28/2016 2:20:49 pm
Crazy Li Joined: 01/25/2015 Posts: 879 Inactive	Speak for yourself. Pitching has traditionally been my team's strong suit but its hitting is generally anemic. I would not be selecting pitchers very often if I had the choice.

#29784	01/28/2016 3:22:26 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9595 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Wouldn't everyone just draft all pitchers then? Nope. As Crazy said, plus if you saw everyone drafting pitchers in the first 4 rounds, it would be really dumb to draft a pitcher as there aren't likely any good ones left. Some players might draft pitchers straight through, but that just leaves better players for those who approach the draft with a better strategy. @Seca, getting one player seems pointless to me. If I need a 2B and I only have one shown, the likelihood the guy is actually a decent 2B is very low. Having 10 shown means I actually have a good chance of actually getting a real 2B. In real life teams have priorities. Allowing players control over what positions they see allows emulation of team priorities. Showing one player achieves nothing. If you only want one 2B, then just pick the "all positions" pool. I really don't understand why you want to handcuff everyone else in the game just because you don't want to be able to pick a position...? Are you concerned that this give too much of a competitive advantage to new teams that have a lot of holes to fill on their squad over veteran teams who have done a good job managing their pipeline? What exactly is the downside of selecting a position that you hate so much? I don't currently see how the sub pool argument really has any merit... Right now I can access the entire pool, or I can choose as a player to access a smaller pool. If position choices are added, it just adds another level of manager option. Now you CAN (if you want) look at a smaller pool. You can still look at the exact same pools. You can still look at the entire pool of players. There is no difference. I don't see how this has any downside what so ever...? Updated Thursday, January 28 2016 @ 3:47:15 pm PST