Broken Bat - Suggestions: Remove a higher percentage of low-level talent from what remains in draft pools

Forum >> Suggestions >> Remove a higher percentage of low-level talent from what remains in draft pools

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#69381	11/08/2019 12:24:38 pm	Mar 14th, 2043
lostraven Joined: 07/02/2016 Posts: 1269 Corvallis Ravens II.1	Per my comments here... Drafter Player Potential, First Round, 2035, as Percentage of All Drafted Players (Human and Bot) * 16–17 POT: 1.08% * 15 POT: 4.76% * 14 POT: 20.74% * 13 POT: 34.25% * 12 POT: 24.12% * 11 POT: 10.45% * 10 POT: 3.38% * 7–9 POT: 1.23% That means only 15.06% of all players drafted were 11 POT or worse in Round 1. We live in different times, with fuzzier potentials, making it more difficult to quantify results. (I.e., we don't know for sure what we're looking POT-wise, so we can't quantify today as we did in 2035.) But I would bet $10 U.S. right now that we're doing MUCH worse than that 15.06% from 2035, without even looking at who's getting drafted this round. In 2035, guys like this were chosen 1.23% of the time, typically by bots. Admittedly, I picked that player out of spite, but it was illustrative of what, anecdotally, seems to be showing up in draft pools in the first round more often post-2039. I'm fine with seeing these guys in even the third or fourth round, if only occasionally. But many of us are led to believe those percentages from 2035 are long gone today. As the title states, I propose more players like the one I linked to be removed from the draft pool at season's end. In theory, with fewer players in the draft pool carrying over, a slightly higher percentage of better talent can backfill in at the start of the next season. Thanks for your time and consideration. Updated Friday, November 8 2019 @ 12:25:02 pm PST

#69386	11/08/2019 4:16:14 pm	Mar 15th, 2043
peacockpenguin Joined: 11/18/2014 Posts: 102 Inactive	I know it's a lot to ask of someone but could you get the same numbers for last season as well?

#69414	11/08/2019 10:59:44 pm	Mar 16th, 2043
StretchDynamo Joined: 05/16/2016 Posts: 64 Inactive	+1 I like this suggestion a lot - it would make the pool that much less muddy on a season-to-season basis, while also being realistic, as in a guy with a "POT 7" in real life would never continue to be scouted. Just makes sense

#69416	11/09/2019 12:25:49 am	Mar 16th, 2043
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator	I think we're still waiting for the new draft system to reach equilibrium. At that point we can re-evaluate the quality distribution. In general, I'm not a big believer in inflating the quality of the prospect pool. If I start removing "low-level" players, then a new normal is established and there are lots of "low-level" players again. Steve

#69425	11/09/2019 5:41:28 am	Mar 16th, 2043
lostraven Joined: 07/02/2016 Posts: 1269 Corvallis Ravens II.1	Thanks for the rapid reply, Steve. Means a lot. I can respect your take on not wanting to artificially inflate the draft pool and simply create a new category of "low-level" players. However, many of us are left to wonder if the changes have already done just that: created a higher abundance of lower-tier players in Round 1. YES, the fuzziness makes it more difficult to judge, but many of us are still trying to grasp JUST how fuzzy players can get. If we're seeing a lot of players showing 8 or 9 POT in the pool, and we operate under the assumption that at most the player is two deviations more or less than what's displayed, at best we are looking at a plate of 10 and 11 POT players. There's also uncertainty about whether or not the scouting comment is fuzzed as well; if a player shows 11 POT but "Very Good" in the scouting comments, can we still put our trust in the scouting comment? We'll see how it plays out, but thanks for the feedback. Oh, at peacockpenguin: Another issue that has come up with actually tracking the draft is related to how players are assigned an ID. The old system used to be a player wasn't assigned an ID# until drafted, so all one had to do was find the last number from the previous season, and then one by one progress up an ID number to get a picture of all the players drafted in a given round. With the draft changes, that is no longer possible. It appears that players are created with ID#s and added to the pools at the beginning of the season. They then can gain experience as amateurs and may or may not be drafted in a given season. Additionally, it appears some of those players are held back and not made available until the next season. It's nowhere near straightforward to know who drafted what by simply incrementing the ID#. I'd have to go to every single team draft page and see who they drafted, if anyone, after the fact. Not insurmountable, but more challenging than the previous. Regardless, we'll see how my free time plays out this month. I may give it a shot. But any real conclusions will also be more difficult to make due to potential fuzzing. Updated Saturday, November 9 2019 @ 5:43:51 am PST

#69427	11/09/2019 5:47:04 am	Mar 16th, 2043
Longviewess Joined: 09/23/2018 Posts: 111 Frederick Keys III.3	And how long do you anticipate it taking to "reach equilibrium"?

#69430	11/09/2019 6:40:02 am	Mar 16th, 2043
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9597 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I expect it will take some time. You really need to see what happens over the course of players being created in high school and "retiring" after college. Many teams have been drafting a much higher quality of players already. So while some teams are having worst luck, others are having better luck. I suspect the average is not as far out of whack as you guys believe. Its probably mostly selection bias as you personally have been having some bad luck. Remember, in the old draft a lot of high quality players slipped through. In the current draft that is going to happen less. So if the quality level of the players stayed the same, its likely the new draft has already inflated the overall average quality of players on teams a bit. I believe that is part of the reason Steven institute the POT fuzziness to help combat this a little with more uncertainty. Creates a new way for quality players to slip through the cracks. But it also (maybe unintended) gives savvy managers more of an advantage. Under the "old system" I had many seasons where I never lucked into any players higher than POT 13. We have people crying about the "new system" who have picked POT 14s every season under the "new system"... So there is definitely heavy selection bias happening on the chat boards. Updated Saturday, November 9 2019 @ 6:56:45 am PST

#69435	11/09/2019 7:25:20 am	Mar 16th, 2043
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9597 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Looking at your board lostraven, it looks like you are pretty much doing the same as you did previously. Last season was WAY better than your 2040 (old system), and pretty much in line with your average looking back over the seasons. So its hard to understand why you are having an issue with the draft? It looks like status quo from the outcomes...?

#69456	11/10/2019 4:14:33 pm	Mar 19th, 2043
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator	At the beginning of the new draft mechanism, all the prospects at all ages were created anew from scratch. So they weren't picked over at all. After a few seasons now, they are mostly picked over, but some were inaccessible -- because they were high school juniors or college freshman or something. So once all those prospects become available for a while, I think we'll be pretty close to equilibrium. That's said...the distribution of talent has remained exactly the same as with the old draft mechanism...so I'm not inclined to think there is a lot of tweaking necessary. Steve

#69553	11/15/2019 5:59:11 am	Apr 7th, 2043
peacockpenguin Joined: 11/18/2014 Posts: 102 Inactive	Steve is it possible that some of those true 10 potential players can progress or regress as they go through the different leagues? Example. Someone who's a 10 potential in highschool goes to college and unlocks something inside of him and after a year or two becomes a 12 potential.