Discussion Forum

Forum >> Suggestions >> Increase draft pool size  

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function
#57424	03/02/2018 4:12:39 am	Mar 14th, 2035	Ignore
Jalapeno5 Joined: 06/01/2014 Posts: 226 Inactive	Hey guys, Just a thought, but perhaps we could look to increase the number of prospects in the draft pools slightly? I don't know how other team's picks compare and I'd be interested to know (perhaps my lack of keepers in round 7 is an annomaly) , but what this shows is that 31% of my picks benefit my team, 21% benefit other teams through waivers/free agency and 48% of my picks are essentially pointless. I'm not advocating a radical overhaul of the draft or anything as extreme as refreshing the draft-pool half-way through the season, but what I am suggesting is that if we were to add maybe 15-20% more players (with the current distibution of talent) to the draft pool, we should see rounds 7 & 8 yield more servicable players before the seeing the drop-off move to rounds 9 & 10. No doubt there will be those concerned about upsetting the apple cart and the cosmic balance of the game, but given the lack of a reliable means of player acquisition to fill positional gaps in the line-up, I'd suggest we need to be presented with more options; plus given the long-term (as opposed to day-to-day) time investment involved in owning a team, 3 real-time weeks out of every 11 (with a near guaranteed month of useless picks at the end of each season), the chances of producing a usable piece through the draft feels just a shade too low. Cheers!
#57426	03/02/2018 4:53:26 am	Mar 14th, 2035	Ignore
Endrju Joined: 05/28/2015 Posts: 577 Inactive	I think this was discussed before. The conclusion was, if we increased the player pool, all we would do is increase the overall player quality a little bit. A decent 13 potential now would become a bad 13 potential in that scenario. Personally I think the talent distribution is quite realistic. I'm playing for 10 seasons and I only pulled 1 franchise star, and a lot of solid (but not superstar) players. I don't think any change is needed here.
#57429	03/02/2018 5:19:52 am	Mar 14th, 2035	Ignore
Jalapeno5 Joined: 06/01/2014 Posts: 226 Inactive	Hey Endrju, Completely understand everything's relative - increase the number of players and as long as all else stays the same every team sees the same effect which as you say is likely a small uplift in overall player quality. I think on reflection for me this might be more about the pacing of the game. I consider myself to be a patient person, but 4 weeks of near certain pointless draft picks at the end of the season, plus 1 week we don't get a pick, plus an unknown number of dud picks in weeks 1-6 leaves the rate of acquisition in the 11-week cycle of the season a shade too low in my opinion. I'd take a slight increase in overall player quality across the board if it gives me more to do in the later part of the season in terms of deciding between better players and specifically the best fit for my roster, rather than just instantly cutting my draft pick every week after the All-Star break. Just to be clear I have no issue that pools are thoroughly picked-over and the quality of players is fringey at best by the end of the season, but I think this decline happens a week or two too soon in the present state. Cheers!
#57435	03/02/2018 7:12:49 am	Mar 14th, 2035	Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9603 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I haven't drafted higher than a POT 14 in 16 seasons of play. Everything is relative, so increasing the players doesn't improve the quality of later round picks. Maybe for a couple years while inflation catches up, but then you are back in the same boat where the later round picks are not as useful. Its a natural economy that naturally reflects the real life situation. Skill inflation might seem fun for a couple years, but it doesn't change anything in the long run, and really just discourages people from taking a long term approach. With inflation, that hot 17 year old prospect is now just mediocre, so there is no reason to go after the young players. Should have gone after the College or Asian pool guys who could have immediate impact in the current skill economy.
#57451	03/02/2018 11:08:16 am	Mar 14th, 2035	Ignore
Jalapeno5 Joined: 06/01/2014 Posts: 226 Inactive	Well - I guess if a guy who's only kept 3/69 round 4-10 draftees doesn't think there's a problem, then there's no problem. Nothing to see here. Cheers!
#57494	03/05/2018 11:07:33 am	Mar 20th, 2035	Ignore
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	Well, I would like to see it but it has been proposed before and was shouted down pretty quickly. I guess I just have a different opinion than some others, as do you jalapeno.
#57522	03/06/2018 10:08:46 am	Mar 25th, 2035	Ignore
PrivateSnowflake Joined: 01/06/2015 Posts: 1168 Bloomington Thunder Legends	Tiger, as a Legends owner you should be on our side. By making a few more dynamic or even well-rounded players available to the ever-growing BB population, some new owner could get lucky and build a strong club and make it slightly harder for you in 6-7 seasons. If we can convince the proletariat the 98SI SP with one "plus" pitch can set them apart from their other lower-league brethren, then we can hold our position at the top much easier, since we're getting the same guy. Tiger, you age is showing. Only through "fairness"(TM) can we achieve our goal of keeping me at the top. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going over to the Help Forum to tell a new owner how we used to promote with teams full of players with two "plus" skills and it's only fair he doesn't get the same chance.
#57524	03/06/2018 11:47:37 am	Mar 25th, 2035	Ignore
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	Tbh the real reason is that there are more active owners who look for the right things in players than there used to be. Skill inflation isn't the real issue here, to illustrate let me ask a question: how many players are on your roster? If the answer is at any point in the season 49 or 50, then the proposal won't help. The idea is to have more talent available in late rounds, but where will these extra players be kept? We still have 50 roster spots, and thus similar numbers to what are currently cut would still be cut. Realistically it would mean that the best players available in free agency would be better, but the players in free agency still wouldn't be able to compete with the core of a competitive team. The real underlying complaint I think is the RNG of player acquisition hasn't been kind to you, which I can sympathize with, but I don't really know what the best answer is beyond this won't actually help that. Updated Tuesday, March 6 2018 @ 11:47:57 am PST
#57525	03/06/2018 11:59:37 am	Mar 25th, 2035	Ignore
Philliesworld Joined: 10/17/2014 Posts: 788 Pierre Jacobins III.3	Very, very well said Newtman. You totally iterated my thoughts.
#57542	03/06/2018 4:04:26 pm	Mar 28th, 2035	Ignore
Brewnoe Joined: 03/25/2014 Posts: 818 Fall River Naughty Dawgs IV.5	but where will these extra players be kept? If they have enough potential, maybe Scott Boras will make a fake spring training for them?
#57601	03/09/2018 5:38:53 am	Apr 7th, 2035	Ignore
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	@PrivateSnowflake 😂😂😂😂😂 That may be the most eloquent argument I've seen. Keep posting! Seriously guys, newt and I agree about one thing above. There are many more owners drafting "correctly". The pool is getting chewed up after a couple of rounds. Sure my rng has been bad in the first round for several seasons now, except the 15 pot I lost with the reset. And I'm okay with that. But with more active owners there should be a deeper talent pool. Let me repeat that so I'm clear. My opinion is with more active owners there should be a deeper talent pool. That's my stand.
#57604	03/09/2018 6:28:36 am	Apr 7th, 2035	Ignore
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	Ok, say we all had access to the types of pitching staffs that Seca and I had when we promoted, due to there being a LOT more talent than currently. What does that achieve other than to highlight the randomness in the game engine vs the randomness in player acquisition? With more active owners if they have similar personnel it just means that it will come down to the luck of who drives in runs instead of the luck of who lands the few superstars. Is it more fair? Maybe, but not necessarily. Some teams seem to get all the breaks in close game situations, while others get screwed constantly. Some people try to attribute that to being good or settings, but the truth is you were proven good by keeping great offenses to low scores and scoring on great defenses. Close games consistently going in favor of one team are decided on luck, whether that luck is a hidden clutch trait or pure RNG favoritism it ultimately has less to do with actual strategy and more to do with how the numbers roll. With owners controlling every team for every winner there is a loser, we aren't playing against AIs here.
#57611	03/09/2018 7:26:56 am	Apr 7th, 2035	Ignore
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	Newt, I believe there is a LOT more common ground between our views than differences. I don't want what I would consider a large infusion of talent. I'd like to see 10% more and see what that does. And then tweak it from there. Since I've started, let's say there are are least 20% more active owners vying for talent. I would speculate that there are at least 30%+ more who have a good handle on talent evaluation thanks to a free education in the forums. Yes, my numbers are very rough guesses. The argument about talent levels can be made effectively from either side. I dont want to dilute my message by getting off track and arguing nuances. I see my side and I see the other side. The game will be good either way. But simply, I would like to see the size of the draft pool tied to the number of active or human owners.
#57632	03/09/2018 3:17:11 pm	Apr 8th, 2035	Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9603 Haverhill Halflings III.1	The main thing an infusion of talent would achieve is getting people to ask for another infusion of talent. Once the precedent is set it can't be taken back. I find the whole discussion rather humorous. Talent is relative. Sure we could stock the draft pool with a bunch of POT 15s and 16s. Would just make everyone's 12s and 13s useless and the 14s would be the new minimum talent. And when you draft a POT 14 player in the third round you will be upset at the C&R pick. End of the day, some teams will have more talent than others. Regardless of where the "average" is set, that isn't going to be effected. There is tons of talent in the draft. The only reason you don't think a POT 10 guy is good, is because Steve set the average higher than that. Steve could just as easily decrease the talent in the draft pool and it would have the same effect (none).
#57633	03/09/2018 3:23:02 pm	Apr 8th, 2035	Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9603 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Increasing the draft pool does nothing. If you want better/fairer distribution of players, you need to increase the number of picks we choose from each week. The more options we have, the more distributed the talent. But better distribution also means the talent runs out quicker. So you need to decide if you want fair distribution, or exciting late rounds. Those are conflicting priorities.
#57637	03/09/2018 10:26:39 pm	Apr 10th, 2035
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator	The top teams in Broken Bat aren't there because they got lucky drafting once or twice. We can adjust draft pool size or draft selection...but there are negative trade-offs to both. Right? Over time, random luck evens out and superior strategy wins out. Steve Updated Friday, March 9 2018 @ 10:33:08 pm PST
#57640	03/10/2018 7:06:35 am	Apr 10th, 2035	Ignore
Dan6176 Joined: 04/30/2016 Posts: 254 Inactive	I think the draft pool is fine the way it is, though I would like to see a bigger roster. Maybe 10 more players which would give us the ability to take more chances on players who are longshots.
#57644	03/10/2018 10:08:57 am	Apr 10th, 2035	Ignore
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	Aw heck, Steve could add 10% to the draft pool without telling us and no one would even be able to tell the difference.
#57659	03/11/2018 1:12:40 am	Apr 14th, 2035	Ignore
JJNZ Joined: 12/09/2014 Posts: 1580 Yakima Monster III.3	I'm of the opinion that generally they should stay as is, but each time a new country is added to BB, that draft pool should increase accordingly. For example Denmark was the latest country added, I don't know whether the draft pool became larger, but it seems to be (could well just be my imagination) that less New Zealanders are appearing now that more international countries are out there.
#57667	03/11/2018 1:01:37 pm	Apr 14th, 2035	Ignore
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	I agree with JJNZ. If any pools should be expanded, it should be the International one because we keep adding countries for players to come from, but it is resulting in the International teams becoming less competitive since it is spread among so many different countries.
#57984	04/02/2018 9:27:32 pm	Jul 9th, 2035	Ignore
ephenssta Joined: 06/29/2016 Posts: 196 Inactive	It would be interesting to see a small increase in the international pool with the addition of every new nation. Aside from that, I agree with most of the people saying that the pools should remain as-is. If there's a change I want to the draft pool, I would like to be able to select whether I'm looking at more pitchers or hitters. I get a little frustrated when I want to spend my first rounds on pitchers and I end up seeing very few pitchers in the first 3 rounds.

| |

Reply