Broken Bat - Suggestions: Alternative Draft Process

Forum >> Suggestions >> Alternative Draft Process

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#93526	01/26/2024 3:02:41 pm	Mar 15th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	Figured it is timely to discuss potential improvements to the draft….not rage-suggesting here, just think it’s a missed opportunity at the moment. Currently I’d say the only positive thing about the current draft process is that the sheer randomness of it is exciting. On the negative side though you have the issues that players have zero influence on outcomes, it seems unfair on people not available at the instant it goes live, the sheer randomness of it is frustrating and the lack of info on what you’ve missed out on/is available is annoying as well. My suggestion would be: •Draft prospects split by league – split so comparable talent-wise (appreciate comparisons won’t be perfect) •Draft prospects are released as soon as they are generated (season before draftable) •New staff members, ‘Scouts’, that have different skills in terms of number of draftees they can scout and the accuracy of the ratings they come up with – the better they are the more expensive they are •Additional weekly scouting event where you can choose how to use your scouts and reveal new details about draft prospects for the next season •Teams make prioritized draft listings for a weekly draft in reverse league ranking order (prior season end – maybe lottery for losing season teams to reduce tanking – or other negative impacts of losing – higher salaries maybe) •Draftees can sit outside of the 50 roster limit but can’t play or receive training until a team brings them in and cuts existing players if necessary •New weekly events to cover Bot decisions in respect to scouting, drafting and cutting I’d potentially make changes to the financial rules at the same time – a salary cap on the front office staff maybe. Admittedly assuming that the number of truly elite draftees (in terms of potential) is very small you will randomly at the outset have given the opportunity to only a small number of leagues to get them, but it is completely random now and at least they will have potentially had to prioritise the draft through scouting dollars/scouting selections to find them. It’s just dumb luck for those online in the small hours of the morning currently. The fact that you wouldn’t be able to scout every draftee perfectly means you wouldn’t necessarily know which leagues got lucky(ier) in advance so I don’t think it would irritate players as much as getting a bad 1st round draft board does now. I’m also assuming that draft prospects are such that there are enough decent to good prospects for every team to get 1 or 2 a season – if that’s only currently the case because bots don’t draft then the pool may need to be better than it currently is for this suggestion to work. Does anyone else have ideas for improving the draft process?

#93532	01/26/2024 3:32:34 pm	Mar 15th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	Lots of us have expressed similar ideas in the past, but there has always been a lot of disagreement. I'd love to have more control, but there is concern about driving away more casual players with a serious draft. If we did break it up into leagues, I would probably recommend doing more of a fantasy league draft board style. You would have to setup your prioritized list each week, and then on draft day it runs through and picked the top guy available. Wouldn't be too bad if its just league based because at most you would need to have 12 guys on you list. Although I would still let people go ahead and slot all 96 possible picks right from the start if they wanted to just set it and forget it. I'd probably go with some sort of rotating randomized order though. If its done by league, no real need to give lower ranked (teams who tanked the Cup) teams an advantage. One major complaint that this sort of idea usually gets is the lack of sleepers (e.g. rounds 4+ become useless). You can address that a little with new players released each week, but that becomes a hassle for some players. Updated Friday, January 26 2024 @ 3:35:44 pm PST

#93537	01/26/2024 4:07:04 pm	Mar 15th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	Yeah figured it must have come up at some point, but figured would be interesting to hear views and thoughts. The fantasy draft style was what I had in mind. I was thinking reverse order by league wins rather than rating - give a bit of a potential draft bonus to teams who have had a tough season being the principle. I think if there is a default Scout random option and a default draft order on basis of SI or POT perhaps combined with position then it shouldn't hurt casual players too much. I see the point about sleepers. The lack of perfect scouting would help, but the chances of all scouts being imperfect the same way on a player or not scouting a player would be slim. What about if there were a small proportion of draft prospects that would always receive a lower scouting outcome than was the reality no matter who the scout was. That way there would still be the potential for a few sleepers to be available in the later rounds?

#93538	01/26/2024 4:33:58 pm	Mar 15th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	Sleepers - maybe. I really like the imperfect scouting (I suggested it in the past). But there was a lot of backlash, that people would cheat by sharing scouting information with their friends. Or even worse, it would be a benefit for people who sign up for 10+ teams just to get extra scouting info. Updated Friday, January 26 2024 @ 4:35:12 pm PST

#93539	01/26/2024 4:52:40 pm	Mar 16th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	If you split the draft prospect by leagues you'd have to have multiple teams in the same league to cheat. Surely that would be easy to prevent. Probably can't stop sharing, but they'd literally be sharing with their direct rivals - surely that would put people off. You could de-identify the prospects - Draft Prospect number 1 for me could be a different number for other managers - appreciate the complexity is ramping up here, but if it was found to be an issue you could go to that stage to resolve it if need be

#93543	01/27/2024 12:46:06 am	Mar 16th, 2063
Divac Joined: 06/14/2020 Posts: 137 Florence Violets IV.8	So you want to remove pools? How I would be able to draft internal players after that?

#93545	01/27/2024 3:05:40 am	Mar 16th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	The pools would be smaller as each league would have their own of each, but if you were looking for internal players you would make sure that you've scouted all of them (no reason why you couldn't scout by pool) and then select 12 of them in order of preference as your draft list for round 1. If you're the only one has selected them you'll get your top pick. If others have selected them as well it will be down to where you are in the draft order as to which one you'll get.

#93546	01/27/2024 3:31:50 am	Mar 16th, 2063
Divac Joined: 06/14/2020 Posts: 137 Florence Violets IV.8	But international pool is small as it is. So it would mean one of the two: A) many more international players that pool would suck even more I don't like it at all. I don't see why spread the players to some league drafts should make it better. Now I have a option from 7 dudes, in the league draft I could scout all and get nothing. Not a fan.

#93547	01/27/2024 5:00:27 am	Mar 16th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	I think you'd probably still have the same outcomes over the long-term, but it would likely be more consistent - a couple of keepers each season rather than 0-4 as you've kept recently. I'm guessing on the numbers though as no idea how many worthwhile internationals there are each draft If I could think of a way to have a draft with the same prospects across the 756 teams without it just being based on dumb luck then I would suggest it, but I can't - can you? I just think recruiting success should be based on more than who hits f5 at the right time and gets a good random number generator result, that's all.

#93549	01/27/2024 6:47:19 am	Mar 16th, 2063
Jerbeetwo Joined: 06/30/2019 Posts: 337 Tyler Goldendoodles IV.3	Not a fan of this at all. Why would we want to turn the draft into more work? I appreciate the draft as it is even though my luck generally isn’t as good as most others it seems like.

#93553	01/27/2024 11:55:13 am	Mar 16th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	Work is a bit harsh isn't it - I like to think of it as fun!! but yes, while you could set defaults to make it as easy as possible there would be a few additional decisions to make over a season.

#93554	01/27/2024 12:07:08 pm	Mar 16th, 2063
Jerbeetwo Joined: 06/30/2019 Posts: 337 Tyler Goldendoodles IV.3	Scouting every player in the draft sounds about as much fun as scouting every player on waivers. I do it on an almost nightly basis to improve my team but it is far from fun. I like the draft as it is.

#93557	01/27/2024 2:01:48 pm	Mar 16th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	Well you currently scout 80 players over 8 weeks in the season via the current draft I reckon I'm suggesting that you'd end up scouting 132 players over the 11 week season - 12 draftees a week. I'm obviously making numbers up, but that's on the very broad assumption that (from memory) about half of the prospects are drafted currently. Appreciate that ratio may be lower than intended because of bots (who I am proposing would draft in the alternative approach) So in a 12 Team 8-round draft you'd have 96 players being drafted. So lets say a total pool of prospects for each league of 200. The idea is that you wouldn't necessarily be able to scout them all - you'd either prioritise on position, age, pool or whatever - default would be random (non-repeating) for Bots and those who don't want to think about it. But over the 11 weeks in a season your scout gives you their view on 12 draftees a week - about two thirds of the total pool. You'd imagine that the draft is designed to provide around 4 worthwhile players a season for each team - that works out with a 50-man squad over 12.5 year careers which feels about right. There's grey areas at the boundaries as to what is useable or not so maybe you're looking at 60-70 decent prospects in the pool of 200 You're scouting double that amount so it feels like the maths would work. Looking at 12 players a week doesn't seem too much work (fun) to me - and not much more effort than currently.

#93560	01/27/2024 7:05:57 pm	Mar 18th, 2063
lmartins6746 Joined: 06/01/2021 Posts: 71 Asheville Aces IV.6	I'm not sure I completely understand your suggestion, but it sounds like you are scouting a league specific draft pool the year before they are draft able. If I have that right then isn't there a big gap here in that the leagues change every year? This also seems to be a problem if using previous years standings to set the order. where do the newly promoted and demoted teams fit it?

#93561	01/27/2024 7:34:38 pm	Mar 18th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	There's some bells and whistles, but yes pretty much league specific draft pools. The draft prospects get created a season before the draft (as they do currently) and you scout them through the season before they're available to draft. The draft takes place using the teams that were in the league the season before - as in Teams stay with the same draft pool that they scouted - regardless if they got demoted or promoted. Teams that got promoted pick last and the ones that got demoted pick first based on game record. It's how they do it in Buzzerbeater Manager - the only slight annoyance it causes there is that if you want to see the whole draft you were involved in you have to remember what league you were in (or work back through your team history) to look at it.

#93569	01/28/2024 2:16:18 pm	Mar 18th, 2063
lostraven Joined: 07/02/2016 Posts: 1291 Corvallis Ravens II.1	breathes This long-time owner will only say this: I'd like to see Round 1 be limited to POT X players and higher (where X is something like 10 or 11 POT), to make Round 1 feel more impactful. Yes, it would mean fewer strong gets in the subsequent rounds, I imagine. But really, us seeing POT 8 and 9 players in Round 1, given the way the draft is set up currently, just feels absurd. For many real-life years, new draft proposals have been made. Maybe one day something will hit that appeals to Steve and his development time/interest. But at this point, I think huge sweeping changes aren't going to happen, and small tweaks will be the best we likely get. So I continue to advocate for small tweaks. Updated Sunday, January 28 2024 @ 2:18:50 pm PST

#93576	01/29/2024 8:09:34 am	Mar 20th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	I agree, that would help a lot. It could also naturally force some underrated sleepers into later rounds which would be nice thematically. I'd say: 1st round - Minimum 12 POT 2nd round - Minimum 11 POT 3rd round - Minimum 10 POT Assuming the numbers work out ok. Its possible that there are not enough players for this. But even if its just a guarantee for 5 out of the 10 guys it would be an improvement.

#93577	01/29/2024 8:19:29 am	Mar 20th, 2063
Gherm Joined: 05/31/2023 Posts: 7 Inactive	I think 12 potential first round is too much. I mean, I drafted a 12 and I’m happy with it. I think for the first 2 rounds there should be minimum 10 POT, because we can’t have very player in the first round being a generational talent. If we did that there would be not a single sleeper.

#93578	01/29/2024 9:55:06 am	Mar 20th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	POT 12 might be too high, but POT 10 is definitely too low. I'm likely to skip the 1st round if its only POT 11 and lower. POT 12 isn't going to guarantee a generational talent. What it will guarantee is that you actually have a strategic decision. 95% of all draft picks right now are basically just "take the one guy on the board who is 2 POT levels above everyone else". Plus its not like you are going to draft all 10 guys. You only get to keep one. 1st round really should be one of your keepers 75% of the time anyhow. End of the day, I would LOVE to have some strategic decisions in the draft. I get totally psyched in the rare cases where I actually get two good POT 12 prospects on the same board. It rarely happens right now because of how the players come out. Even just guaranteeing that a percentage of the players are draftable in round 1 would be a huge benefit to gameplay. Updated Monday, January 29 2024 @ 9:57:07 am PST

#93582	01/29/2024 2:34:22 pm	Mar 20th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	I imagine the issue is that there is a peak of activity when people are able to draft and players are locked out by others drafting. There are potentially not enough higher POT players to cope with that peak - especially of you keep the pools. There might not be 10 POT 12 SSs in the whole draft for all we know. You could remove the lock but then I think the crazy 2am stampede would be all the more crucial which doesn't seem fair - you'd also have to allow re-rolls as your whole board could be picked by others while you're trying to make your selection.

#93584	01/29/2024 4:37:57 pm	Mar 23rd, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	There are definitely way more than 10 POT 12 (or higher) SSs But this is why I suggested it could just be a certain number, like 5 out of 10 guaranteed above a certain POT level. The lock has always been an issue. It doesn't work properly, so people lose players all the time who have been on their board for like 30 seconds. Actually the best way to avoid the lock is to not draft first thing. Given the lock already doesn't work, I'm not sure it really makes anything worse. Which is worse, losing the only POT 12 on your board in the first round because he was on someone else's board, or losing two out of five POT 12s on your board. At least with a POT limit you would have other options. You may not lose the POT 9 on your board in the 1st round, but that doesn't really matter. The guys who matter are still at risk regardless. This is also why I previously recommend reserving 1 high POT player for each team. Then it doesn't matter as much when you draft, because at least one decent prospect will be on your board. Updated Monday, January 29 2024 @ 4:44:26 pm PST

#93592	01/30/2024 10:33:08 am	Mar 25th, 2063
PrivateSnowflake Joined: 01/06/2015 Posts: 1226 Bloomington Thunder II.2	+1 million on Raven and Rocks suggestions. Make a first-rounder first round worthy.

#93594	01/30/2024 1:10:37 pm	Mar 25th, 2063
Jason2327 Joined: 09/02/2014 Posts: 742 Abilene Patriots IV.4	Agree 1st rd picks need to be better

#93602	01/31/2024 1:26:14 am	Mar 30th, 2063
Favuz Joined: 02/26/2014 Posts: 662 Oxnard Sunsets IV.3	Personally, the draft like it's now doesn't need a complete overhaul, it's fairly good but some (IMHO) flaws that could be fixed. 1- Draft is too focused on first rounds. Usually the best players are gone in 1st and 2nd round, in 3rd you can find a keeper with a bit of luck, then it's almost impossible. Round 6-7-8 are completely useless, last year i found a keeper on round 5 and it felt like taking a pot 17 on first round. 2- I agree with rock statement that a somehow a team should have the possibility to draaft a 14+ pot player per season. I know that not all high pot guys are equal, but it's IMHO an improvement.

#93616	02/01/2024 4:28:38 pm	Apr 5th, 2063
lostraven Joined: 07/02/2016 Posts: 1291 Corvallis Ravens II.1	But this is why I suggested it could just be a certain number, like 5 out of 10 guaranteed above a certain POT level. Frankly, a thought I never had. My suggested <10 or 11 POT for all ten players in Round 1 could easily be <11 or 12 POT for five of ten players in Round 1. Would be a heck of a compromise if there were significant resistance to all ten being affected. Noice! Steve? Updated Thursday, February 1 2024 @ 4:29:50 pm PST

#93619	02/01/2024 5:35:32 pm	Apr 7th, 2063
Jerbeetwo Joined: 06/30/2019 Posts: 337 Tyler Goldendoodles IV.3	I wonder if there are enough outstanding players that 756 teams can draft a 14 POT player in the first round and for that to be possible the early drafting teams will tie up a bunch of those players on their list for the first half of an hour and people who are 20 minutes late to draft won't have any good ones to look at?

#93622	02/01/2024 8:41:18 pm	Apr 7th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	To me, POT 13 is a high POT. So my old suggestion was just to divide up the highest POT players to put one on everyone's board. That might include POT 13s, but I would be thrilled with guaranteed POT 13 in the first round. Too often I have nothing higher than POT 11. I like the idea of 5 POT 11 or higher guys though too. Maybe a mix of the two? One high POT (13 or higher), plus 4 average POT (11 or higher). Think of it like the 10 million gatcha games that are out there. They always have a "buy 10 get one guaranteed rare" thing. That would distribute talent significantly more than we get right now. If you want sleepers, its just a matter of holding some good players back and releasing them into the pool over time (like how managers work). Alternatively, more POT 10s who are really POT 13s. I still see some later round guys who are pretty good, especially with POT fuzziness. Updated Thursday, February 1 2024 @ 8:42:45 pm PST

#93623	02/01/2024 9:26:06 pm	Apr 7th, 2063
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 5024 Administrator	I can look at the minimum potential idea. The 1st round has more impact/better players just because it's less picked over. Also, there is pretty marginal advantage to draft a few hours earlier. Finally, not all prospects are generated at the beginning of the year. Some are generated previous seasons and weren't drafted and so you see them having multiple years of statistics. What is the advantage of having a league pool -- just that there would be fewer players to scout? Steve

#93624	02/02/2024 1:39:10 am	Apr 7th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	For me there are two issues with the draft. It's first come first served (or feels as if it is) - I appreciate you say logging on late or logging on in peak times when players are locked out is only a marginal disadvantage but I can't really understand how that can be the case without understanding how it works i guess. And (other than hammering f5 so I get in first) there are zero ways in which I can make decisions that influence it. I just think you can make it an active feature of the game that takes judgement if you released the draftee info earlier and had a draft order. The only way I can think of achieving both of those aims would be using separate league-based draft pools. Judging from most of the responses on here mind you I appear to be in a minority and I think most just want a means to ensure that they're not unlucky - that there's always at least one decent option as it were. All of us though are potentially completely wrong about what unlucky really is in the draft because we have no idea of the mix of talent in the draft as a whole. [Edit: starting going through 2062 draft and so far am feeling unlucky lol - Legends = 9 of 12 with a POT 13 or better in 1st round - some big numbers in 2063 too - colour me jealous!] Updated Friday, February 2 2024 @ 2:30:44 am PST

#93635	02/02/2024 1:18:35 pm	Apr 7th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	My best POT 11 first rounder just popped to 13! Unfortunately he is the rare case. Updated Friday, February 2 2024 @ 1:19:18 pm PST

#93636	02/02/2024 4:32:29 pm	Apr 8th, 2063
lostraven Joined: 07/02/2016 Posts: 1291 Corvallis Ravens II.1	I don't want to make too many assumptions, but it does look like A.O. is new here: All of us though are potentially completely wrong about what unlucky really is in the draft because we have no idea of the mix of talent in the draft as a whole. I don't know that I'd ask for you to speak for all of us. Many of us old-timers have a real good idea what unlucky really looks like in the draft, after many real-life years of drafting. I think some of us are suggesting that if even five out of the 10 have a minimum base displayed POT of 11 or 12 (won't argue too much on this value), it can only heighten the chance of Round 1 being more impactful. Myself, I saw at least five or six 8–10 POT players in my R1 board Friday before. I solidly remember getting some R1 boards in the past that had POT 10 as the highest options, and that was sickening. @Steve: If there's a caveat here to the "five out of ten" plan, it's with the Asian and International pools in R1. Out of all the pools, I can see these actually not working due to how skinny they are. It may be as few as one out of ten players with a 11 or 12 POT. Or the scheme may not work at all! You have a better idea what the percentages look like in those pools, but I think many of us know those two pools in particular can be thin on high-POT talent, even in R1. They might have to be exempt? Updated Friday, February 2 2024 @ 4:33:38 pm PST

#93639	02/02/2024 5:56:30 pm	Apr 10th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	It's my second time around, but no I wouldn't call myself an expert or an old-hand at BB But I also think it's a bit of a stretch to class a sentence that starts with 'who knows' as purporting to speak for others, but there you go, nothing divides people more than a common language. Speaking only for myself however, I have to admit having played what must be 50 or more of these online sports management sims I tend to think that us enthusiasts in the genre, as a cohort, can be prone to believe we are unlucky in comparison to others - maybe that's just what it is to be human though lol Going through the 2062 draft though I'm now believing that I really am unluckier than everyone else!! [joke] I'm through more than 10% of the leagues now and the scores on the doors so far are: 80% drafted a 13+ POT in the 1st round 75% drafted multiple 13+ POT's across the 8 rounds (a lot didn't draft more than 4 rounds but counted everyone) 3.5% didn't draft a 13+ POT across the 2062 draft I had imagined I'd be saying that only having max POT 12s was more common than forum posters believed, but so far it appears I was wrong. My guess on the drawback of reducing the chance of being unlucky is that it will increase the importance of drafting as soon as the curtain is raised. I genuinely can't recall coming across another game that draws from a finite pool of players on a first come first served basis

#93642	02/02/2024 8:40:42 pm	Apr 10th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	Sorry if formatting goes crazy but have gone through Divs 1-4 in the 2062 draft - so a third of teams but would not surprise me if it was half the draft. Pot:-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9--8-7-Total RD1---5-28-53-51-23--6--0-0--0-0--166 RD2---1-10-26-61-44-15--6-1--0-0--164 RD3---1--6-21-44-47-27--8-2--1-0--157 RD4---1--3-11-26-49-40--9-3--1-0--143 RD5---0--0--3-11-38-59--8-2--1-0--122 RD6---0--0--2--7-32-42-18-6--4-2--113 RD7---0--0--0--1-11-39-27-9--6-1---94 RD8---0--0--0--4-12-39-28-8-10-1--102 No Draft 3 Total Teams 180 The things that jumped out to me was that 50% of picks in round 1 were 14+ and that you are still close to a 50% chance of picking a 13+ in round 3. Updated Friday, February 2 2024 @ 8:41:54 pm PST Updated Friday, February 2 2024 @ 8:43:33 pm PST Updated Friday, February 2 2024 @ 8:46:36 pm PST

#93643	02/02/2024 9:21:24 pm	Apr 10th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	I've had a few season where I didn't get anything higher than POT 12 all season. Also a few season, where I only landed one keeper the entire season. I don't draft and release; when you see one draft pick for Haverhill, its because we looked and chose not to take any of the garbage on the board. I always look every round. POT-wise we have been lucky the last few seasons, but in generally I would say its pretty rare to get more than 2 guys higher than POT 13. But yes, I would say your draft luck as been bad. That is why many of us make suggestion to try and even the distribution of talent a little bit. Its a killer when your high POT player in round 1 is an 11 (or even lower). In terms of the pools, what I had suggested before with a single high POT suggestion was to ignore the pools for that one player. You could do something similar with the 5/10 option. Attempt to get guys from the correct pools, but then just add in additional guys to fill out the 5 if there aren't enough. I'd certainly rather have the higher quality options than be locked into bad players from any given pool. Likelihood with 5 is that you would be able to get a couple guys from the pool anyways. And you always have the other 5 randos from the pool if you are really committed to a novelty team. It is worth noting that POT isn't everything. But its an easy lever to use. For instance, last year Haverhill got "very lucky" and drafted a POT 15, 14, and 13. But all three have "good potential", so likely a couple of those guys will drop in POT. Even if they don't drop, its likely that two of those guys won't make the team. The POT 15 will probably drop to POT 14, but he's still likely to be my future SS. I actually have higher expectations for the POT 11 I just drafted 2nd round this year, than for the POT 14 I drafted 2nd round last year. Updated Friday, February 2 2024 @ 9:29:42 pm PST

#93645	02/03/2024 10:25:15 am	Apr 10th, 2063
electriceel883 Joined: 05/26/2021 Posts: 1528 Irvine Infernos III.3	I wouldnt look at the raw POT of draftees, in many instances it depends on the age of the prospect. HS and 16-17 Latin prospects will have 15-16 POT. Because they have potentially 2 POT adjustments to look forward to. Many Asian Leaguers will will lofty POT but it can be very misleading as only the youngest may have a possible adjustment coming and many of the older ones wont really have the playing time to get there even if they otherwise would (a season or two in the minors gaining little to no SI - because they arent really ready to play). Then they still arent ready to play and get cut because they are 27-28. I just think looking at the higher POT is largely futile. If 16 range is 128 SI, there are just 11 players in all of Broken Bat (28 or younger) that have reached that Range. There are less than 100 players that have reached the 15 range (not including those 16's). So your 16 is really a 15 or even a 14. It is extremely difficult for most players to get past the 1-teens simply because most players cap out somewhere first. I have been more excited by the really strong 12 POT that I know will become a 13 than many of the empty profile 14's I see. That said I support a floor of some type. If there could be some pool segregation prior to rounds that would be great.

#93650	02/03/2024 5:46:04 pm	Apr 14th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	POT is the only thing you can use to look at to compare overall. Even if you could go through every player it becomes subjective. While I get that POT isn't necessarily everything, or even the most important thing, the tale of teams picks doesn't lie - higher POTs are favoured - and that's probably due to there being a strong correlation to them being (or looking like being at least) the best players on peoples Boards.

#93651	02/03/2024 6:36:32 pm	Apr 14th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	Certainly the higher POTs will be better on average. But some teams value it too much. And then they pick up a POT 15 SS with 5 a Hitting cap, who ends up in FA after a few years. Also, worth considering that most POT 15 are actually overrated, and drop in POT after a few seasons. To me a good POT 12 is a starter (even POT 11s can be solid at DH & RP), POT 13s are good players. POT 14s+ are either unicorns, overrated, or defensive genius's who can't hit. That is why I would love to have some guarantee that we get a few POT 12s or higher to choose from in round 1. That means we have real choice, and the draft becomes a bit more skill based instead of entirely luck based.

#93652	02/03/2024 6:46:33 pm	Apr 14th, 2063
electriceel883 Joined: 05/26/2021 Posts: 1528 Irvine Infernos III.3	Just because people DO draft the higher POT doesnt mean they should, or that they are good. Right now there are thirteen 14 POT's available on waivers or FA. All were drafted in the first 3 rounds but 1. (Agosto). Some may have been available earlier and passed on. Its the same story if you are a regular on waivers - throughout the season - fielding guys who have 90-100 SI with hitting tools about 8 or so. Some people dream a little too much on draft day, others may not be aware of the graphs tracking the progess of hitting or some other reason. Look at the guys with 105 SI or so on waivers (not 34-35)/FA and ask yourself, how bad did they need to fail to get cut? Then ask yourself why they have 20 claims. Evaluation is a big part of this game and many people dont. They see a number and feel like its their lucky day. Same for the draft.

#93653	02/03/2024 6:50:31 pm	Apr 14th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	Haverhill went 20 years before drafting a POT 15. After the change in the draft (with fuzzy POT), there are a lot more pseudo POT 15s, so they are more common. In the last 20 seasons Haverhill has drafted 7 POT 15s & 1 POT 16 (as late as the 5th round). Of those 5 (probably 6) were overrated. With the exception of two pitchers (who were overrated), they are all defensive genius's who can't hit. Palmer is the best of the bunch with a career .228 AVG, .975 FP, and a noodle arm for SS. I'm relatively happy with him, but he isn't really a game changer. Conversely, I picked up 12 POT Shi Woo Kim as an uncontested claim. As a 12 POT he was way more impactful than any 15 POT I've ever had on the team. electriceel is on the money about evaluation. Your low POT numbers are probably a little bit of a combination of poor luck and good evaluation. Have you even passed up a hopelessly bad POT 14 in favor of a good POT 12? Because many people would never do that. Your last draft pick looked like a smart evaluation to me. Imagine you have these two players (at age 20) on your 1st round board. Which one would you take? Edgar Cisneros (14 POT SS) Cary Yan (12 POT LF) If you chose Edgar, then congratulations on your new SS! He is waiting for you in FA. I would estimate that at least 90% of people playing this game would have taken the POT 14 (not me). Updated Saturday, February 3 2024 @ 7:25:19 pm PST

#93654	02/03/2024 8:20:14 pm	Apr 14th, 2063
Annie Oakley Joined: 10/14/2023 Posts: 60 Independence Cavaliers III.2	I am not disagreeing with what either of you are saying - I'm just saying POT is the best way you can analyse it with the data that is available. I do think you're a little harsh on your fellow managers - the rates are based on Divs 1-4 so not many newbies and are consistent throughout the 4 divisions. I'd like to think the Legend managers didn't get to the top by just blindly selecting the top POTs and getting lucky All it was meant to help illustrate is the expectations you should have about each round of the draft in terms of POT, which regardless of whether it is determined rationally or irrationally appears to be important to managers judging from their picks. That's not surprising when you look at the top rosters there is also a heavy reliance on players that have a higher POT than 12 - 22 13+ to 6 12s in the majors roster of the champion team for example The 13+ POT you get on your 1st round board could be a dud, but the data shows that you should at least expect to see one, and should feel reasonably unlucky not to be able to consider a POT 14+

#93661	02/04/2024 9:12:05 am	Apr 14th, 2063
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9778 Haverhill Halflings Legends	Yes I think we are all on the same page. A more even POT distribution in round 1 is a step that helps even out talent distribution and makes the draft less luck based. My best POT 11 first rounder just popped to 13! Unfortunately he is the rare case. An addendum to the above, Christian is my best POT 11 draftee, but Lance Hill is an even more impressive first round POT 12 draftee. I just wasn't the one who drafted him. There were only 6 claims on Hill though; which confounds me almost as much as being the solo claimant on Kim. Similar to Christian popping an extra point into POT 13 territory this season, Hill popped an extra point into POT 14 territory last season. My team would probably be LL-V if I had to rely on draft luck for players, LOL. Updated Sunday, February 4 2024 @ 12:54:50 pm PST