 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Draft Just Ran, But I'm Rerunning it
tysonlowery
Draft Just Ran, But I'm Rerunning it
August 28, 2002 at 03:52PM View BBCode
The draft was still too weak. I'm deleting it and giving it another try.
tysonlowery
August 28, 2002 at 04:02PM View BBCode
Okay, what do you think, still too weak? Or just right? Gotta love that Number 1 pick though.
FiveToolPlayer
August 28, 2002 at 04:04PM View BBCode
WOW!!! That pitcher is a stud and he's 17!!!! Glad I have him.
FiveToolPlayer
August 28, 2002 at 04:07PM View BBCode
Actually, why is everyone so old? I would think that in the 50s, probably 75% of draftees would be high school kids. Maybe more. In this draft, only 2 of the 16 first rounders are under 20.
hcboomer
August 28, 2002 at 04:15PM View BBCode
I think it's still too weak. If we still had the 15-player minors, I'd probably toss all but the first pick -- and even that guy doesn't have much of a future.
DougPaz
August 28, 2002 at 04:37PM View BBCode
I got a big nothing in the draft and I'm the 6th team to pick. (1st round = C+ 21 yr old 2B) There is nothing available in the waiver wire. I had two guys retire and a couple more that should have and I still have no way of improving. :P
dawgfan
August 28, 2002 at 05:10PM View BBCode
Still too weak IMO, unless changes are made to the player improvement algorithms to speed up development. I also think we need to really re-evaluate young pitchers - given the steady progression of ability within this game, a 17 year-old kid that's already a B- or higher as a pitcher is going to be a Hall-of-Famer by 25. I think surefire stud young pitchers should be very rare.
hcboomer
What would worry me about the paid leagues is that someone with a poor team seeing an amateur draft providing no useful new talent will not stick around for the long haul, feeling there's little chance to lift that team up. There actually is a chance, but it takes a lot of maneuvering -- and plenty of players may not want to put that kind of work into it.
August 28, 2002 at 05:28PM View BBCode
That's a key point in all this -- without changes in how players develop, in terms of speed or perhaps random spikes for certain players, you can pretty much look at this draft, like the one before the '53 season, look at the ratings and ages, and immediately toss out all but your first pick. 20-year-old C- guys have no chance to be anything worthwhile. Seems like the first two or three rounds should be stocked with players who are at least developable -- long-term maybe, but with a chance to be somewhat useful several seasons down the road. And I think the first third to first half of the first round should have players with at least some immediate value.What would worry me about the paid leagues is that someone with a poor team seeing an amateur draft providing no useful new talent will not stick around for the long haul, feeling there's little chance to lift that team up. There actually is a chance, but it takes a lot of maneuvering -- and plenty of players may not want to put that kind of work into it.
Bob
To look at it another way, I would suggest the draft should have:
4 "B" players
8 "B-" players
28 "C+" players
34 "C" players
and the rest "C-" or lower
This would mean the team with the worst record would end up with players rated B, C+, C+, C and C. The team picking 9th wouild get B-, C+, C, C and C players. The team picking last would get C+, C+, C, C and C- players.
This strikes me as about the right balance, and this draft (and the last one) seem to fall a bit short.
August 28, 2002 at 05:35PM View BBCode
I agree that it seems a little weak -- particularly in the first round. I would guess the first 4 picks should be "B" level, the next 8 "B-" level and the final four picks of the 1st round should be "C+" level. For the 2nd round, I would aim for all "C+" players. For round 3, I'd target 8 "C+" players and 8 "C" players. Round 4 would be all C players. The first 10 picks of round 5 would be "C" players and the last 6 picks would be "C-" players.To look at it another way, I would suggest the draft should have:
4 "B" players
8 "B-" players
28 "C+" players
34 "C" players
and the rest "C-" or lower
This would mean the team with the worst record would end up with players rated B, C+, C+, C and C. The team picking 9th wouild get B-, C+, C, C and C players. The team picking last would get C+, C+, C, C and C- players.
This strikes me as about the right balance, and this draft (and the last one) seem to fall a bit short.
Anonymous
August 28, 2002 at 05:37PM View BBCode
Maybe some random improvements after year one would be helpful. Maybe a few younger guys jump from a C or C+ to a B (attribute it to extra training in the offseason or steroids in the offseason or whatever). There are always a few guys like this in the majors (Shea Hillenbrand is a prime example).
DougPaz
1st = C+
2nd = C
3rd = C
4th = D+
5th = D+
None of these players will help me for a minimum of 4 to 5 years in the minors. Even then, they will just be average players. So now I have an aging team with no prospects of getting better without raping and pillaging someone with a trade that somehow is devised.
August 28, 2002 at 05:55PM View BBCode
CHoosing 6th I got:1st = C+
2nd = C
3rd = C
4th = D+
5th = D+
None of these players will help me for a minimum of 4 to 5 years in the minors. Even then, they will just be average players. So now I have an aging team with no prospects of getting better without raping and pillaging someone with a trade that somehow is devised.
hcboomer
The draft before the '51 season was much too rich in talent -- in that case most every team was getting 4-5 roster-worthy guys. Fifth-rounders in that draft would be among the top 5 picks in the most recent drafts. The optimum talent level is somewhere in between. Bob's breakdown above seems about right.
August 28, 2002 at 06:13PM View BBCode
An offshoot problem from this is that there is less and less young talent for rebuilding teams to trade FOR from other teams. If every team has a couple of good young prospects, some can be had for a bad team trading away veterans. But the last two amateur drafts have brought precious little new talent into the league. So everyone's getting older, there are few new young prospects coming into the league, and the poor teams will have that much more difficulty climbing to respectability unless they're already very young.The draft before the '51 season was much too rich in talent -- in that case most every team was getting 4-5 roster-worthy guys. Fifth-rounders in that draft would be among the top 5 picks in the most recent drafts. The optimum talent level is somewhere in between. Bob's breakdown above seems about right.
geoffrey13
coaching points
August 28, 2002 at 06:32PM View BBCode
with the extra 5 players added and the low quality available in the draft we really should have more coaching points available. I think 30 is a good number...that way maybe some of these kids will get better. As it is with 3 or more kids taking 5 points each there's no way of improving.:(
FiveToolPlayer
August 28, 2002 at 07:59PM View BBCode
If it was 30 coaching points, it would still be hard to improve unless somebody improves almost every game. If one person improves every few games, it would take a long time to improve your squad.
tysonlowery
August 28, 2002 at 09:16PM View BBCode
That's a good idea. Let me tweak it up a bit and try again. Give me 20 minutes or so.
tysonlowery
August 28, 2002 at 09:26PM View BBCode
I just ran it, but I'm trying it again. I just found something that looks a bit funny in the code that might be causing the unpredictable behavior.
tysonlowery
I'm not going to start the next season until we get the draft right, so don't do any trades with the draft picks because the draft might be rerun again.
August 28, 2002 at 09:42PM View BBCode
Okay, I ran the draft about 8 more times. I'm fairly happy with the way it turned out this time. Comments?I'm not going to start the next season until we get the draft right, so don't do any trades with the draft picks because the draft might be rerun again.
dawgfan
August 28, 2002 at 10:00PM View BBCode
This one seems better - more fair distribution, more guys that hold some potential for help in coming seasons. I'd be fine keeping this one.
FiveToolPlayer
August 28, 2002 at 10:33PM View BBCode
Looks like a bunch of these guys could start today but I can live with it. Granted, none are stars but they all seem pretty decent.
geoffrey13
better....but
August 28, 2002 at 11:51PM View BBCode
Still would like more coaching points!
andrew
August 29, 2002 at 12:53AM View BBCode
I argee with getting more coaching points. It would make the minors usefull. Right now I only try to keep a few young guys in the minors. The rest of the guys I want to develope have to be inserted into the lineup.Pages: 1 2