Ted Schmidt Thinks the Sky Is Falling and is Ridiculous

[Ted]

Or is he?

Listen, I know you guys get tired of me running my mouth all the time. Frankly, I could stand to not be so opinionated. Or at least so loudly opinionated. Recently, I've been talking about a lot about scouting and the talent pool and the draft. I think both what I'm trying to say and my motives for saying it have been unclear. Largely, it's my fault for poor communication, but also, having those thoughts cut up into pieces across multiple topics and posts is another hurdle.

Here, I will attempt to be as concise as I can, but this is a complex issue. It cannot be summed up in "I like deep drafts and variance" versus "I like shallow drafts with guaranteed good things." That's not even really the important issue.

The lifeblood of any league is its talent pool. That talent pool is affected by the changes to the current players, and by the incoming new players. In our case, that's largely the draft, supplement by IFA and scout finds. Huge swings in that incoming pool can be potentially very damaging, and at the very least, will really mess with parity as now what year you drafted is more important that who you drafted and what your pick was.

The current draft is not representative of the big league talent pool. It is so over talented that it is as deep as the previous three drafts combined. Many people have said, "That's okay, lots of these guys will lump. I prefer it this way."

This isn't a matter or preference. It's a matter of function. For this talent pool to "blend" into our current one, some 90+ percent of the players in the first five rounds have to lump significantly. Most to the point where they either do not make it to the majors, or are marginal role players. This is rough math, but I did actually did do some, and that 90% number is probably within 10% of being right. In real life, the actual number of players in taken in the first five or so rounds who make it to the majors is around 42%.

So, one of two things will happen. In one scenario, lots of these guys will make it in some fashion. Totally developed, partially lumped, lumped so much they are barely big leaguers, etc. If that happens, our league will look dramatically more talented in five years than it does now. You just can't have 42% of the top five round guys in this draft get to the bigs and not have that happen. They are too good. Compounding this problem is that at least in our league, far more players lump "completely" or "minimally" than some sort of graceful decline. That is, the 10/10/10 guys show up as 10/10/10, 9/10/9, or 4/7/2. rarely does they become say 7/6/7. This is why I'm skeptical of the idea that these guys will "blend" in well. So we'll either end up over talented ...

Or, 90% of them will in fact lump if the game engine compensates to match them to our talent pool. At this point, the draft is essentially random. Early picks in each round are no better than late picks. The draft does nothing to help worse teams get better.

So, two scenarios. In scenario one (not enough of these uber talented players flame out) the average player gets better and better and better until everyone is near max ratings. At this point, everyone is super talented AND average, and the league is dead, because it is broken.

Second scenario (an appropriate number do lump), the draft is of little more value to bad teams than good ones. Parity is dead. The league is dead.

This IS a big deal. I'm legitimately worried.

[Ted]

As a follow up, I believe scenario one is more what will likely happen. Lots of these guys will lump, but not enough. The reason for this, is that it has already happened. The drafts in the 20's were complained about as being too weak. In the mid to late 20's we started having "better" drafts. The current player pool is considerably more talented than the one from the 20's.

Ricardo Diaz, who will be a first ballot hall of famer, was probably at best 11/6/7 with relative ratings. Those are the peak ratings of the all time strikeout leader (non steve nebraska division) and has 88 career WAR, and was one of the best 2-3 pitchers of his generation. Billy Chapel Jr. would have been something like 10/8/7 and Pep Gomez would have been say 8/8/8. Those are the three best pitchers of the 20's. All first ballot hall of famers.

None of those are special now. Good? Yes. Aces? Yes. HOF? Maybe if they hold up for 10+ seasons. But the absolute best of the best? No.

Bats are similar. Maybe even more pronounced. There are currently are nine players with contact and power ratings of 9 or higher. In the 20's, there were less than half that.

GM's here who run other leagues have mentioned a "ratings creep" that OOTP seems to have where often the league ratings do go up over time. The end result there is eventual league death once the ratings max. Drafts like this current one probably just accelerate that.

[RonCo]

This is something we can actually do some testing on.

[Ted]

This is something we can actually do some testing on.

Not a bad idea. I'm not nuts though, right? Like if I'm wrong in looking at is this way, I'd love to hear it. I jsut don't see how else this works out.

How do you set up testing?

You have to have at least 20 or so teams. Then you'd have to make a pretty typical good team vs bad team split at the start. Can you control the draft quality effectively enough to simulate a draft like this versus a draft that fits the current league profile better?

[RonCo]

You break it into small questions, then control for everything you can to study only those small questions. I'm low on time right now, but I'll design an experiment this morning and post it. Warning: These can get pretty intense.

[RonCo]

In the mean time, anyone here who wants to can help by asking very tightly constrained questions that I (or Ted, or whoever) can think about in context of the game our teams and our talent level.

[RonCo]

One note, though...the league itself is bigger than this question. I'll refer back to Matt's point. Let's pinkie swear promise to have fun here.

[Bumstead]

The weird thing here is...I don't have pinkies...

Ted I have a few questions:

1) Wait...I can't ask that question on here...

Never mind Ted. Keep up the good work!

[Ted]

One note, though...the league itself is bigger than this question. I'll refer back to Matt's point. Let's pinkie swear promise to have fun here.

I AM having fun. I love player talent trends and analysis. But in all seriousness, the league isn't bigger than this question. If I'm right, eventually there is no league. No one is going to stick around in a league where the playable players range from 12/12/12 to 13/13/13 or one where the same team wins every season.

[7teen]

One note, though...the league itself is bigger than this question. I'll refer back to Matt's point. Let's pinkie swear promise to have fun here.

I AM having fun. I love player talent trends and analysis. But in all seriousness, the league isn't bigger than this question. If I'm right, eventually there is no league. No one is going to stick around in a league where the playable players range from 12/12/12 to 13/13/13 or one where the same team wins every season.

I was in the GBC while Justin Lorenz and the Washington Bobwhites seemingly won the division EVERY FREAKING YEAR! I had fun trying to knock him off to very little luck. Don't say no one.

[niles08]

One note, though...the league itself is bigger than this question. I'll refer back to Matt's point. Let's pinkie swear promise to have fun here.

I AM having fun. I love player talent trends and analysis. But in all seriousness, the league isn't bigger than this question. If I'm right, eventually there is no league. No one is going to stick around in a league where the playable players range from 12/12/12 to 13/13/13 or one where the same team wins every season.

If we used relative ratings wouldn't this be impossible? I mean a 5 is average based on relative ratings...so a 12 would always be the best of the best...and if there all "best" then they would all be a 5...

On a side note, I do get what your saying. Not many would stick around if every player hit 80 home runs, but wouldn't you question whether pitchers would also keep those balls in the park if they were good as well? Good being a 5 based on relative ratings?

[jiminyhopkins]

Ted,

Methinks thou dost overthink this too much.

Relax and have fun. The minute this league becomes a source of stress for me, rather than a reliever of such stress, is the day I quit.

Don't do this to yourself.

[aaronweiner]

One note, though...the league itself is bigger than this question. I'll refer back to Matt's point. Let's pinkie swear promise to have fun here.

I AM having fun. I love player talent trends and analysis. But in all seriousness, the league isn't bigger than this question. If I'm right, eventually there is no league. No one is going to stick around in a league where the playable players range from 12/12/12 to 13/13/13 or one where the same team wins every season.

I would.

Oh, wait, I own that team.

[Ted]

One note, though...the league itself is bigger than this question. I'll refer back to Matt's point. Let's pinkie swear promise to have fun here.

I AM having fun. I love player talent trends and analysis. But in all seriousness, the league isn't bigger than this question. If I'm right, eventually there is no league. No one is going to stick around in a league where the playable players range from 12/12/12 to 13/13/13 or one where the same team wins every season.

If we used relative ratings wouldn't this be impossible? I mean a 5 is average based on relative ratings...so a 12 would always be the best of the best...and if there all "best" then they would all be a 5...

On a side note, I do get what your saying. Not many would stick around if every player hit 80 home runs, but wouldn't you question whether pitchers would also keep those balls in the park if they were good as well? Good being a 5 based on relative ratings?

Sort of. Relative ratings change what we see, not what the players are. So they'd all be 13/13/13/13/13 by absolute ratings and 5/5/5/5/5 by relative. Every player would not hit 80 home runs. There would be almost no distribution among playable players. If the ratings keep going up, eventually everyone just maxes out and is exactly the same.

[Ted]

Ted,

Methinks thou dost overthink this too much.

Relax and have fun. The minute this league becomes a source of stress for me, rather than a reliever of such stress, is the day I quit.

Don't do this to yourself.

1) As I said, thinking about this stuff is fun for me. And two, I'd rather be interested in making sure the league stays going in a good direction, then have the attitude of "I'll just jump ship when it gets into trouble and isn't fun anymore. "

2) Someone has to give a crap. Problems come up. This may or may not be one. If it is, someone has to care, otherwise it breaks and we don't have a league.

We are in relatively uncharted territory in terms of a league running this long. The testing for OOTP almost certainly does not include what happens over 70+ seasons with the settings set the way our league is.

If you don't want to care about it, that's fine. But don't tell me that giving a shit about the health of the league is "overthinking" or "needless stress". You get to have a league to play in because other people do this.

Matt for example, puts in enormous amounts of work behind the scenes to keep this going. In my time on the GB, there were tons of internal debates about league health and what matters. It's likely a reason Matt get frustrated at times with the amount of bitching regarding changes. Things HAVE to change now and again for us to continue to have a league that is enjoyable.

So respectfully, I disagree with all comments that this sort of analysis is unnecessary.

[recte44]

Ron is good at breaking things down. Ultimately I just need to have him take a look at PCM's in our league and make sure they're ok. Then we will change them based on what we find.

[bschr682]

Before doing anything drastic maybe take a second and address the 2 elephants in the room. Both the relative ratings switch and the UMEBA were added post last seasons draft.

Verify that the draft pool isn’t being displayed restive to UMEBA or rookie league or something dumb like that.

Also make sure that UMEBA is properly independent of BBA. We just had a UMEBA team claim a BBA player on waivers which shouldn’t happen so maybe something g is goofed up.

[RonCo]

Dealing with a bit of a medical issue right now. Will check back shortly.

[agrudez]

If it lasts for more than 4 hours...

[jiminyhopkins]

If you don't want to care about it, that's fine. But don't tell me that giving a shit about the health of the league is "overthinking" or "needless stress". You get to have a league to play in because other people do this.

Matt for example, puts in enormous amounts of work behind the scenes to keep this going. In my time on the GB, there were tons of internal debates about league health and what matters. It's likely a reason Matt get frustrated at times with the amount of bitching regarding changes. Things HAVE to change now and again for us to continue to have a league that is enjoyable.

So respectfully, I disagree with all comments that this sort of analysis is unnecessary.

Wow dude. Sorry to read this.

I do know how much work Matt does. I was at his apartment over 20 years ago helping to create players for the GBC. Known him since 1996.

Disagree all you want. I wasn't concerned about your analysis, I was concerned about YOU. I see now that concern was misplaced.

Oh well. Carry on then.