Are Drafts Shitty?

[BaseClogger]

I get the sense allowing draft pick trades would actually hurt parity because experienced GMs would properly value them.

[bschr682]

Although it is a bit more whiny than I really feel, I voted the first option for two reasons:

1) During my Draft Rewind features, I've seen how good drafts used to be, and they've fallen off a fair amount
2) Can't trade draft picks in the BBA, so rebuilding through the draft unless it's real slow and gradual is not as viable in this league compared to others that allow moving around in the draft.

Couldn’t possibly disagree more on point number 2. We don’t have to wait to trade players recently drafted. You are absolutely free to find a willing trade partner higher up the draft board and make a swap post draft. Draft pick trading kills franchises.

[jiminyhopkins]

Although it is a bit more whiny than I really feel, I voted the first option for two reasons:

1) During my Draft Rewind features, I've seen how good drafts used to be, and they've fallen off a fair amount
2) Can't trade draft picks in the BBA, so rebuilding through the draft unless it's real slow and gradual is not as viable in this league compared to others that allow moving around in the draft.

Rebuilding through the draft is definitely not viable. Unless you TANK for like 5 straight seasons to get a few top 5 picks, Astros style. Otherwise, you'll be stuck with first round 45-50 POT replacement level players if you pick anywhere outside the single digits.

Weak drafts encourage tanking. Deep drafts discourage it.

But hey, this is "realistic" and I just have to "adjust expectations."

[Lane]

Although it is a bit more whiny than I really feel, I voted the first option for two reasons:

1) During my Draft Rewind features, I've seen how good drafts used to be, and they've fallen off a fair amount
2) Can't trade draft picks in the BBA, so rebuilding through the draft unless it's real slow and gradual is not as viable in this league compared to others that allow moving around in the draft.

Rebuilding through the draft is definitely not viable. Unless you TANK for like 5 straight seasons to get a few top 5 picks, Astros style. Otherwise, you'll be stuck with first round 45-50 POT replacement level players if you pick anywhere outside the single digits.

Weak drafts encourage tanking. Deep drafts discourage it.

But hey, this is "realistic" and I just have to "adjust expectations."

deep drafts without immense attrition throw off league ratings, as we have now. this makes it difficult for new and even longtime GMs to properly evaluate talent and build teams.

now, we could have a "deep" draft where the top of the draft is 55 ovr and the bottom of the draft is 45 ovr...

[jiminyhopkins]

now, we could have a "deep" draft where the top of the draft is 55 ovr and the bottom of the draft is 45 ovr...

LOL, sounds like my Single A team

[JimBob2232]

It does seem/feel that development might be off a bit. I can’t think of a single player in my org that has really drastically improved in the last few years. Maybe it’s luck. Maybe it’s my staff. Maybe it’s voodoo.

Not trying to complain or anything - but might be something to look into a bit and see if it’s a real issue or just my perception.

[BaseClogger]

Although it is a bit more whiny than I really feel, I voted the first option for two reasons:

1) During my Draft Rewind features, I've seen how good drafts used to be, and they've fallen off a fair amount
2) Can't trade draft picks in the BBA, so rebuilding through the draft unless it's real slow and gradual is not as viable in this league compared to others that allow moving around in the draft.

Rebuilding through the draft is definitely not viable. Unless you TANK for like 5 straight seasons to get a few top 5 picks, Astros style. Otherwise, you'll be stuck with first round 45-50 POT replacement level players if you pick anywhere outside the single digits.

Weak drafts encourage tanking. Deep drafts discourage it.

But hey, this is "realistic" and I just have to "adjust expectations."

deep drafts without immense attrition throw off league ratings, as we have now. this makes it difficult for new and even longtime GMs to properly evaluate talent and build teams.

now, we could have a "deep" draft where the top of the draft is 55 ovr and the bottom of the draft is 45 ovr...

As somebody who recently joined the league, it took me two BBA seasons to calibrate to the league’s ratings. I found it very difficult on top of learning the league itself.

[Dington]

Although it is a bit more whiny than I really feel, I voted the first option for two reasons:

1) During my Draft Rewind features, I've seen how good drafts used to be, and they've fallen off a fair amount
2) Can't trade draft picks in the BBA, so rebuilding through the draft unless it's real slow and gradual is not as viable in this league compared to others that allow moving around in the draft.

Rebuilding through the draft is definitely not viable. Unless you TANK for like 5 straight seasons to get a few top 5 picks, Astros style. Otherwise, you'll be stuck with first round 45-50 POT replacement level players if you pick anywhere outside the single digits.

Weak drafts encourage tanking. Deep drafts discourage it.

But hey, this is "realistic" and I just have to "adjust expectations."

But it’s crazy how teams like the Dodgers can continuously draft well in there late rounds year after year. Maybe be it isn’t a talent problem. Maybe it’s an evaluator problem.

[CTBrewCrew]

Tip of the hat to the conspiracy to deny me the 10 votes needed for two points in the poll. Good on ya mates!

I got u to 8!

[JimSlade]

The hardest thing I find about the draft in this league is that we've got so many teams. I'm in another league with 16 teams, so my picking coming up at the end of round 2 is going to be about what I was able to get two-thirds of the way through the first round here. Also, as someone else noted, the inability to trade picks means we can load up on multiple lottery tickets. It's all pretty realistic in this way. Drafting is only one part of the process.

[pandan]

I'm guessing in part it is a perception problem -- if the top end of the draft is rated to have potential that isn't significantly above league average, the draft will look shitty by comparison. I can see how drafting can feel like a waste if even the worst teams can't stand to meaningfully improve by it.

That said, I can see the argument how this mirrors reality -- not every draft class has a stud, and players at the top end (70/80 grade) should not be common, drafts only produce so many viable ML players, and players that get rated 35/40 find their way onto 40-man rosters regularly.

What doesn't mirror reality well is the state of FA -- it's opening day and there are loads of 55+ rated guys waiting for a contract -- this feels unrealistic. I can see how lower quality drafts are a way to help correct it, even if it feels worse for teams not actively ready to compete (or who can't afford their demands).

As a newbie, less sure how teams can play up the dev angle to get an advantage w/o the dev budget (I'm sure there's a fine reason we don't use it here), but curious if there's enough TCR to help simulate this. I do wonder if players showing up w/ higher potential ratings that flame out does a better job of mirroring reality though, vs. baking in that most of these guys likely won't amount to much. Lots of tradeoffs here, appreciate the discussion.

[Lane]

I'm guessing in part it is a perception problem -- if the top end of the draft is rated to have potential that isn't significantly above league average, the draft will look shitty by comparison. I can see how drafting can feel like a waste if even the worst teams can't stand to meaningfully improve by it.

That said, I can see the argument how this mirrors reality -- not every draft class has a stud, and players at the top end (70/80 grade) should not be common, drafts only produce so many viable ML players, and players that get rated 35/40 find their way onto 40-man rosters regularly.

What doesn't mirror reality well is the state of FA -- it's opening day and there are loads of 55+ rated guys waiting for a contract -- this feels unrealistic. I can see how lower quality drafts are a way to help correct it, even if it feels worse for teams not actively ready to compete (or who can't afford their demands).

As a newbie, less sure how teams can play up the dev angle to get an advantage w/o the dev budget (I'm sure there's a fine reason we don't use it here), but curious if there's enough TCR to help simulate this. I do wonder if players showing up w/ higher potential ratings that flame out does a better job of mirroring reality though, vs. baking in that most of these guys likely won't amount to much. Lots of tradeoffs here, appreciate the discussion.

I don't know enough about the talent change issues that you bring up to comment on, but I believe that the glut of 55+ rated players without a contract at this point has to do with the talent bloat that we have in the league right now, that the "shitty" drafts are trying to fix.

[pandan]

I'm guessing in part it is a perception problem -- if the top end of the draft is rated to have potential that isn't significantly above league average, the draft will look shitty by comparison. I can see how drafting can feel like a waste if even the worst teams can't stand to meaningfully improve by it.

That said, I can see the argument how this mirrors reality -- not every draft class has a stud, and players at the top end (70/80 grade) should not be common, drafts only produce so many viable ML players, and players that get rated 35/40 find their way onto 40-man rosters regularly.

What doesn't mirror reality well is the state of FA -- it's opening day and there are loads of 55+ rated guys waiting for a contract -- this feels unrealistic. I can see how lower quality drafts are a way to help correct it, even if it feels worse for teams not actively ready to compete (or who can't afford their demands).

As a newbie, less sure how teams can play up the dev angle to get an advantage w/o the dev budget (I'm sure there's a fine reason we don't use it here), but curious if there's enough TCR to help simulate this. I do wonder if players showing up w/ higher potential ratings that flame out does a better job of mirroring reality though, vs. baking in that most of these guys likely won't amount to much. Lots of tradeoffs here, appreciate the discussion.

I don't know enough about the talent change issues that you bring up to comment on, but I believe that the glut of 55+ rated players without a contract at this point has to do with the talent bloat that we have in the league right now, that the "shitty" drafts are trying to fix.

I'm not saying there is an issue w/ talent changes, I'm curious if it happens at any frequency -- haven't been here long enough to see it firsthand, but I know that'd be one way to help mitigate weaker drafts (ie players suddenly outperform their projected ratings)

[Lane]

yeah, for sure. didn't interpret it as you thinking there was a problem with it. i just wanted to be clear that it's something i haven't looked into.

[pandan]

All good! yeah, it'd be interesting to analyze and see if there is a decent percentage of ML players that have a higher set of ratings than initially advertised. I'm sure there are some, but curious how much. May be something I look into down the road.

[Trebro]

The reason there are so many highly rated free agents left is a combo of talent bloat and ootp never (in my playing since version 13 experience) truly being able to have players adjust financial demands after pre season starts.

[pandan]

Makes sense -- sounds like these players need to find a rich patron and come together to make an expansion team

[DaveB]

To me it seems like there is too much talent in the league. Drafts and negative development seem to be the way the game corrects these issues over time, but when there is a large talent influx it can take up to a 10-15 years in game to sort itself out.

[BaseClogger]

The league feature highlighting the top 100 prospects is an encouraging start. 55 POT but warts or still extremely young is what seems about right for the last couple prospects included on that list.

For those of you who were in the league 10-15 seasons ago, was the top 100 prospect list littered with 70 POT prospects? How did that landscape look different?

[Lane]

The league feature highlighting the top 100 prospects is an encouraging start. 55 POT but warts or still extremely young is what seems about right for the last couple prospects included on that list.

For those of you who were in the league 10-15 seasons ago, was the top 100 prospect list littered with 70 POT prospects? How did that landscape look different?

yes, basically. in the late 30s early 40s the ENTIRE top 100 was 70+ POT. Generally about 40 or so rated at 80. see below:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=27204&p=153746&hil ... gs#p153746

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=30532&p=173986&hil ... gs#p173986

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=29317&p=167034&hil ... gs#p167034