How do you guys evaluate and draft players?

[Nemesis]

Stats only?
Ratings only?
Based on the top prospect list?
Ratings and stats?
All of the above?
Something else?

:)

[Guest]

Yup

[Carlos]

It's a combo of everything we get. No one thing is completely right otherwise it'd be broken.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[Hank]

Yup, all of the above.
It really is a crap shoot at times - just like in real life.
It seemed like in the older versions of OOTP there was a lot less guess work. Top prospects almost always developed into a full time BLBer, if not a perennial all-star.

IMO it's a lot better in '17. Lots more first-round busts and late-round stars.

[PaulC]

I look at a player... Get infatuated with something (a specific rating, stat, defence, intangible)... Do I everything I can to trade and get said player... Then cry with buyer's remorse as the player turns to dogs hit right before my very computer screen...

[funclown]

It's a combo of everything we get. No one thing is completely right otherwise it'd be broken.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

This.

[Nemesis]

Has anyone determined if it is actually broken?

[umd]

Has anyone determined if it is actually broken?

It's not broken. It's actually better. Our scouting system we implemented for our league is way outdated making your scout no different from everyone else's except if they prefer ability or tools. Every GM in this league is pretty much working off one of 2 draft lists.

[Pat]

Stats only?
Ratings only?
Based on the top prospect list?
Ratings and stats?
All of the above?
Something else?

:)

Consider everything but I definitely put more weight into certain areas.

In older versions of the game, OSA wasn't very reliable. You used to have multiple scouts in your organization and the average of the group was almost always a better barometer than what OSA was telling you. That changed in i believe in OOTP 15? You now only have one scout and like it has been mentioned before, the scouting system seems flawed at best. In the OSA vs. scout debate, I usually side with OSA. It's pretty rare to find a player OSA loves who doesn't turn out, sure they are wrong from time to time, but nothing compared to a scout. Even in this draft I have prospects my scout thinks will be All-Stars while their OSA potential suggests career minor leaguer. When drafting, especially in the earlier rounds, it's good to find someone that OSA and your scout can agree is going to be good. By the later rounds, most of the players OSA thinks are sure-thing BLB players are long gone, and then you will still find prospects your scout thinks could be pretty good.

The top prospect list I believe is based on OSA's opinion and skewed a bit positionally (RPs rarely listed, CFs higher, etc.) For instance, C Ian James, OSA had as the highest rated hitter on the NCAA list, and he went #1 overall. Same for Pat Bamford, in HS. But remember that #50 in the NCAA list is not equal to #50 on the CCBL list. There is only 10 teams in the CCBL while there is 24 in NCAA and 14 in HS. So the NCAA #60, he might be ranked #20 if he was in the CCBL, for example.

Stats are tricky but a factor. The sample is very small. In the NCAA and CCBL, you only play two seasons, usually about 100 games. Sometimes players get hurt and play even less than that. In HS, you have three seasons, but they only play 40 games a year. In the BLB the season is 162, so you are basing your stat projection off a smaller sample size than just one season. It's good to remember park factors here. Each team has it's own unique factors and some are heavily skewed pitchers or hitters parks. Also, the smaller the league, the easier it is to rise above the lower talent pool. HS stats are trick to go off because a lot of the players at that level are just kids who are "2s" for current ability and they just have a long way to go on development.

Ratings, I'm not talking about potential, but current ratings are also important and often overlooked. If you see two pitching prospects in the same league, and one is 3-4-2 current, 7-5-6 potential and the other is 5-5-4 current 6-5-6 potential, the latter might be the smarter selection. The further a player is in their development, the less likely they are to bust.

Also factor in intangibles. Back in the older versions of OOTP I was strict on drafting high character guys and now I take talent over personality...which I think is probably backwards. The newer versions of OOTP take personality into account a lot more with the team chemistry and players getting upset about a multitude of factors. Read up on what each one does. And you can find a long list of good BLB players that have shitty intangibles. If you are good, you are good. But it's a factor.

[PaulC]

Consider everything but I definitely put more weight into certain areas.

In older versions of the game, OSA wasn't very reliable. You used to have multiple scouts in your organization and the average of the group was almost always a better barometer than what OSA was telling you. That changed in i believe in OOTP 15? You now only have one scout and like it has been mentioned before, the scouting system seems flawed at best. In the OSA vs. scout debate, I usually side with OSA. It's pretty rare to find a player OSA loves who doesn't turn out, sure they are wrong from time to time, but nothing compared to a scout. Even in this draft I have prospects my scout thinks will be All-Stars while their OSA potential suggests career minor leaguer. When drafting, especially in the earlier rounds, it's good to find someone that OSA and your scout can agree is going to be good. By the later rounds, most of the players OSA thinks are sure-thing BLB players are long gone, and then you will still find prospects your scout thinks could be pretty good.

The top prospect list I believe is based on OSA's opinion and skewed a bit positionally (RPs rarely listed, CFs higher, etc.) For instance, C Ian James, OSA had as the highest rated hitter on the NCAA list, and he went #1 overall. Same for Pat Bamford, in HS. But remember that #50 in the NCAA list is not equal to #50 on the CCBL list. There is only 10 teams in the CCBL while there is 24 in NCAA and 14 in HS. So the NCAA #60, he might be ranked #20 if he was in the CCBL, for example.

Stats are tricky but a factor. The sample is very small. In the NCAA and CCBL, you only play two seasons, usually about 100 games. Sometimes players get hurt and play even less than that. In HS, you have three seasons, but they only play 40 games a year. In the BLB the season is 162, so you are basing your stat projection off a smaller sample size than just one season. It's good to remember park factors here. Each team has it's own unique factors and some are heavily skewed pitchers or hitters parks. Also, the smaller the league, the easier it is to rise above the lower talent pool. HS stats are trick to go off because a lot of the players at that level are just kids who are "2s" for current ability and they just have a long way to go on development.

Ratings, I'm not talking about potential, but current ratings are also important and often overlooked. If you see two pitching prospects in the same league, and one is 3-4-2 current, 7-5-6 potential and the other is 5-5-4 current 6-5-6 potential, the latter might be the smarter selection. The further a player is in their development, the less likely they are to bust.

Also factor in intangibles. Back in the older versions of OOTP I was strict on drafting high character guys and now I take talent over personality...which I think is probably backwards. The newer versions of OOTP take personality into account a lot more with the team chemistry and players getting upset about a multitude of factors. Read up on what each one does but the big one is work ethic when it comes to drafting players. You will find a ton of players available late in the draft or available as UDFAs who have unbelievable potential for a guy getting drafted that late but has very low work ethic. It's not completely the kiss of death but that's basically saying the player is lazy. Now, can good coaching, high player development budget and success throughout the minors get passed that? Maybe. And you can find a long list of good BLB players that have shitty intangibles. If you are good, you are good. But it's a factor.

Mike Morla approves this message!

[funclown]

Whenever I see a kid with control POT of 6+ or higher , yet his actual is a 2 I'm really worried. Now age is a factor so maybe just maybe a 17 year can pull it off, but rarely will a player get bumps beyond +3 in any one category.

I'm weird with control especially in this version, but I've seen this in all versions.

[PaulC]

The minor system seems to really make a difference... Some teams really seem to have a lot of guys go from a potential of 4/5/5 into a final rating of 6/6/6 more often than others... Not sure if its a combination of good coaching, winning, or development money... or maybe just luck!

[Jake]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzP...ew?usp=sharing

Not sure if this will work, but now that I'm not around I don't mind sharing my draft spreadsheet. I revised in 2020 from a previous formula that wasn't very adjustable. It's not an absolute or foolproof, but I feel like I've drafted well with the aid of this and the previous system in the past.

Essentially it takes a lot of copying and pasting in the beginning, but it spits out ratings for batters and pitchers based on a couple modifiers - how I want to weight OSA ratings, contact/power/eye, etc.

For the early rounds I'll copy and paste selections into the file and it will automatically "red out" the player from the first two tabs so I know who is still available.

It definitely has flaws - you'll see top picks down in the 20-30 range or 2nd/3rd round picks at the top of the list. I probably overvalue intangibles in the sheet and there's no easy way to load career stats from in game (maybe from the utility, but I never got that far).

But, I've found guys like Richard Velasquez in the 2nd (was top rated overall by my formula) or Bobby Tiscareno in the 6th (11th hitter overall that year on my sheet). I'll always make the final decision subjectively , especially in the first few rounds, by looking at the best 15-20 players available in game and by my sheet.

Hope it helps someone. If I ever come back and you pick in front of me, don't screw me.

[funclown]

Funny looking at Pat's view on this. Funclown isn't that far off just some basics maybe that are different.

Rounds 1-4 probably a split between Scout & OSA. Stats come in around 3. Alot of times I take the view difference of Scout/OSA and project what he really should be.(Its still a guess). Like Pat prefer OSA and my scout somewhat agree. Could care less about character to be honest.

Rounds 5 on its usually not a combo more usually a choice between the two. First I look at my scout for any players he thinks might of slipped (I use the draft board a bit more by now) then as the draft continues OSA sometimes has a few players thinks might of gotten missed. Rarely does your scout or OSA agree on the hidden gems at this point. Stats might become a bit more important also.

This new version really has changed the way I look at the draft. There was a time by round 4 you might looking at ONE ratings to grab on to something (Example: Hey this kid sucks, but look at his GAP potiental)

Also after the draft you'll noticed ALOT more drops in potential then ever before. I had a guy who drafted around round 4 with a 6-5-6-5-6 POT and right now two season later he might be cut. He's now a 5-5-4-3-6 and he's only 19!!!! Its cool to some degree , but sucks when you think you discovered the second coming only to find out years later he's a pile of shit.

[Z]

Also after the draft you'll noticed ALOT more drops in potential then ever before. I had a guy who drafted around round 4 with a 6-5-6-5-6 POT and right now two season later he might be cut. He's now a 5-5-4-3-6 and he's only 19!!!! Its cool to some degree , but sucks when you think you discovered the second coming only to find out years later he's a pile of shit.

I'm so afraid to draft underdeveloped prospects because I just assume that the 6/5/5/5/6 hitter is going to be 5/3/3/4/5 by the time he's 22.