How do you guys evaluate and draft players?

[funclown]

One more note: At onetime I thought so highly of character, but Jistic told I was a moron then took me thru all these players who developed who basically we druggies and criminals. Also interesting players over time change character a bit. Alot of my super team last decade started out as asshole, but as the seasons passed became up standing member of society.

[umd]

One more note: At onetime I thought so highly of character, but Jistic told I was a moron then took me thru all these players who developed who basically we druggies and criminals. Also interesting players over time change character a bit. Alot of my super team last decade started out as asshole, but as the seasons passed became up standing member of society.

Character is a huge part of team chemistry and morale in this version. Swings are huge.

[funclown]

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.

As time passes , the more I really like this version due to the prospects development section. We really do get more misses today then before. Were a league that prefers non tanking (well some owners) and this is a big vehicle us owners have used to get your team on the path. Aint easy anymore.

Most of this rebuild Pawtucket is currently on came in the form of 2nd and 3rd rounders. Will it work? Who the heck knows, but it makes the WHOLE draft important for sure.

[funclown]

Character is a huge part of team chemistry and morale in this version. Swings are huge.

I still don't know what comes first in this chicken or the egg scenario. My AAA team had happy players for seasons while we were winning. They're character were terrible. Today they suck and right off the bat were angry. I just moral is an output of wins and losses and NOT an input into the players performance. I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one. I still see guys develop who are pissed off while happy dudes drop like flies.

[umd]

I still don't know what comes first in this chicken or the egg scenario. My AAA team had happy players for seasons while we were winning. They're character were terrible. Today they suck and right off the bat were angry. I just moral is an output of wins and losses and NOT an input into the players performance. I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one. I still see guys develop who are pissed off while happy dudes drop like flies.

I'm not talking about development more disgruntled players and their influence on a clubhouse.

[funclown]

I'm not talking about development more disgruntled players and their influence on a clubhouse.

Got ya. Again I just don't know from my end. Of course Pawtucket is more happy this season, but is it due to better character players or the fact we aint 12 games below .500? Also been trying to figure out what coaches relationships to the players also.

To me its all murky. A few seasons ago I looked at Phoenix and had some serious bad character players. Didn't matter, they were happy and won it all.

[Z]

Character matters when your team is in the middle of the pack somewhere.

If your team is good, it doesn't matter because everyone will be happy that the team is inevitably winning games.

If your team is bad, it doesn't matter because everyone will be upset that the team is inevitably losing games.

It's when you're in the middle somewhere that character matters because if you go on a bad skid, morale can go downhill and your team lacks the talent to climb out of it.

[nelmsm]

Apparently with my draft success I should stop using goat entrails to make my picks.

[funclown]

Character matters when your team is in the middle of the pack somewhere.

If your team is good, it doesn't matter because everyone will be happy that the team is inevitably winning games.

If your team is bad, it doesn't matter because everyone will be upset that the team is inevitably losing games.

It's when you're in the middle somewhere that character matters because if you go on a bad skid, morale can go downhill and your team lacks the talent to climb out of it.

Never thought about middle of the pack scenario. Think this year I need to watch this and see if there is anything to this. Who knows Pawtucket could be one of those middle of the pack teams. Usually we live on opposite sides of the spectrum and rarely in the middle.

One thing I do know is both my manager and bench coach seems to struggle with my players relationship wise.

[umd]

Cancer players can kill a roster. Ian Van Gorder was one of 3 I had.

[funclown]

Cancer players can kill a roster. Ian Van Gorder was one of 3 I had.

Funny, you where I've seen this the most?? BULLPEN. I remember 90's Pawtucket 1.0 we started 10 game below .500 cuz three guys in my pen wanted to be closer and of course two who were setup guys for years became pissed off. Ughhhh.

[Carlos]

In another league (oh yea, I did it again!), I have a cancer on my team but he's so damn talented I had to sign him. Anyway, the year we started off slow, he was pissed and started complaining about himself being a bad influence. Other players followed in his path and complained about him.

This new season, team started off hot and everyone was happy except for him sitting by himself in the dugout. He never complained but the new Team Chemistry page in OOTP 18 showed that he was the least happiest of all players. He's just an asshole.

[Guest]

I generally ignore OSA, to be honest. I was so accustomed to disregarding in-game scouting because it was close to useless back in the day, and haven't been able to break the habit.

I almost always go college/Cape Cod players over high school players. Mostly out of impatience, but it is easier to project them IMO.

The only steadfast rules I adhere to are 1) never draft a player with work ethic below normal in the first round, and 2) no fragile players, period.

[funclown]

I generally ignore OSA, to be honest. I was so accustomed to disregarding in-game scouting because it was close to useless back in the day, and haven't been able to break the habit.

I almost always go college/Cape Cod players over high school players. Mostly out of impatience, but it is easier to project them IMO.

The only steadfast rules I adhere to are 1) never draft a player with work ethic below normal in the first round, and 2) no fragile players, period.

You would of so missed on this kid then

http://www.simgamingnetwork.com/blb/...ayer_6406.html

[Delandis]

In most years, I scour through stats. Stats are king in my war room, followed closely by intangibles. I then then matchup my scout rating with those stats. In my experience, OSA ratings are largely unreliable without agreement from our scout.

If I don't have time or just too lazy to scout myself, I always go with my scout's recommendation by ratings as I believe that is just how the game is really meant to be played in a GM role. Even late in the draft, I usually still look for high WE/INT guys with bad stats or great ratings from my scout to go with bad intangibles before I go with OSA ratings.