Still too many 23+ year old's in offline franchise drafts

[bigd51]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

I wouldn't mind the 22-23 y/o's if they weren't as raw as the 19 y/o's... I'm going to take a very raw project, might as well take the teenager.

This is a big issue I have with it. Although 24 and 25 year olds are still too old to be in the draft, when it comes to 22 and 23 year olds, I expect them to be very close to their potential already. If a 22 year old has an A potential, then he shouldn't have a 50-55 overall. Even more so if he's a blue chip. And judging from my experience, there's no guarantee he'll level up faster than an 18 year old at that same level, so if I have a choice between a blue-chip 22 year old and a discovered 18 year old with the same overall, I'll take the discovered 18 year old any day. Unless there's a solid enough reason for me not to that I don't know about.

Right now, there are too many blue chips with raw overalls. All the blue chips in online franchise are as expected; guys with overalls that are within 5 points of his potential. And they're all young prospects. In offline franchise, a blue chip with A potential can be drafted with an overall of 45 as a 21 year old.

It just doesn't make any sense.

[NYR LundqvistSTEPANu]

The thing about this is that different players progress in different ways, regardless of potential. Part of it comes down to production. According to the player's production level, a player's potential will rise or fall (represented by "stock is rising/falling" from the notifications). Also certain attributes will improve at a quicker pace if a player is performing at a high level in that aspect of the game. This will happen regardless of what you're training is set to

Now, I've see a player with 79 potential who consistently finished with +6 / +7 improvements across the board at year's end. Even when he struggled, it wouldnt slow down, his potential continued to rise & he made it to 87 overall. This guy was pretty much just Going to progess in this manner. His 79 potential was not the end all be all. I've also had a 94 potential player who was stuck with +3 +4 & +5 across the board each year, his play stagnated & he can't get past 90 OVR. Player A is way more productive than player B.

Another player drafted at 18 with 88 potential didn't even really start progressing fast until his 3rd year, & this wasnt coincidence. This is how he was going to progress no matter what

In my experience, older players with 85+ potential either come our with A.) A slightly higher OVR, B.) a more balanced attribute table, as if they're closer to being 'MLB ready', (especially true with pitchers & their "Makeup"), or C.) They perform better / progress faster than their potential would suggest. A 23 year old pitcher with 90 potential vs a 20 year old with 90, the old player typically develops an elite trait or 2 (like 90+ K/9 or BB/9), while the younger guy progresses slower & may get hampered by a faulty attribute. The older player may not be ready until 26-27, which is less desierable, but he might be way nastier statistically.

I avoid most all players with an OVR in the 40's with 88+ potential. Regardless of age (unless the farm is stacked + no other high POT desierables, then I take a chance). They take too long to progress & in the first round, most any other type of player will hit the majors quicker & could still just be better. A 99 potential player drafted at 20 years old & low overall will still become a beast though. May not start beasting until even 30, but they have a really high end peak from 30-35 before they start declining. (something I have word for word seen happen.)

The flip side?

In rounds 3-6 I look for those low rated guys. Or, the high overall types whose potential is nearly equal to their OVR. Either way. These players are projects. Low overalls typically have a lot of room for progress to meet that mid 70's potential. & in that time their potential may rise, making them 80+ overall steals in some cases. The higher overall types need to perform well so their potential can climb, & if things work out you can find yourself a steal of young player who's MLB ready day 1 in round 3-5. Maybe not an every day stud, but he can play. I have a player like this right now. 71 OVR / 71 POT. Was a platoon bat vs Lefties (75 con / 75 pow,) & an extra outfielder at 20. Hit .335 with 22 HRs & 56 RBIs in 458 combined at bats over 2 seasons.

I threw him in the minors to start year 3, & he's tearing it up. His potential is now 76 though his OVR is still 71. That's a GOOD thing. He'll soon begin to rise to meet that potential - something I've seen sort of 'take off' for young players once they start to get through their 3rd & 4th year. If this guy can even reach 80 he'll be a stud cause he can already hit.


Older players will also continue progressing into their 30's. The younger players typically start to decline at 30-31. I noticed this is in fact pretty consistent.


The young guys who are ready to be great at a young age are just rare, & typically found in the top picks of loaded draft classes. Which is a thing. Some drafts spit out maybe 10-15 90+ potential types. But heavy drafts will have 20+ & maybe 5 or more at 93 potential or higher. All of this is pretty accurate observations

I used to be just like OP, pissed these guys get so old before they're ready. Now I just don't care & go for the best looking player or project no matter what, or who. Even if his peak is short, I'll take it - or trade it for something I like when the time is right. Some of these older players turn into studs, they just aren't Trout / Harper. Can't blame them

[turpintine419]

Quote: Originally Posted by NYR LundqvistSTEPANu

The thing about this is that different players progress in different ways, regardless of potential. Part of it comes down to production. According to the player's production level, a player's potential will rise or fall (represented by "stock is rising/falling" from the notifications). Also certain attributes will improve at a quicker pace if a player is performing at a high level in that aspect of the game. This will happen regardless of what you're training is set to Now, I've see a player with 79 potential who consistently finished with +6 / +7 improvements across the board at year's end. Even when he struggled, it wouldnt slow down, his potential continued to rise & he made it to 87 overall. This guy was pretty much just Going to progess in this manner. His 79 potential was not the end all be all. I've also had a 94 potential player who was stuck with +3 +4 & +5 across the board each year, his play stagnated & he can't get past 90 OVR. Player A is way more productive than player B. Another player drafted at 18 with 88 potential didn't even really start progressing fast until his 3rd year, & this wasnt coincidence. This is how he was going to progress no matter what In my experience, older players with 85+ potential either come our with A.) A slightly higher OVR, B.) a more balanced attribute table, as if they're closer to being 'MLB ready', (especially true with pitchers & their "Makeup"), or C.) They perform better / progress faster than their potential would suggest. A 23 year old pitcher with 90 potential vs a 20 year old with 90, the old player typically develops an elite trait or 2 (like 90+ K/9 or BB/9), while the younger guy progresses slower & may get hampered by a faulty attribute. The older player may not be ready until 26-27, which is less desierable, but he might be way nastier statistically. I avoid most all players with an OVR in the 40's with 88+ potential. Regardless of age (unless the farm is stacked + no other high POT desierables, then I take a chance). They take too long to progress & in the first round, most any other type of player will hit the majors quicker & could still just be better. A 99 potential player drafted at 20 years old & low overall will still become a beast though. May not start beasting until even 30, but they have a really high end peak from 30-35 before they start declining. (something I have word for word seen happen.) The flip side? In rounds 3-6 I look for those low rated guys. Or, the high overall types whose potential is nearly equal to their OVR. Either way. These players are projects. Low overalls typically have a lot of room for progress to meet that mid 70's potential. & in that time their potential may rise, making them 80+ overall steals in some cases. The higher overall types need to perform well so their potential can climb, & if things work out you can find yourself a steal of young player who's MLB ready day 1 in round 3-5. Maybe not an every day stud, but he can play. I have a player like this right now. 71 OVR / 71 POT. Was a platoon bat vs Lefties (75 con / 75 pow,) & an extra outfielder at 20. Hit .335 with 22 HRs & 56 RBIs in 458 combined at bats over 2 seasons. I threw him in the minors to start year 3, & he's tearing it up. His potential is now 76 though his OVR is still 71. That's a GOOD thing. He'll soon begin to rise to meet that potential - something I've seen sort of 'take off' for young players once they start to get through their 3rd & 4th year. If this guy can even reach 80 he'll be a stud cause he can already hit. Older players will also continue progressing into their 30's. The younger players typically start to decline at 30-31. I noticed this is in fact pretty consistent. The young guys who are ready to be great at a young age are just rare, & typically found in the top picks of loaded draft classes. Which is a thing. Some drafts spit out maybe 10-15 90+ potential types. But heavy drafts will have 20+ & maybe 5 or more at 93 potential or higher. All of this is pretty accurate observations I used to be just like OP, pissed these guys get so old before they're ready. Now I just don't care & go for the best looking player or project no matter what, or who. Even if his peak is short, I'll take it - or trade it for something I like when the time is right. Some of these older players turn into studs, they just aren't Trout / Harper. Can't blame them

Well put! I have seen this situation play out multiple times. You just broke it down better then I ever could!

[CaseIH]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigd51

This is a big issue I have with it. Although 24 and 25 year olds are still too old to be in the draft, when it comes to 22 and 23 year olds, I expect them to be very close to their potential already. If a 22 year old has an A potential, then he shouldn't have a 50-55 overall. Even more so if he's a blue chip. And judging from my experience, there's no guarantee he'll level up faster than an 18 year old at that same level, so if I have a choice between a blue-chip 22 year old and a discovered 18 year old with the same overall, I'll take the discovered 18 year old any day. Unless there's a solid enough reason for me not to that I don't know about. Right now, there are too many blue chips with raw overalls. All the blue chips in online franchise are as expected; guys with overalls that are within 5 points of his potential. And they're all young prospects. In offline franchise, a blue chip with A potential can be drafted with an overall of 45 as a 21 year old. It just doesn't make any sense.

Sounds like mot much has changed in this area. 1st time no tbuying htis game day1 since I started playing it in 09, but decided with money being tight and not really seeing much added to franchise mode I decided to hold off this year. As I wanted more MILB ballparks, and Spring Training parks, and improvements in that area, along with the scouting being better. I enjoy 15, so glad I came hear to check things out before my wife bought 16 for me. Hopeful 17 will see big improvement in these areas, until them 15 plays just fine for me.

[Vtownwaves]

Quote: Originally Posted by CaseIH

Sounds like mot much has changed in this area. 1st time no tbuying htis game day1 since I started playing it in 09, but decided with money being tight and not really seeing much added to franchise mode I decided to hold off this year. As I wanted more MILB ballparks, and Spring Training parks, and improvements in that area, along with the scouting being better. I enjoy 15, so glad I came hear to check things out before my wife bought 16 for me. Hopeful 17 will see big improvement in these areas, until them 15 plays just fine for me.

Honestly wouldnt know how much has changed as I just picked up the series on ps4 this year(played 2k on pc). I like the new morale system but I dont do much scouting. It plays great and the rtts additions like showtime and perks are a fun addition(though not realistic). Franchise has some issues but Ive been pretty happy overall, just needs a face lift and some logic redone.

I think if you like 15, keep playing it till just before 17 is going to come out. Then rent 16 for a day or buy it used and return it after transferring your saves to 16. When 17 comes out, you got your saves ready to transfer to it so you can continue your careers/franchises. Couldnt go 14 to 16, prolly cant go 15 to 17, but you can go 15 to 16 to 17....

[Sgexpat]

isn't this caused by the fact human scouting 'creates' too many players to be drafted in a given year and they get kept in a pool and aged a year?

I think I recall another thread on that with the recommendation that you scout only a few days and/or just scout every other year and let the draft pool autopopulate..

If anyone recalls...

[CaseIH]

Quote: Originally Posted by Vtownwaves

Honestly wouldnt know how much has changed as I just picked up the series on ps4 this year(played 2k on pc). I like the new morale system but I dont do much scouting. It plays great and the rtts additions like showtime and perks are a fun addition(though not realistic). Franchise has some issues but Ive been pretty happy overall, just needs a face lift and some logic redone. I think if you like 15, keep playing it till just before 17 is going to come out. Then rent 16 for a day or buy it used and return it after transferring your saves to 16. When 17 comes out, you got your saves ready to transfer to it so you can continue your careers/franchises. Couldnt go 14 to 16, prolly cant go 15 to 17, but you can go 15 to 16 to 17....

Thanks, thats a good idea, never thought of that if I want to keep my franchise file from 15, and wait till 17 comes out. Didnt realize franchise had some issues in 16, another good reason to not buy it then since thats all I care about. I will have to say just from the few things Ive read on 16, as I tried to stay away fro the most part since I knew I couldnt really afford to buy it day1, sounds like The Show is full of little bugs this year, the devs of MLBTS have always been rock solid, so a little surprised at this. There always pretty good about patching things and making it right so it will probably end up in good shape. Im just glad I check here before my wife went an bought it for me, because I know she was planning on it getting it for me soon.

[bigd51]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sgexpat

isn't this caused by the fact human scouting 'creates' too many players to be drafted in a given year and they get kept in a pool and aged a year? I think I recall another thread on that with the recommendation that you scout only a few days and/or just scout every other year and let the draft pool autopopulate.. If anyone recalls...

There were talks about this last year, but I can't recall the general consensus to a viable alternative.

I do remember that in last years game, if you set scouting to manual and left your scouts with no objection up to the draft (essentially, not using scouting at all), the CPU generated players' would be shown with their real ratings like blue-chippers, or fully scouted players despite not being fully scouted. Kinda took the fun outta drafting, to me, when every player on the board is shown with their true ratings.