Broken Bat - Suggestions: International pool Age Change

Forum >> Suggestions >> International pool Age Change

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#43942	01/14/2017 9:27:33 pm
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	Yeah, but having the Latin and International pools have the same advantages doesn't really hurt anything, as currently having the bottom age at 18 puts the International pool at a distinct disadvantage to either the Latin pool (with a lower bottom age) or the High School pool (with a lower upper age limit). I'm alright with the International pool keeping the current upper age limit, but the bottom needs to be lowered for the players to be more viable. Ideally enough players would be kept to make the WC more viable without resorting to the "Team Italy" and "Team Scandinavia" concepts. No offense to Frank or whoever runs the Scandinavian team (sorry, I forgot) but they were born out of a desire to make those national teams competitive because no team trying to compete in the league structure would train up enough of their players to do so with the International pool the way it is right now.

#43947	01/15/2017 9:03:08 am
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9591 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I don't have a problem with dropping the age limit on international, I'm just not sure its giving us more trade-offs. Currently the international pool is a nice late grab option. So just like in real life, it isn't fished very strongly, so there is a good opportunity to find some later round gems if you expand your scouting. I think this is good. I think the bigger issue is that there seems to be a really high failure rate for international. I see a lot of dud guys from Latin on the waivers, but I also see a lot of great Latin players. Not so much for international. The fact that international has such a high failure rate means they aren't too attractive. That is good from the "late pool" perspective, but maybe its a little too much. I think the high failure rate is a good mechanic, but it may need to be balanced a bit by some sort of higher positive. Maybe increased upside, or maybe something else. I think that something else is what we have all been struggling to define. Personally I'd like the "something else", but a quick fix for making the pool more attractive would be to have more super star players coming out of international. Basically the 15 and 16 POT players we see coming out today, but with a few more of them having development patterns which allow them to reach their potential. It is also possible that international is already a really good deal. The community may just not realize it because of the small sample size. Updated Sunday, January 15 2017 @ 9:05:12 am PST

#43948	01/15/2017 9:59:23 am
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	It is also possible that international is already a really good deal. The community may just not realize it because of the small sample size. I'm not really sure why there's the notion that the international players are inferior. Well, that's not entirely true. I think some people believe that's the case because the other nations don't tend to do well in the World Cup. Look at their rosters, though, and you'll see plenty of stars and players who have reached their potential. I seriously doubt Steve would have them set up to be worse than anyone else. They obviously don't have as many players as American nations, but I don't think there's anything inherently insufficient about them. I don't see anything wrong with the pool. The main reason I don't pull from there is because I know there are owners who want those guys more than I do because of where their from. If I felt they were better players or opportunities than the other pools, I'd take my chances at them. I think they're probably just the same, though, so I let them go elsewhere. As an aside, I generally pull from Latin America because I don't really care what age I get. It has the widest age range so I go with it.

#43949	01/15/2017 10:13:07 am
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	We have heard from JJNZ, but really I think people like Yuri would have the best perspective on this considering they pull from it on a consistent basis. I have only drawn from it a few times, with Schubert finally in the majors and starting to hit his stride... I would say they very much can pan out. Updated Sunday, January 15 2017 @ 10:16:04 am PST

#43950	01/15/2017 1:29:00 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9591 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Actually all these "Team CountryX" teams are probably what is causing the misconception that the international pool isn't good. They draft from there on a consistent basis, so they are probably pulling out a lot of the quality players earlier than they would go naturally. I really think these "Team CountryX" teams shouldn't be drafting (or waiving), just picking guys off FA. Most of those teams are run by people running a second team, and the whole excuse for having them was to develop players from other countries to make the world cup more competitive. If they are pulling superstars that would be playing on other teams than they aren't really fulfilling their charter. Yuri has a ton of high quality international players on his team. Really shows that high quality players are there for the taking. I might go international for the first couple rounds next year. Updated Sunday, January 15 2017 @ 1:34:34 pm PST

#43994	01/17/2017 2:12:03 am
Yuri84 Joined: 10/14/2014 Posts: 639 Apple Valley Raccoons IV.4	Well, to be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on this matter. I don't think the age is much of an issue here; in fact, most International players I've picked developed better than guys from Latin or Asian pools. The actual issue is that the amount of high pot prospects in the Int pool has drastically decreased. No idea whether it was done intentionally or is just a coincidence, but that's definitely true. I wouldn't blame the "TeamCountryX"'s for that, I usually get to draft before anyone else due to convenient time zone but for the last few seasons even the first round options were like, "one decent guy and 9 worthless losers" (and even that decent guy could as well turn out an 11 pot). I'm currently not at home so I'll get it more thought once I get back. Updated Tuesday, January 17 2017 @ 2:12:46 am PST

#44015	01/17/2017 3:16:44 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9591 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I think that is probably more an issue of sample size (10) and bad luck.

#44039	01/18/2017 8:32:01 am
Yuri84 Joined: 10/14/2014 Posts: 639 Apple Valley Raccoons IV.4	Well, it could be bad luck, but the difference from "now" and "then" is a bit too extreme in my opinion. In the last 3 seasons' first rounds (it's 30 players in total) I've only seen 1 "very good" (2030) and 4 "good" (1 - 2030; 2- 2029; 1 - 2028) players. The other 25 were above average or no report. Until 2028 I used to get no less than 5 good or very good players to choose from in each first round. Anyway, getting back to the original question: I guess I'll be against changing the age of all Int prospects to 15-18 after all. I just don't see any benefits for a manager with an established farm system - those who don't have any "immediate needs" as Haselrig put it, and at the same time can't afford to invest into long-term projects because that would mean releasing some of the older (and decent) prospects. As we say here in Russia, "to buy something useless you should first sell something useless", and here it'll be "to buy something useful you should first sell something useful". Sure, many managers have to do that regardless, but it's definitely easier to choose between two 20 y.o. prospects than between a 20 y.o. and a 15 y.o when you decide who to cut. I won't mind expanding the age range down to 15 as Rock suggested though. Updated Wednesday, January 18 2017 @ 8:33:23 am PST

#44056	01/18/2017 3:32:35 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9591 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I actually went back on that suggestion a little. By MLB rules an international player needs to turn 17 by the end of their first season. So really 16 should be the minimum.

#44351	01/26/2017 12:24:14 am
quanin Joined: 03/16/2016 Posts: 196 Cleveland Thunder IV.3	I would be in favour of either lowering the international age to 16 or 17, or ditching the autorecommend to majors at 25. Ideally both, but if we can't have one I'd be perfectly happy with the other. My reasoning has to do with what others have already mentioned in this thread - players from international in particular are more often than not already behind the 8-ball insofar as development goes, and in a lot of cases aren't hitting the majors by 25. People who've been here a while may be able to eyeball development and decide a player's good enough, but a new owner is going to see an Austrailian prospect be recommended for majors, promote him, then wonder why in creation he's bombed out. Admittedly I've never drafted from the international pool, but that's partly because I haven't seen anything I liked - the rest of it being the very few occasions I've seen a maybe he's been around 24 and I have enough 24-year-olds in AA I need to get rid of for falling too far behind.