Suggestions

Forum >> Suggestions >> Pre-assigned draft options   Bookmark This Forum Thread

Post ID Date & Time Game Date Function
Rock777
Joined: 09/21/2014
Posts: 9571

Haverhill Halflings
III.1

Broken Bat Baseball
Instead of shared pools, how about if the players are split up into evenly distributed pools each round. So we can't pick which pool we are pulling from, but everyone has an equal chance at quality players. The first round you would have the most players to pick from (naturally landing you more talent). In subsequent rounds as the overall draft pool shrinks, you will have fewer and lower quality options, but sleepers will still get through.

Another bonus of this approach is that draft talent can be spread out across the teams more equally and not get bunched up on certain lucky teams. You could ensure the every team had at least one high POT player in the first few rounds.

We would have more garbage in round 1 because it would include a lot more players in total, but it should be easy enough to weed through to the 1 or 2 real options. BOT teams would also have assigned pools; if they continue to be poor drafters, they would be a significant source of sleeper picks. If not, sleepers would be lower POT guys who are actually better than they look (like a real life sleeper).


As an example, lets pretend there are 500 teams and 6000 prospects.

In the first round each team would be preassigned 12 prospects (high POT players could be evenly distributed).

In the second round each team would have 11 preassigned players.

.
.
.

In the 8th round each team would have 5 players to choose from (higher POT can still be evenly distributed).




The number of choices could either decrement by one each round, or just be whatever was divisible by the remainder (so it might not decrement in a round if some teams didn't pick).

Example, from the above scenario if there were still 3045 players left in round 8, each team would get 6 choices.





Updated Saturday, June 8 2019 @ 4:23:59 pm PDT
dlwarren1
Joined: 06/21/2017
Posts: 39

Saginaw Crusaders
VI.23

Broken Bat Baseball
I don't understand why people think higher pot players should be "evenly distributed". Why not then put just 1 player in each draft pool and be done with it.
MukilteoMike
Joined: 08/09/2014
Posts: 3294

Inactive

Broken Bat Baseball

I don't understand why people think higher pot players should be "evenly distributed".

Umm, to be fair? Shouldn't we all start (draft) with similar quality?

This type of idea has been thrown around before. I generally like it, but I think you've got the progression backwards. In my opinion, we should start with fewer, but better, options. 3 or 4 true first rounders is fine provided they're actually good players. As the draft progresses, you add an additional choice every round because quality becomes more even and pedestrian, making multiple options more important. This way you are basically starting with "best available" and then move toward "what do I most need" in later rounds.

Updated Saturday, June 8 2019 @ 6:36:50 pm PDT
Rock777
Joined: 09/21/2014
Posts: 9571

Haverhill Halflings
III.1

Broken Bat Baseball
Its more about how many players you can actually divvy up. You have fewer players as you progress, so you can't have more options. If you are drafting 500 players each round, you may start off with 6500 which you can split up into 500 pools of 13. But by the time you get to round 8 you'll only have 2500 players left (just enough for 5 picks a piece).

More choices in the beginning is actually a better emulation of a real draft anyhow. You do have more choices in the beginning, the reason you take lesser players at the end is because there is very little left.

With this model we would still have the same amount of garbage players in the first round that we have now, but it would eliminate the early bird advantage and enable more even distribution of talent if Steve wanted to implement it.

An alternative version (which is probably more along the lines that Mike is thinking) would be to only show 5 players each round, but specifically distribute the highest talent guys first. That would mean that you wouldn't see POT 9s or 10s until you were at least halfway through the draft.

Updated Saturday, June 8 2019 @ 9:01:46 pm PDT
Cactusguy21
Joined: 07/25/2017
Posts: 815

Presque Isle Vikings
III.4

Broken Bat Baseball
You guys do realize that there are draft busts in real life right? You don't think some teams have had better luck than others with drafting in MLB? And since POT doesn't change significantly in this game, then we need another way to simulate this issue. That's where restricting the number you see comes in. When you get a bad board, don't think "why can't I draft the best players", instead think "my pick busted".

I agree though on getting rid of shared pools. As much as I enjoy my east coast bonus it's not really fair to allow the early bird thing.
wuggla
Joined: 05/10/2013
Posts: 1058

Colorado Springs Vultures
V.14

Broken Bat Baseball
Steve has told us already that "POTENTIAL" does and will change from now on. NO individual pool for teams. Their is no early draft advantage. Nobody has proof or real math showing if you click draft button first you get better POT players. Again I do not believe in early bird draft advantage "it don't exist" NO individual pool also not gonna happen.
Rock777
Joined: 09/21/2014
Posts: 9571

Haverhill Halflings
III.1

Broken Bat Baseball
Yes, there is plenty of mathematical proof that you have an advantage drafting first. It has already been posted on the board, and really should be obvious. If there was no advantage to drafting early, you would get the same quality players in round 8 as in round 1. Its really just common sense if you can't read the math.

I've had plenty of POT 14 busts. If all you are doing is looking at POT, you are going to get a LOT of busts. The issue is when one team is getting 4 POT 14 players in the first three rounds of the draft, while another gets nothing but POT 10s. There is enough variability in this game that we can get busts without "emulating" them by giving people garbage options to pick from in the first round.

Consider a player like Parsons. Not bad, but definitely a bust considering his ratings. My team is full of guys like that. Busts happen naturally in the game. We don't have to force them by forcing people to take bad 1st round picks.




Updated Sunday, June 9 2019 @ 7:54:18 am PDT
Rock777
Joined: 09/21/2014
Posts: 9571

Haverhill Halflings
III.1

Broken Bat Baseball
BTW, I'm not suggesting your pool of players stay static throughout the year. I'm saying it gets preset every week. So essentially it plays out identically to how it does now. Each week you get a random set of players from the "shared pool", but the players are designated at the start of the week, so you don't need to worry about others sucking up all the talent before you have a chance to draft. It would also eliminate the issue where sometimes a guy disappears off your board in the late rounds because you didn't click the draft button quickly enough.

Most importantly it eliminates the race condition. I think a game like this should be about thinking, not click speed. If we got ride of the timing advantage on drafts, the only place where speed play would still be a factor in the game would be Manager acquisition.
Rock777
Joined: 09/21/2014
Posts: 9571

Haverhill Halflings
III.1

Broken Bat Baseball
There is actually a way we could even still keep the pools with this approach. The difference is that you would need to define your preferred pool prior to the end of the week. Then when your options are reserved, Steve could write an algorithm that attempts to give you primarily prospects from the pool you requested. Obviously you couldn't be guaranteed only prospects from one specific pool if lots of other people also picked that pool. But it would preserve the tactic of picking from pools while eliminating the race conditions of the current draft format.



Updated Sunday, June 9 2019 @ 8:09:37 am PDT


Previous Page | Show All |