My Game Is Ruined

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Yep. Use feeder leagues instead.

I agree. Even if my scout doesn't really like anyone or he doesn't differentiate between many players I can look at their feeder leagues stats and make educated decisions on who might be a good selection. Even with scouting on I make most draft decisions based on actual stats and not what my scout says. I use the scout to differentiate between multiple players with similar stats or as added confirmation as a player being a good/bad choice.

[rudel.dietrich]

I have a fictional league with 18 rounds of the first year draft. I have scouting off and no feeder leagues and I have not seen this yet.
It is 24 teams with a small six team league in Cuba.

In past years, feeder leagues have never worked correctly for me so I kept them off. Scouting is still a half finished idea so I keep it off as well.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by markprior22

The problem for me is that the draft "appears to be" a crapshoot. Even if the draft class winds up with a normal amount of major leaguers, it doesn't represent that up front. After just a few players, they all look the same. ALL the scouting reports basically say ALL the players suck (I use scouting with all ratings off). Shouldn't there be more variety in the draft to begin with? Shouldn't there be some players that MY scout thinks might be diamonds in the rough? We don't get that...we get a pile of players to draft with an uneducated guess.

What is your scouting accuracy set to? I get mislead all the time but my accuracy is very low.

Also "diamonds in the rough" comes from uncovering. If your scout knew a guy was a diamond in the rough during the draft, then he would be a diamond already in your scouts eyes. Why wait to draft this guy in the 15th round instead of the 1st? Raw talent and diamonds in the rough are two different things.

I personally think you are handicapping yourself. You play with ratings off but are you using feeders? We all know the scout reports aren't deep enough to rely on them solely.

[TPinrose]

Originally Posted by endgame

Well, read the entire thread below yours. I think ruined is an over-reactive term. The draft class need not resemble your inaugural draft. Even those players ended up being overstated until they actually became part of a composite league. I'm at a loss wrapping my head around this perceived problem, let alone viewing it as a ruin to a league. In addition, your league is fictional like mine. In that regard alone, what reality must it comply with if it's fiction? What it is, it is. IMHO. Delve deeper. Was it that fun to cull the best stars because they appeared to be, only to have them end up less than you'd imagined? We'll take this issue to the table soon, again, but I'm missing the impact and dread that a few of you are assigning its import. Seriously? Ruined? Please elaborate. It'd be helpful.

From an online league perspective, it seems like the draft may become less "fun." Fun is no small thing. However, only one of my leagues has switched to 14 so far, and we haven't drafted yet. I'll wait to experience a draft before yelling about the sky falling.

[ShaneCarson]

Was experiencing awful draft classes in a 5 round draft, creating 6 rounds of players. I upped it to create 8 rounds of players and the results are a whole lot better. I'm sure I'll experience some blowback eventually when this breaks something else but it's working out so far.

[Andriko]

my current fictional league of 20 teams and 3 lvls of minors has 64 College feeders, and 64 HS feeders, and so far the drafts have been rammed full of players. I've even found some neal ML redy guys in the 10th round!

Basicly, have far too many draft rounds/ too big a draft pool and you get the reverse problem of too many goodp layers.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by ShaneCarson

Was experiencing awful draft classes in a 5 round draft, creating 6 rounds of players. I upped it to create 8 rounds of players and the results are a whole lot better. I'm sure I'll experience some blowback eventually when this breaks something else but it's working out so far.

If you want more young talent in your league, then this is a strong option.

As mentioned by a previous poster, it is the RELATIVE difference between players that determines performance.

Going from 6 to 8 rounds will theoretically give you 1/3rd more good and great pitchers.

....and hitters.

Where is the advantage? League averages should still be the same, the great hitters will have a better average than the good hitters, and the great pitchers will have the most wins.

Look at the back half of pitching staffs, through the years, and you will see some truly horrendous #4, and later, #5 starters. Tell me Ted Williams and Stan Musial didn't feast on these guys. They sure weren't against the Sandy Koufax's, and Luis Tiant's of the league.

Again, it's all relative. Look up Jimmy Wynn's 1969 season, for the Houston Astro's, and tell me that he didn't have a GREAT year, despite what would be considered as a pretty average season.

Hint..look at the total runs scored for the Astros that year, and compare it to his RBI total.

[ihatenames]

Is this an imported league or new?