Most likely, yes.

Prior to the changes earlier this year, $18m COL would = $18M ADV.  Now, $18M COL would be fuzzier (and therefore less accurate) than $18M ADV.

But I would think that even a fuzzier $18M COL should be more accurate than $10M ADV.  $8M is a significant difference.

Thanks.

I think the draft sucks, period. If I am getting players who are significantly lower ratings in the 1st round, where are the good players going? They aren't going to the 5th round. Where are they, Mike? I'm dropping 18 in college scouting and getting AAAA or ML bench players with the 15th pick.

They're going somewhere.  There's no indication that the overall level of talent has changed for the draft.  The fuzzier ratings just means that they are being distributed differently.

I've gotten high first round talent in mid to late first round in some recent drafts since the update, in addition to getting AAAA guys in other drafts.

Why are you asking me?   I hadn't posted in this thread, timbo.  

As tec said, they're going somewhere.    Unless you think HS/College quality is down.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2015 5:45:00 PM (view original):
Why are you asking me?   I hadn't posted in this thread, timbo.  

As tec said, they're going somewhere.    Unless you think HS/College quality is down.

Well it worked, didn't it? Like saying Beetlejuice three times.

Candyman.

They're going later.  I've picked up some dud first rounders since the change-- but i also got a guy at pick 41 who looks like he's going to be a legitimate SP2, and a very good 120 IP SuA in the 3rd round.  I also had a true stud pitcher (maybe only 140 IP but truly outstanding) fall to me at pick 11.

In my brief experience, fuzzier projections, and especially not being able to see current ratings, have had the desired effect of making the draft less predictable and look more like the real draft.  You can decide whether you like that or not.

Posted by dedelman on 12/1/2015 8:02:00 PM (view original):
They're going later.  I've picked up some dud first rounders since the change-- but i also got a guy at pick 41 who looks like he's going to be a legitimate SP2, and a very good 120 IP SuA in the 3rd round.  I also had a true stud pitcher (maybe only 140 IP but truly outstanding) fall to me at pick 11.

In my brief experience, fuzzier projections, and especially not being able to see current ratings, have had the desired effect of making the draft less predictable and look more like the real draft.  You can decide whether you like that or not.

+1

I like it a lot more when I'm picking in the 20s not so much when I'm picking in the single digits. 

My guess is most people feel that way.

After checking, my highest pick has been 15th.   I've had two of them.   One looks like a top 10 guy to me, the other a supplemental round guy.   But a 19th looks really good and one of my supplemental picks looks much better than he should have been. 

the quality of draft classes can vary pretty dramatically as well...in our most recent draft with 20M college scouting, i saw top 5 talents going in the 20s and 30s and top 15 talents going in the 50s...i even got a guy at 100 that last year i would have been thrilled to get in the 40s, but this was the deepest draft i've seen in a long time so it will take a few more drafts still until i have a real good feel for the effects of the update

IMO, I just killed it in my MG draft.   14th and 39th netted me my 1 and 7 rated guys.   I never get those guys there if currents were shown.

Mike, in that very same draft, I had 16 mil HS and 0 College scouting.  Didn't see 13 of the 17 players picked before mine, looks like they were all College players.  I got my #2 guy at the 18th pick.

The college player I saw projected at 99 overall went after my pick.  Since I have 0 ADV I'll have no idea what he'll end up at.