Have you seen ratings revert back to pre-injury after roll over? I had 3 guys I put on the 60 Day last season and they all lost some of the injury gains in the off season. It was only the training/off season related ratings though.

WARNING - This is going to yet another jimmystick rant about how the fuzzy draft ratings suck the worst possible type of ***. Call me a whiny crybaby or whatever if you want.

I decided to rank the Switch Hitter ahead of the Lefty. I liked his splits and thought he had the better liklihood of being a good CF. So I sacrified the elite batting eye, contact, and makeup, and went with splits and defense. BUT, neither guy was my top choice. I had the 4th pick, and I ranked a SP at #1. I wanted dearly to draft that pitcher but I really liked both these hitters as consolation prizes if that pitcher was off the board. Both these hitters are age 21 and I had $18 million in college scouting. Plus, my ML team really needs an offensive CF and I am in love with switch hitters. The first pick in the draft was somebody my scouts didn't find, the left-handed hitting CF (the guy hockey really likes) went #2, the SP I really wanted went #3, so I got my second overall choice, the switch hitting CF, at #4 overall. Here's a comparison of his projected ratings with $18m coll scouting, and his current ratings at age 21. I'm not posting his post-draft projected ratings because my advanced scouting is lower than $18m.

	Pre-draft Projection ($18m scout budget)	Post-draft Current rating
Overall	84	64
range	94	76
glove	83	52
arm acc	56	49
arm str	60	48
pitch call	9	4
dur	84	72
health	85	72
speed	78	80
patience	89	74
temper	64	56
makeup	32	34
contact	76	55
power	58	55
vL	89	63
vR	73	45
eye	76	69
base run	64	52
bunt	62	45
push/pull	31	24

So the biggest reasons I favored this guy over the competition were his splits and his defense, but both his splits and defense suck compared to what I saw pre-draft! He looks like a mediocre 2B defensively (not an above average CF) and his splits leave a lot to be desired despite the fact that his eye and power will be better than what I saw pre-draft. He's not a #4 overall pick type of player. This was almost $22 million to scout and sign this guy.

I actually like draft fuzziness. I just think WIS took it way too far. The way I've described it in the forums the past couple years is that if I've got the thermostat in my house set at 60 degrees and people complain it's too cold so I want to adjust it, but instead of setting it to 72, I crank it up to 85. It just doesn't make any sense to me that the fuzziness can be this bad.

This is my suggestion. I would like to see somewhere between 30-50% of the players come labeled as "boom or bust," or "potential diamonds." Basically, they are risky high-ceiling guys who could be busts, too. But they are totally labeled as such pre-draft so that everybody knows. These players will have super fuzzy ratings, maybe even more fuzzy than what we see now. And furthermore, I'd like the ratings on these guys to remain super fuzzy until they've spent at least a full season playing professional baseball, maybe even a season and a half--for HS players, maybe even 2 or 3 seasons until they are 21 or 22 years old (but projected ratings gradually become less fuzzy as the player accumulates experience). This way, every GM knows the guy is a risk, and we can all decide if we're willing to take that risk or not. For the rest of the players without this label pre-draft, their projected ratings are slightly fuzzy, but more closer to what we saw before WIS made the programming change.

I think it is totally beyond ridiculous that a $15 million scouting budget is pretty much worthless. It's like, you either have to spend $20 million or else you may as well spend $0.

I played with the #1 overall pick in 2008. He was a "sure thing." That's why the Rays took him #1 overall. I think the way that WIS has it set up now is ideal. There is a chance that #4 pick from yesterday, I think it was Brendan McKay, could be a college bust and worth no where near the money that he'll be paid.

Jesus. The glove and VsR hits were rough.

this is also a case for why more draft picks is better. Sadly i still haven't seen a future hall of famer past round 1 but I have often gotten. Better player in the comp round and round 2 vs round 1.

@jimmy- when the #2 guy signs, can you pls post the pre-draft projection vs the post-draft current for that guy too so we can compare?

The guy you drafted throws right so he'll fit fine at 2B, he'll probably top out at ~85 range, ~70 glove, ~57 AS and ~60 AA, ~90 Dur ~80 INJ.... 80 speed and ~70 BR... ~75-80 contact, ~62 power, ~85 vL and ~65 vR, ~75 eye. He bats S so when he hits his prime he looks to be a perennial .285/.350/.500 guy who will get you 20ish HR, 40ish 2B, 5-10 triples, and 35 SBs every season, with above average defense. That's Player Profile: Logan Hayes with a better bat but less defense. Players like that are franchise players, Hayes has been top-5 in MVP voting three times

Posted by pjfoster13 on 6/13/2017 2:47:00 PM (view original):
@jimmy- when the #2 guy signs, can you pls post the pre-draft projection vs the post-draft current for that guy too so we can compare?

The guy you drafted throws right so he'll fit fine at 2B, he'll probably top out at ~85 range, ~70 glove, ~57 AS and ~60 AA, ~90 Dur ~80 INJ.... 80 speed and ~70 BR... ~75-80 contact, ~62 power, ~85 vL and ~65 vR, ~75 eye. He bats S so when he hits his prime he looks to be a perennial .285/.350/.500 guy who will get you 20ish HR, 40ish 2B, 5-10 triples, and 35 SBs every season, with above average defense. That's Player Profile: Logan Hayes with a better bat but less defense. Players like that are franchise players, Hayes has been top-5 in MVP voting three times

Yes I will definitely post rating comparison for the other guy. He was a 'questionable to sign' type so hopefully it doesn't take too long.

this makes me feel a little better about the pick. I am pretty stacked in the infield though... or at least I will be by the time this guy reaches the Majors in 2 years. My choices are either A) Play him in CF and suffer his bad defense for his good offense B) Utility infielder and super sub, playing mostly vs lefties C) Trade him for somebody else

None of those are terrible choices. It just sucks because I wanted this player for his glove and vR split and those were the two ratings most fuzzy! Terrible luck... I very rarely have top 10 picks and I hate so badly to get the fourth overall pick wrong.

All I'm gonna say is, I don't mind the player one bit. IMO that's a damn solid player for 4th overall in the draft.

honestly, imo those pre-draft ratings weren't very fuzzy at all, esp the vR. Until you start getting into his development cycles, you don't actually know the truth about the perceived over-projection ...The gap between current vR and projected vR is only 28, which can be within the realm of possibility (esp for a top pick), so just give it some time and patience and see what comes of it. Even if he conservatively gets +20 vR instead of +28, that's still 65 and that's decent enough because he bats S. If he is getting +2 vR each cycle then you're getting to 70+ like your draft scout predicted. And not only that, they maybe gave you 5-10 less vR but on the flipside they're giving you 5-10 more power

76 current Range isn't so bad, and it's hard to know exactly what is going to happen with glove until time goes by. Maybe he gets +2 each cycle or maybe he gets +1 each cycle... so just keep targeting top Fielding coaches and hope for the best. I get that glove is a key attribute that determines position eligibility and therefore scarcity/value, but imo it's wayyyy too early to start having takes such as "terrible luck", "I got this pick wrong", "I'm going to UTIL this player", etc. Every one of those takes is ridiculous imo, this player is a future all-star. Not everybody has 99 vR my friend. In the future consider selecting players based off the overall picture instead of 1-2 attributes... but all things considered- imo they gave you almost literally what they promised you were getting

But like you said, if things are looking bleak on the development side then "C) Trade him for somebody else" is always worth considering

Pjfoster, you are probably right I'm overreacting however just a few points worth clarifying.

1) my frustration isn't just based on this one player, but several years worth of fuzzy drafts spanning multiple worlds.
2) I know this player is very good, but he's not as good as I expected and I think an $18m budget should very rarely be so fuzzy
3) I didn't make the selection based on 1-2 ratings, but those 2 ratings were the sole reason I rated him higher than one other player (who happened to be off the board when it was my turn anyway)

thanks for your input. I freely admit I tend to overreact to surprises. There is a famous example in Spahn where the opposite happened. I had the 30th pick and drafted my #1 ranked guy who was an average relief pitcher but I posted in main chat enthusiasm as if I just took a hall of fame. Many seasons later, some people still remember it and make fun of me. The only reason i had that guy ranked number one was because i had a $10m college scouting budget and couldn't see any of the top players.

jimmy, this ain't criticism coming from me, OK? Everyone puts too much stock in projections. I understand especially when you need a CF and you need that 90+ Range, I'm there too. But I always say projections in a draft should only be used to differentiate the players you like. The three players ahead of yours may look like they should be studs, but they could all bust. I've absolutely seen a draft with only ONE great player in it. You may be looking for a CF and there may be NO CFs in the entire draft. These players all have to be developed.

As is often said, don't fault your process, the results come from sound process.

Posted by damag on 6/13/2017 3:37:00 PM (view original):
All I'm gonna say is, I don't mind the player one bit. IMO that's a damn solid player for 4th overall in the draft.

Agree. His glove might get into the low 70s, in which case he's an above-average 2B (very high range, too many errors) whose bat might develop to where he's an every-year Silver Slugger candidate at the position. Or the glove might not quite get there, in which case the bat could very well play in LF where he's a borderline Gold Glover.

Yes, your scouts had a little too much gin and juice in them when they made the call on splits and glove. But the rest of it is probably not too far off, and I bet the power ends up closer to 70 than 58.

A high end college prospect can still gain 20-25 points in a given category, if they're 19y/o's at least. He'll be solid. One more reason to run $20M scouting though.

The other player signed and here is the comparison of his Pre-draft projections ($18m college scouting) vs Current ratings post-signing. The player is age 21 and bats Left. He went 3rd overall in the draft and I was able to get the guy I wanted at 4th overall.

	Pre-draft Projection ($18m scout budget)	Post-draft Current rating
Overall	93	74
Range	100	80
Glove	83	73
arm stregnth	41	41
arm acc	71	55
pitch	21	11
durability	88	76
health	57	58
speed	88	87
patience	100	76
temper	48	39
makeup	98	83
contact	91	70
power	78	71
vL	83	61
vR	59	38
eye	95	85
base running	63	43
bunt	71	45
push pull	65	61

The two pitchers that went 1 and 2 in the draft don't look that great. Very mediocre in splits. I'd say the two hitters that went 3 and 4 are the two best players in the draft that I can tell.

So strange to see a leftie have so much higher splits VsL then VsR.