Study of first-round draft picks, 2101 thru 2105.

[Coop]

There have been recent discussions about player development; specifically, many of the GMs in the WBA have noted that their draftees aren’t living up to their potential.  I decided to do a study to see how bad (or how good) this situation really is.

For this study I chose to review all of the first-round picks from the WBA’s first five rookie drafts (2101, 2102, 2103, 2104, 2105).  That gave me 50 players from the ABL and 50 players from the IBL, a total of 100 players (duh).  That makes calculating percentages kind of easy.  I chose not to study any drafts after 2105 because the players from the more recent drafts still have a large part of their careers ahead of them.  In fact, many of the players from the 2105 draft are still in mid-career (a 20-year-old kid drafted in 2105 would be 28 years old now), but I included that draft anyway because I wanted my study to encompass 100 players.

After identifying these 100 first-round draftees, I wrote down their career WAR, which is shown in Stats+.  I realize that not everyone is fond of WAR, and it’s not my favorite method of measuring players either, but it provides a quick, easy way of getting an approximate value for each player.  Also it’s readily available in Stats+.  So I used it.  Basically I was trying to get an idea as to how many first-round picks have developed into stars, how many first-round picks have developed into solid big-leaguers, and how many first-round picks have flopped.

Before I provide the results of my findings, let me add a caveat.  Most of these players are still active, so their career WAR values aren’t final.  In most cases I wouldn’t expect the values to change very significantly, especially for the players drafted in 2101; that was 12 years ago.  But the players drafted in 2105 could still show some growth.  So the numbers may change somewhat.  Anyway, we can only work with what we’ve got; that’s the best we can do.

Now, the results.

This study indicates that about half of all first-round picks fail.  To be exact, of the 100 players chosen in the first round from 2101-2105, 51 of them have provided a career WAR value of less than 10.

Here’s a breakdown of the totals:

Superstars (career WAR of 40 or higher):  9.
Stars (career WAR of 30 to 39.99):  9.
Good players (career WAR of 20 to 29.99):  8
Okay players (career WAR of 10 to 19.99):  23
Busts (career WAR less than 10):  51

I don’t know if this surprises anyone, but I’ll admit that it surprises ME.  This study shows that 51 percent of all first-round picks end up as busts.  That’s higher than I would have guessed.  Is it higher than it SHOULD be?  Is it higher than the real-life percentage?  I don’t know; haven’t studied it.  But that’s what we’re seeing.

While I’m at it, let me add a few tidbits of information that I found interesting.

Tidbit #1.  The highest WAR total was posted by Carlos Vargas, 88.89; he was the #7 pick in the ABL’s 2102 draft.  Second best WAR total was by Cisco Argente, 60.77; he was the #5 pick in the ABL’s 2102 draft.  That was a heck of a draft.

Tidbit #2.  It’s generally not worth it to tank in order to get the #1 pick.  There were 10 guys in this study who were the #1 pick in their respective draft.  Here are their WAR totals:  13.36, 52.13, 3.43, 34.05, 33.34, 48.47, 13.77, 10.67, 7.46, 15.78.  This means that there were 2 superstars, 2 stars, 4 okay players and 2 busts.  Thus, 60 percent of the #1 guys ended up either as okay players or busts; only 40 percent developed into truly great players.

Tidbit #3.  The best player in the draft was generally NOT the guy chosen in the #1 slot.  The guy chosen in the #1 slot ended up being the best player in the IBL’s 2101 draft and the ABL’s 2103 draft.  That’s it.  In only 2 cases out of 10, the #1 player in the draft proved to be its best player.  In the other 8 cases, the best player was a guy who was not chosen #1.

Tidbit #4.  Of the 100 players in this study, only one of them never made it to the major leagues.  That player was Tullu Krama, a leftfielder selected by Barcelona with the #7 pick in the IBL’s 2105 draft.

Tidbit #5.  The worst player in this study, according to WAR, was Orlando Duenes, a catcher selected by Ottawa with the #10 pick in the ABL’s 2104 draft.  His career WAR is -1.14.  (There are 5 other players whose career WAR is also a negative number.  But Orlando’s is the worst.  I’m sure he’s proud.)

Tidbit #6.  The draft with the most busts?  It’s a three-way tie.  There were 7 busts in the 2101 IBL draft, 7 busts in the 2103 ABL draft, and 7 busts in the 2105 ABL draft.  The draft with the fewest busts?  It’s another three-way tie.  There were only 3 busts in the 2101 ABL draft, 3 busts in the 2102 IBL draft, and 3 busts in the 2103 IBL draft.

Tidbit #7.  Best all-around draft haul in the first round?  That’s somewhat subjective, but I’d pick the 2102 ABL draft.  It had 2 top-notch superstars (Carlos Vargas and Cisco Argente) and 3 other outstanding players (Ben Reese, Piero Folena and Will Jones).  The other 5 players, however, were all busts.

Tidbit #8.  Worst all-around draft haul in the first round?  I’d say the 2105 ABL draft.  It had 7 busts, and the 3 players who weren’t busts all had career WAR values in the teens, which means they were merely okay players.  That draft’s first round produced no superstars, no stars and no good players; just 3 guys who were okay, and 7 guys who flopped.  Great draft, huh?

[Gomer]

Awesome analysis! Thanks for the good read.


My opinion is that we should be seeing at least 75% of 1st rounders being non-busts, 2/3 of 2nd rounders, and 1/2 of 3rd rounders. That doesn't mean stars, just non-busts. Something you can plan on and build around.

I don't care how this compares to real life. This is a video game.

I think ratcheting down random talent change and nudging up dev speed might help this some. But who knows, given Markus's love for unpredictable field-leveling shit.

[Claybor]

I look at our league in comparison to other leagues i am in and the ratings are actually a bit high. Now I am not talking about who and how many make it, just the overall look of the ratings. If we make it so that more guys are 'stars' then we will be filled with an all star league in which players with average ratings have no use or value. If we want more players to make it out of early rounds then I think they would need to be nerfed considerably in their potentials.

[Coop]

Yeah, I'm not sure what road is the best one to take.  I didn't undertake this draft study with any sort of agenda, especially since this is the only OOTP league I've ever been in, so I have nothing to compare it to.  I just saw that there was a discussion to the effect that a lot of our draftees are turning out to be busts, so I figured it would be worthwhile to perform a study in order to see just how many of them are in fact failing to live up to their potential.  I think it's helpful to have that information.  Having good information helps you make informed decisions.

Of course, this study only shows the first five WBA drafts.  Things could be different with the more recent drafts; it's hard to tell, since most of the players from the more recent drafts still haven't demonstrated just how good (or bad) they're going to be.

[Claybor]

Understood. It's a very interesting information, and I agree that the number of early busts does seem high.

[Gomer]

I look at our league in comparison to other leagues i am in and the ratings are actually a bit high. Now I am not talking about who and how many make it, just the overall look of the ratings. If we make it so that more guys are 'stars' then we will be filled with an all star league in which players with average ratings have no use or value.

it doesn't work that way. ratings always become relative.
this league actually has the lowest average ratings of all the leagues i'm in.
it's just a matter of if you want a guy who's rated a 5 to hit .250 or you want a guy rated a 7 to hit .250.

But that's not the point here. We're not talking raw ratings.
When you have such a low percentage of prospects, especially early round prospects, not developing to their potential, it's extremely frustrating, and eventually owners lose interest because they will not immerse themselves in a situation that continues to be disappointing.

[Claybor]

What doesn't work what way? Ratings are ratings. 7 hitters should hit .250 if the league average is maybe .230. That's why the ratings are color coded, a 7 hitter should be above average. An average hitter should be around a 5. I have been playing ootp for many many years and this league has some of the highest overall ratings I have seen. That your experiences are different I have no doubt, but it doesn't make my statement any less valid. Stars are relative to the overall ratings in the league, but the ratings are a constant unless something has changed drastically in recent versions. I think it has a lot to do with what could happen if we make any changes for 'the point here', so I think it needed mentioning.

I do agree 100% that having that many early round failures is frustrating, I just don't think there's any easy solution without throwing other things off that make it just as mush an issue in my opinion. Again your opinion may vary and that is fine.

[Gomer]

What doesn't work what way? Ratings are ratings. 7 hitters should hit .250 if the league average is maybe .230. That's why the ratings are color coded, a 7 hitter should be above average. An average hitter should be around a 5. I have been playing ootp for many many years and this league has some of the highest overall ratings I have seen. That your experiences are different I have no doubt, but it doesn't make my statement any less valid. Stars are relative to the overall ratings in the league, but the ratings are a constant unless something has changed drastically in recent versions. I think it has a lot to do with what could happen if we make any changes for 'the point here', so I think it needed mentioning.

No, this is wrong.
Ratings aren't ratings. They aren't a constant. I've been in a ton of leagues where 7's are .250 hitters.
I personally agree that an average hitter should be a 5, and I like that about the WBA.
Many leagues suffer from ratings inflation, where you pretty much need a 10 just to hit over .300, and the 12's and 13's are the ones hitting .350. I think Huck has done a nice job avoiding that so far.

Ratings ultimately are just the window dressing of the player within. It doesn't really matter how you dress them up, as long as you can gauge value somehow.

[Claybor]

Your entitled to your opinion. I disagree. Ratings are a constant.  They can be changed based on the way the league is setup as there are different modes, but once the league is set they don't change except from 'player development.

We agree on the basics here, I think.

Too many early rounders fail to reach anything close to potential.

The league is pretty well set around what 'should' be the league average.



Therefore if we improve things so that more players hit their potential, we will then have too many higher rated players in the league and no longer strike that balance. How can the average not go up if we see more higher rated players?

[Coop]

I personally wouldn't want to see anything changed dramatically, because most first-round picks have high "potential" ratings, so if all of those guys live up to their potential, eventually every team will have an all-star lineup.  At the same time I'll admit that I was surprised to find that so many players chosen in the first round end up being essentially worthless.  Just because I was surprised, however, doesn't mean it's wrong.  Maybe that's the way it should be, in order to keep the league in balance.  Or maybe not.  I don't have enough OOTP experience to know for sure.  So I'm not going to advocate anything here.  I did the research, and hopefully that will prove useful in helping to determine if changes are needed.

Even if no changes are made, I think the research is still useful.  It at least shows us that we shouldn't count on our players chosen in the first round to become great players.  That's good information for every GM to have.

[claphamsa]

i think its getting worse personally...I have a shocking number of 1st rounders that if they ever see the majors will only do so as filler.

[Gomer]

Your entitled to your opinion. I disagree. Ratings are a constant.  They can be changed based on the way the league is setup as there are different modes, but once the league is set they don't change except from 'player development.

Not to belabor the point, but this was not an opinion. It's a fact.
If 90% of the players in the league eventually have a rating between 7 and 13, they won't all be stars. The 7's will hit .250.
Look at RANZBA if you want to see how the facts play out. Guys who are rated as 5's hit .200 in RANZBA.

The thing you're not understanding is that the league averages will be the same regardless of what the ratings say. The game only looks at ratings relative to the ratings of the other players in the league.
There is a natural tendency towards ratings inflation as leagues mature, since you keep higher rated players and discard lower rated players.

But again, we aren't talking ratings. We're talking potential vs actuals, which is a whole different ballgame.

[JohnC]

There is sort of a different argument happening here. The initial discussion wasn't about the actual ratings of players. It was about development, or a severe lack of it. It was about players not developing to their potential, not weather a .250 hitter is a 5 or 7 contact.

I have been at this longer then most on here and I can say with certainty that the prospects in this league bust more then any league I have been in. The data provided here is a big enough sample size to support that.

[Txhorns]

I obviously pay more attention to my team than any other so my thoughts/opinions/experiences are pretty much completely determined by my own team.  The first few drafts I was in the league I seemed to get a stud in the 1st round almost every year.  It was my 2nd round picks that were utterly worthless.  Now in the last few drafts it feels like all of my draft picks are complete busts regardless of the round.  My last 4-5 1st round picks have dropped from 5 star potential to 3 or less within a year or 2.  Maybe I was just really lucky when I first started and am no longer getting lucky but that has been my experience.

[Huckleberry]

I don't think anyone is asking to change the ratings basis for the league, that seems to work well as most have said. I like our ratings spread. The main suggestion seems to be lowering the TCR (talent change randomness) which means that players will tend to maintain their potential ratings they received at player creation more than they currently do. I'm starting to support such a change.

Injuries will also affect this a bit, but on that one I really do need someone else to research modified injury files. I don't have the time right now so if we want to make that change anytime soon someone else will have to do the legwork.