|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 25, 2015 14:53:49 GMT -5
WEE
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 15:58:57 GMT -5
There are zero viable future starters in this draft without luck... Not even back end guys
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 25, 2015 16:04:52 GMT -5
There are zero viable future starters in this draft without luck... Not even back end guys I'd love to have your first round pick if you want to get more picks leter |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 16:26:06 GMT -5
That's not going to fix the problem of this god awful ratings system we have
|
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on Oct 25, 2015 16:43:30 GMT -5
There are zero viable future starters in this draft without luck... Not even back end guys Kinda like a few drafts back when you said there is only 1 major leaguer and now dozens of them without PD rate ups are in pros or raring this season. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 25, 2015 16:56:51 GMT -5
That's not going to fix the problem of this god awful ratings system we have I'll still take your first. How about all my picks + Harry Parker for it |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 16:57:14 GMT -5
Yeah with pd luck gj confirming
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 17:05:51 GMT -5
No player from that draft became an above average starter on any team without natural pd luck
|
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on Oct 25, 2015 17:19:26 GMT -5
No player from that draft became an above average starter on any team without natural pd luck The draft is about more then just what 1 team got. Many other teams did fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 17:33:30 GMT -5
Wow can you read? I said any team not one
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2015 17:55:08 GMT -5
And if you look in the GRIPES forum, I think the top of this class is VASTLY overrated, and inaccurate. Not sure about the rest, I just looked at the top 4 or 5 players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 19:49:25 GMT -5
Chris said he tweaked the very top.
Still doesn't excuse the piss poor pitching, which is my biggest gripe. Not a single guy here is gonna crack the top 100 on atpitching. Every draft should introduce at least a COUPLE on both sides.
|
|
Matt
Other 
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 25, 2015 19:52:36 GMT -5
Chris said he tweaked the very top. Still doesn't excuse the piss poor pitching, which is my biggest gripe. Not a single guy here is gonna crack the top 100 on atpitching. Every draft should introduce at least a COUPLE on both sides. So who would you have changed and how on the pitching side? Or would you have just randomly picked guys by name and made them better, just because? |
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on Oct 25, 2015 20:17:10 GMT -5
Wow can you read? I said any team not one And yet you are still wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 20:59:23 GMT -5
Chris said he tweaked the very top. Still doesn't excuse the piss poor pitching, which is my biggest gripe. Not a single guy here is gonna crack the top 100 on atpitching. Every draft should introduce at least a COUPLE on both sides. So who would you have changed and how on the pitching side? Or would you have just randomly picked guys by name and made them better, just because? Matlack for sure. Reuss too. I'd probably have them both as G/G/B or G/B/Gs |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 20:59:56 GMT -5
I'm not saying everyone needs to be a stud but we all know G/G/B and G/B/G are the true middle rotation guys, and both of those guys were solid middle rotation players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 21:24:37 GMT -5
It's not very hard to eyeball stats on a pitcher in real life and create something that will repeat in the league in a similar fashion, not by some archaic chart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 21:25:23 GMT -5
Hitters are obviously more complicated
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 21:26:13 GMT -5
G/A/G/G/G is certainly not going to lead to a 3.64 career ERA for Reuss like his real life counterpart, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 25, 2015 21:27:26 GMT -5
but i thought we were looking for realism no?
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 25, 2015 21:48:48 GMT -5
G/A/G/G/G is certainly not going to lead to a 3.64 career ERA for Reuss like his real life counterpart, that's for sure. Why not? |
|
bigmark
General Manager 
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,175
|
Post by bigmark on Oct 25, 2015 23:31:54 GMT -5
G/A/G/G/G is certainly not going to lead to a 3.64 career ERA for Reuss like his real life counterpart, that's for sure. It would if we stopped giving into people who want to inflate all the ratings.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2015 23:56:47 GMT -5
The chart isn't archaic, the program is. I believe the chart is straight from the developers of ootp5, I don't think it's just a made up thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 0:18:09 GMT -5
That doesn't mean a better method doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 0:18:35 GMT -5
G/A/G/G/G is certainly not going to lead to a 3.64 career ERA for Reuss like his real life counterpart, that's for sure. It would if we stopped giving into people who want to inflate all the ratings.... Well the draft certainly isn't what's inflating the ratings. |
|
