Note: The data below only applies to players which the GAME, not the web site, rate as 4.5 - 5 GOLD stars. I didn’t think it was fair to include blue star prospects as they’re graded differently.
Interestingly, the data showed an inverse curve with higher edges than middle.
| Round | # of top players |
| 1 | 8 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 0 |
| 4+ | 9 |
| Unknown | 7 |
Note: The seven players whose origin is ‘unknown’ are generally older players who, for whatever reason don’t have their introduction to the league recorded. If anyone has further data please write.
Note, also, that there’s actually MORE top players produced from rounds 4 and higher than in round 1. Odd, no? Though with the including of Rounds 1 and 2 together it’s clear that it’s more likely that a higher draft choice will produce a Hall of Fame caliber player it’s also true that such a play can come completely and unexpectedly out of nowhere. Those lower draft choices have value…but there’s a lot of chaff for all of the wheat.
And, for your continued edification, here’s a list of the players whom no one could predict would become top flight players. I’ve included their teams, names, Round chosen, and position.
| Team | Player | Round Selected | Position |
| River Cities | Willie Egan | 49 | MR |
| River Cities | Harold Beeks | 4 | CL |
| River Cities | John Okane | 6 | SP |
| Saskatoon | Demarcus Ramirez | 28 | SP |
| Seattle | Gregory Mudge | 19 | 1B |
| Seattle | Samuel Contreras | 17 | CL |
| Seattle | Willie Sewell | 29 | MR |
| Walla Walla | Chris Moss | 42 | LF |
Note that many of them go back far enough to be in the initial league draft of 2002. But not all. And what it all means? You all tell me. But I thought it was interesting.
I think it means that people drafted prospects (good prospects) after they filled out their starting rosters in 2002. If you eliminated the 2002 draft, I bet almost all the stars are in the first 2 rounds.
ReplyDeleteWhat it means to me is that I feel justified building my championship teams (then, and hopefully now) via trades and free agency.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting data, though.
Oh, also, I think some of the unknown-origin players were some of the roster filling players from 2004. I've noticed quite a few really good players got created that season.
ReplyDeleteI wish I still had the e-mails discussing this. Mack, do you have them? I don't remember what the circumstances were.
Just one comments now, with more to come later, after the newest member of the Monarchs goes to bed, but the fact that many of these players were picked in the inaugural draft wildly skews the result. If I remember correctly, the game didn't start drafting prospects, as opposed to establish players, until the rounds were in the double digits. I suspect that explains a lot of the "surprising" players.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Mudge was a good, but not great prospect. He's definitely outperformed his start, but he'd have been somewhere around a second round pick in a conventional draft.
OK. A few points.
ReplyDelete1. Responding to Michael's question. Some players were created in 2003 when Zev filled out everyone's AAA rosters. Some of those people became good players. After the expansion occurred in 2004, Zev again filled out the AAA rosters. More good players appeared. I have the emails, but a lot of the discussion occurred on the message board we had at the time, and I don't have an archive of that at all.
2. As to the "unknown players" on my team. Chad Nelligan was, I believe, created in 2003. Christopher Hester was a third round pick in 2004, but was eaten by the Great Draft Bug of that year. Sean Arant was created in 2003.
Sorry to leave a third comment in a row, but would you believe my email archive goes back to the one I sent Zev saying I'd like to be in the OOTP 4 league he was setting up? Sent November 27, 2002. Five years! unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteHas it been that long? I vaguely remember it occurring in the winter of '02, as that was my first year in Sweden and I was missing baseball like mad then. I remember having to convince my ex that the money spent on the game wouldn't be wasted.
ReplyDeleteI'd say it hasn't been!
(And, I completely forgot about the message board. Ironically, I think I was the most frequent poster on it, too.)
The likliest answer is that the initial draft is still influencing the data.
ReplyDeleteBut it seems weird that we'd still have a bunch of those guys functioning at high levels after all this time.