Good point. If we can already see the majority of the 4's and 5's, our chances of landing a 3 or better are diminished.
Here's what I've got from my scouts:
Nine 5's
Three 4's
Five 3's
Nine 2's
Two 1's
I wonder if each grade of player is alloted nine players, and then 3 more random guys are tossed in to give us the 48 players in the draft. Would a BB like to comment? :)
If that's the case, (and that's a big IF) I've got a better chance to get a 1 than a 4, but a better chance to get a 4 than a 3.
Anyone else get more than 9 in one grade of player?
I don't know if that's a fair question. For those teams that "owned" their teams all season, and could scout the whole season, you should have more "visible" ratings. Those of us who have only been here for 5-6 weeks or less, may have fewer visibles. Of my 48 slots, I have 27 with some rating and 10 with all four columns with data.
I have eleven 5's (four with A+ grades), six 4's, five 3's, three 2's, and two 1's...that leaves 21 "unknowns"...
the way I understand it, is depending on how much was invested in scouting by the other 15 teams in my series, we should have the same "players", but different information on each slot. Some might see slot "1", some might not. With so many 5's visible to me, I'm guessing that the majority of the "unknowns" are going to be 2's and 1's. I would imagine the distribution of the 5 start levels is probably similar across each series, but I would hope that it isn't equally divided among the 5. That doesn't seem too realistic (not that it has to be!!). With eleven 5's for me, that exceeds the "avg." of 9.6 for each star ranking (48/5=9.6), so there should be a significant number of the "unknowns" down at the bottom of the ranking scale in my series......
Again, because of the differences in scouting budgets, etc. every team is going to have different data visible. You just have to use a little logic and common sense to figure out where to rank those "unknown" players........