Critical news debate Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by themergerguy on 5/7/2015 6:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rbedwell on 5/7/2015 6:08:00 PM (view original):
In the long run, owners will get about the same results as they always have. There might be a slight transition period, and maybe this will inject a bit more luck into it. But it will still come down to effort spent analyzing the game and individual ability to analyze.
This is what I really hope they didn't do. 
IMO, the introduction of "more luck" takes away from a very complex and well designed game.

Bigger, better DITR and fuzzier projections will involve a bit more luck.      I don't think it will be a drastic change, after all the .300 career hitter who suddenly hits .237 one season is luck, but will create a better playing field for those who aren't collecting top 3 picks and high priced IFA at the expense of wins. 

IOW, my 87 win team picking 18th might have the same shot at getting the next HOFer as the 64 win team picking 5th with fuzzier ratings. 
5/7/2015 6:19 PM
rwings1927
Posts: 324 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 1 146 83
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 6:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rwings1927 on 5/7/2015 6:03:00 PM (view original):
My feelings are if they're going to try and coerce you into putting more money into scouting then they should include fixing the injury issue's so we don't have to keep dumping 20M into training and medical and free up some budget space.

No one is forced to put $ into training or medical.   There are a lot of 0 medical owners out there.    Not so many 0 training because it affects development.

True but if they're making the $ put into scouting more indicative of a players numbers then the same should be done to medical, it's ridiculous to have a 90 health player get long term injuries in back to back seasons while a 20 health player can go years without a scratch.
5/7/2015 6:23 PM
jrnyfan01
Posts: 1836 (0)
Hall of Famer
217 48 8 4 93 26 133
Prospect
Seems like 5 seasons to bring your ADV or INT/HS/COLL scouting from zero to 20. Without 20, who will trade with you? Players you have drafted/acquired prior to that number are suspect at best once the update is incorporated.
Then, 3.5 or 4 seasons to see those better projected draft picks progress through the minors and play for your ML team (if lucky because you still could draft someone crappy). At least 2 calendar years and $200+ to adjust to the new world order for each team owned. I think they might be overestimating my love of the game...
5/7/2015 6:24 PM
mchales_army
Posts: 523 (0)
Prospect
1
Rookie
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 6:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by themergerguy on 5/7/2015 6:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rbedwell on 5/7/2015 6:08:00 PM (view original):
In the long run, owners will get about the same results as they always have. There might be a slight transition period, and maybe this will inject a bit more luck into it. But it will still come down to effort spent analyzing the game and individual ability to analyze.
This is what I really hope they didn't do. 
IMO, the introduction of "more luck" takes away from a very complex and well designed game.

Bigger, better DITR and fuzzier projections will involve a bit more luck.      I don't think it will be a drastic change, after all the .300 career hitter who suddenly hits .237 one season is luck, but will create a better playing field for those who aren't collecting top 3 picks and high priced IFA at the expense of wins. 

IOW, my 87 win team picking 18th might have the same shot at getting the next HOFer as the 64 win team picking 5th with fuzzier ratings. 
I'm fine with that. If the number 1 pick ends up being a career .275 hitter it isn't a total loss. I just fear the pendulum swinging too far the other way...
5/7/2015 6:24 PM
brianp87
Posts: 1340 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 46 89
Prospect
I think they should do a beta world for bugs like they used to do in HD. It helped us find bugs and let them know what needed to be fixed with minimal affect on the majority. Of course it requires getting quality guys who actually watch, try new things and maintain things.
5/7/2015 6:31 PM
mchales_army
Posts: 523 (0)
Prospect
1
Rookie
Posted by jrnyfan01 on 5/7/2015 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Seems like 5 seasons to bring your ADV or INT/HS/COLL scouting from zero to 20. Without 20, who will trade with you? Players you have drafted/acquired prior to that number are suspect at best once the update is incorporated.
Then, 3.5 or 4 seasons to see those better projected draft picks progress through the minors and play for your ML team (if lucky because you still could draft someone crappy). At least 2 calendar years and $200+ to adjust to the new world order for each team owned. I think they might be overestimating my love of the game...
Owners who haven't zeroed their ADV.

They might see a prospect that you don't value so much.

It took you 3 seasons to get to 0. 

I think they are OK losing a few whiners over it. They seem to be focused (FINALLY) on improving the game for the majority.

HOPEFULLY this new change coincides with a massive invite/promo sent to all of the many many great owners we've lost over the last two years because it got stale.
5/7/2015 6:33 PM
arcadecowboy
Posts: 234 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 362 129 11
Prospect
Generally, I like all of this.

I do hope the "prospect-player development adjustments" work well. I kinda hope they address the gripe that no one ever reaches projections. I usually rounded down about 10% even with good money spent on ADV. I don't think anyone ever exceeded projected ratings. Not that I couldn't adjust in my mind, but it was like I had a friend who kept saying "penultimate" when he meant "ultimate." I had to translate what the projected said into what it meant.

Also, I don't have a problem with the no grace period. I only have one team down to 0 (was late in paying attention to what everyone was doing & deciding to try it out), and I *just* got it down to 0, so little time benefitting -- but don't care. The teams that did have seen benefit, and will still have players in their system they gained while benefitting -- doesn't bother me either.

My 2 centavos.

5/7/2015 6:37 PM
kmcelroy85
Posts: 178 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 1 99 6 93
Prospect
It majorly disincentivizes tanking and majorly disincentivizes loading up the prospect budget to build an eventual juggernaut.  It's also more realistic. 

More competitive + more realistic = no-brainer.  I love it.
5/7/2015 6:39 PM
mongoose_22
Posts: 597 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 5 124
Prospect
"I hope ADV affects all domestic/international prospect projections.    The HS/Coll/IFA could show how MANY of those you see while ADV gives the accurate projections.   THAT would make ADV important."

This. This is how you make it the most balanced (as far as importance of the 4 different scouting budgets) of any of the ways I've seen suggested.

5/7/2015 6:40 PM
bjschumacher
Posts: 4573 (0)
Hall of Famer
49 2 80 449 170
All Star
Posted by jrnyfan01 on 5/7/2015 6:24:00 PM (view original):
Seems like 5 seasons to bring your ADV or INT/HS/COLL scouting from zero to 20. Without 20, who will trade with you? Players you have drafted/acquired prior to that number are suspect at best once the update is incorporated.
Then, 3.5 or 4 seasons to see those better projected draft picks progress through the minors and play for your ML team (if lucky because you still could draft someone crappy). At least 2 calendar years and $200+ to adjust to the new world order for each team owned. I think they might be overestimating my love of the game...
Trading for a player in his 2nd season will be more of a risk. But if the player has been around for 3 seasons or more for position players, and 4 seasons or more for pitchers, this shouldn't be much of a game changer for trades.
5/7/2015 6:40 PM
dcbove
Posts: 177 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 138
Prospect
I only read the first few pages so forgive me if this is a duplicate.

Here's the scenario:
  • Two teams, one with ADV of 0 and one with ADV of 20, are considering signing a 33 year old FA position player to a three-year deal.
  • Each can only see the current and projected rankings for the current season (which, unless there is a change I"m missing, will be the same).
So, is it true that the team with good ADV has no advantage over the the other team with regards to whether the player has already begun declining?

---

TL;DR:  ADV only applies to projecting prospect development.  Everyone is equally in the dark about veteran decline.  Correct?
5/7/2015 6:46 PM
dcbove
Posts: 177 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 138
Prospect
Silly request.  Can we see all the ratings once players retire?  That'd be nice for HoF, etc.
5/7/2015 6:48 PM
mchales_army
Posts: 523 (0)
Prospect
1
Rookie
Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:48:00 PM (view original):
Silly request.  Can we see all the ratings once players retire?  That'd be nice for HoF, etc.
Seems like an easy request to honor.
5/7/2015 6:51 PM
mchales_army
Posts: 523 (0)
Prospect
1
Rookie
Posted by dcbove on 5/7/2015 6:46:00 PM (view original):
I only read the first few pages so forgive me if this is a duplicate.

Here's the scenario:
  • Two teams, one with ADV of 0 and one with ADV of 20, are considering signing a 33 year old FA position player to a three-year deal.
  • Each can only see the current and projected rankings for the current season (which, unless there is a change I"m missing, will be the same).
So, is it true that the team with good ADV has no advantage over the the other team with regards to whether the player has already begun declining?

---

TL;DR:  ADV only applies to projecting prospect development.  Everyone is equally in the dark about veteran decline.  Correct?
I think this is all correct.

I can't think of a scenario where this wouldn't be true pre or post update.
5/7/2015 6:52 PM
dcbove
Posts: 177 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 138
Prospect
Not sure how it'll turn out, but with an ADV of 10 I would rather see good information in 50% of cases and nothing in the others as opposed to suspect information in 100% of the cases.  

I guess the RL analog would be that with ADV of 20 my good scouts can cover the whole country but with an ADV of 10 I can only afford to send good scouts to half the country.  In no case do I want to spend $10M on ADV to send crappy scouts to the entire country.
5/7/2015 6:56 PM
◂ Prev 1...7|8|9|10|11...54 Next ▸
Critical news debate Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.