Of course, with Clemens, it sure likes he's going to be an average pitcher from that report.

And Jeter ain't gonna hit for ****. 

So, right there, you have two HOF players who aren't projected out to be all that if you use the numbers given.


Do you want that from HBD?

Better yet, google "-insert year- mlb draft" and count the number of 1st round picks that have made no significant impact.      Is that something you'd like from HBD?

Posted by frymaster99 on 6/1/2015 10:01:00 PM (view original):
josh, to play devil's advocate for a moment here. Can't I argue that real life scout can see a player's "current" ratings, and that's why a 50 overall could blow away competition at RL or LowA? The rest of the competition there may have lower ratings so yes the current rating is worthless in regards to the ML level. But if I'm a scout and I see a guy who is age appropriate at his level and blowing away competition, I'm more confident that he'll reach my projections than a guy who is getting the crap knocked out of him and he's three years older than everyone else. 

Setting aside that RL and WIS have little in common ... Teams pay professional scouts precisely because blowing away the amateur competition is useless information. Would the SEC HR leader have hit any with a wood bat? Did the kid with 85 Ks and 3 BBs over 62 innings get 4 starts against East Podunk JV? East Podunk and Arizona State might both have 18-22-yo players, but they are not comparable. Did the HS guy throwing back to back perfect games do it against a team coached by someone's dad because otherwise the 10 kids who wanted to play wouldn't have a team? Even the guy 3 years older getting knocked around might be misleading, if he's giving up a ton of XBH and HR to metal-bat wonders, and no one has taught him to add some downward plane to his 94 mph fb and stop leaving it over the middle of the plate because his idiot coach will bench him if he walks anyone.

You seem to agree that the most important aspect is that watching players makes you more confident in your projections, which is the main point. Scouts' job is to project what a player in college or high school is likely capable of in pro ball. It's not possible to get a 100% accurate read of that. Those who say that scouts see accurate current ratings are wrong. They guess at skills, and see accurate stats. Useless, meaningless stats. Mention stats to a real scout and the responses will range from ridicule to laughter.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I just wanted to play DA for a moment. 

Mike, to respond to your point, yes I would like to see more variation come from the draft. Perhaps 90% of first rounders get close to their projections instead of 100% etc etc. More valuable players coming from later rounds (although, the new wording for DitR makes me think this will happen.)

At the end of the day I'm going to play this game regardless. There are certain things people think NEED to happen to keep customers coming in and, ultimately, keep the game alive. They may be right, they may be wrong. I'll go along with the changes made, voice my suggestions if I come up with any, and play until the game isn't fun anymore. 

Sometimes you have to sacrifice realism for playability. 

If your desire is to have 100 percent realism how do you reach that goal when it comes to the draft?

I picked a random season and here is the top 10 players drafted in the first round of the 2000 MLB draft.  How do you fit that into the game? 9 of those players are worthless. 5 of those players never made it to the majors.

2000	1		1	FrRnd	1	Marlins	Adrian Gonzalez (minors)	1B	40.2	1540	5776	272	.293	.867							HS	Eastlake HS (Chula Vista, CA)
2000	1		2	FrRnd	2	Twins	Adam Johnson (minors)	RHP	-1.1	9	2	0	.000	.000	9	1	3	10.25	2.05	0	4Yr	California State University Fullerton (Fullerton, CA)
2000	1		3	FrRnd	3	Cubs	Luis Montanez (minors)	SS	-1.2	129	305	5	.223	.586							HS	Coral Park HS (Miami, FL)
2000	1		4	FrRnd	4	Royals	Mike Stodolka (minors)	LHP													HS	Centennial HS (Corona, CA)
2000	1		5	FrRnd	5	Expos	Justin Wayne (minors)	RHP	-1.5	26	12	0	.000	.000	26	5	8	6.13	1.65	0	4Yr	Stanford University (Palo Alto, CA)
2000	1		6	FrRnd	6	Devil Rays	Rocco Baldelli (minors)	OF	10.2	519	1910	60	.278	.766							HS	Bishop Hendricken HS (Warwick, RI)
2000	1		7	FrRnd	7	Rockies	Matt Harrington (minors)	RHP													HS	Palmdale HS (Palmdale, CA)
2000	1		8	FrRnd	8	Tigers	Matt Wheatland (minors)	RHP													HS	Rancho Bernardo HS (San Diego, CA)
2000	1		9	FrRnd	9	Padres	Mark Phillips (minors)	LHP													HS	Hanover HS (Hanover, PA)
2000	1		10	FrRnd	10	Angels	Joe Torres (minors)

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/1/2015 10:28:00 PM (view original):




And Jeter ain't gonna hit for ****. 

"Good range".  The h8ers will love that.

Plague I get that. That's why I suggested perhaps 90% number. No it isn't close to real life but it's more realistic than the current way but people would **** and moan when their first overall pick ends up sacking and I get that side of things too.

To get to the point, we want hard numbers so we don't make mistakes.   We want to see currents so we can say "This is the worst he'll be."   And we want to see projections so we can say "This is the best he'll be."    Real scouts don't have those numbers.    That's why Albert Pujols goes in the 13th, Jeter projected to a .250 hitter and Clemens was expected to be very average.

No one wants their 1st rounder to be complete crap.    I don't care if your guy is, that's realistic, but I want my guy to be a BL player.   Everyone would love to be able to grab the next Pujols in the 13th rounder but no one wants 4 Matt Stodolkas in the four seasons before that.   Losing teams have to have hope or, as you say, they'll stop playing because losing 100 over and over again with no future isn't going to be fun to play.

I just found an effect of the new update that I didn't anticipate.

I occasionally like to use the player search function to find players with a certain ratings combination to see how well they play. For example, this morning I was looking for center fielders with 80 range but a good glove to see how bad they are. I was kicking around the idea of using a guy like this, but wanted to make sure he won't be a disaster. A lot of the 79-80 range CFs I found were about 30-33 years old, which means they might have declined a few points in range over the past few years. But with the update, I can't see their old range ratings, so it's difficult to tell if their past fielding stats are relevant. I found a guy who only made 3-4 minus plays each of the last few seasons, but I can't tell if the first few years he really had a range closer to 85, or if those were all the result of an 80 range.

Not a huge problem, obviously, but it's something that becomes a bit more difficult now.

Someone in your world is probably doing it right now.   Or has in the past.   It will be a little more of a pain in the *** but retired players have full ratings history.  And, obviously, you can see currents.

Posted by frymaster99 on 6/2/2015 6:22:00 AM (view original):
Plague I get that. That's why I suggested perhaps 90% number. No it isn't close to real life but it's more realistic than the current way but people would **** and moan when their first overall pick ends up sacking and I get that side of things too.

Because it's a game where we pay 25$ to play to not get a random turd with the first pick in the draft. We don't get a chance to talk to draft picks, watch them play, etc.