On the off chance that someone from WIS actually takes the time to read and consider this, let's try to summarize and refine an idea that everyone can actually agree on.
I conceed the fact that my original position of just boosting DITRs with no risk/reward/investment is off base. However, I will not change my opinion that DITRs, if they are going to exist, should be a more meaningful, as this would add more fun to the game.
So, let's try to refine travisg's outstanding suggestion.
How about this:
Depending on your advance scouting budget, throughout the season, you will receive a message from your advanced scout stating something along the lines of "Hey, I think Bubba Smith has alot more potential that I originally thought. With some extra training, some individual attention from the coaching staff, adjustment to his workout, adjustment to his stance, adjustment to his delivery, a trip to a developmental league, etc., I think we can really see some large gains from him in the long run." This player would then be tagged (within the system) as a "potential" DITR. At this ponit his actual projections would NOT be changed, nor would he start getting current rating gains based on increased projections. It would be up to you to keep track of which players have actually been idenified as potential DITRs and ONLY those players who have been so identified had a chance of becoming DITRs. (edit: the more I think about this I think players that have been identified as "potential" DITRs should have this noted somewhere on their player page, so that this fact could be used in trade negotiations)
On an individual player basis, a player should be more likely to be become a "potential" DITR if they are young (decreasing chance with age) and have high makeup (higher the makeup the more likely to have a breakthrough).
Then after the all star break, 0 to 5 of your "potential" DITRs have a chance at becoming "realized" DITRs. The formula should be such that the more "potential" DITRs you have identified, the more likely you are to have closer to 5 realized than 0.
Then, the LEVEL of the increases are determined by their minor league coach at time of the increase.
For pitchers, it would be determined by a mix/average/formula based on:
1) primarily - pitching coach's pitching IQ (splits, pitches, velocity), discipline (control), and patience (all)
2) secondarily - bench coach's pitching IQ (splits, pitches, velocity), discipline (control), and patience (all)
For hitters, it would be determiend by a mix/average/forumula based on:
1) primarily - hitting coach's hitting IQ (splits,power), discipline (contact,eye), strategy (baserunning), and patience (all)
2) primarily - ML fielding coach's fielding IQ (fielding), and patience.
3) secondarily - bench coach's hitting IQ (splits, power), fielding IQ (fielding), discipline (contact, eye), strategy (baserunning), and patience (all)
The actual formula that determines the level of increase should be balanced such that if you have top line coaches the increases are of a level that produce ML quality projections.
Benefits of this idea:
1) Investment = greater payoff...give something to get something
2) More intersting trading (the value of a "potential" DITR must be factored into trades)
3) More importance added to advance scouting budget
4) More importance added to minor league coach hiring (even though already very important)
5) A tool to get good players that does not involve tanking
6) More strategic choices. Should I dump all that budget money into IFA scouting and try to build that way, or should I dump it into advance scouting and coach hiring to try to find DITRs, or should I just focus on the draft, or should I balance two of those plans, or maybe all three)
Everyone please add or take away from this and see if we can all agree on something. Thanks.
.
6/23/2010 3:17 PM (edited)