Diamonds in the rough Topic

travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
My reaction to DITRs is pretty much the same as yours, Mike. I always look forward to getting them, I'm always a little disappointed, and then I start looking forward to the next time. (It's a lot like most NFL seasons for Bengals fans.)

But I also have fun thinking up possible game enhancements, so therein lies my conflict. I'm a very complicated man.
6/23/2010 3:44 PM
sergei91
Posts: 5950 (0)
Hall of Famer
13 2 2 275 115
Prospect
i've never gotten a ditr worth half a ****, but i don't give a crap
6/23/2010 3:52 PM
apollo7
Posts: 429 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 91 36
Prospect

Interesting that on every single developers chat DITRs are brought up as an area that needs improvement.  Guess I'm not totally on an island.  I'm just the only one willing to stand up to the forum (playground) bullies.
 

6/23/2010 3:54 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by apollo7 on 6/23/2010 3:40:00 PM (view original):
tecwrg, so you don't think my last post has anything of merit, even though it includes everything you have been saying it needs.  Seems to me you are pretty well entrenched as being opposed to anything I promote on a philosphical level.  In the latest proposal I made concessions and admitted to being off base on some issues.  That is what compromise and concensus building is.  Just for the record, your position is now, "fine as is, nothing needs to change"?  Seems you could have summed up your position about 20 posts ago.
Please refer to my first post in this thread, 6/19/2010 9:51 PM, on page 2.

All my other posts have been refuting your reasons as to why a change is "needed".

I didn't even read your last post, because I assume all it is was just more of your attempted justification for fixing something that isn't broke and already serves it's original purpose, which is to make a handful of mediocre players just a little bit better You've failed to provide any valid reason for why the DITR process needs to be changed up until now. I have reasonable doubt that anything would have changed in that last, very lengthy post.
6/23/2010 3:56 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
I'm sure if you read his rehash ideas that have already been rejected a few dozen times, you see that the next time he posts it 3 pages from now and evereyone ignores it again, it will be much better.
6/23/2010 3:58 PM
apollo7
Posts: 429 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 91 36
Prospect
Well I take from that you either did read it and agree with it but can't force yourself to admit it since you now have a personal problem with me, or you are afraid to read it for the same reason.
6/23/2010 3:58 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
I will admit...it was probably more "fun" spending a half hour typing it out.
6/23/2010 3:59 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Maybe I'll print out a hardcopy that I can read on the throne when I get home from work in around 45 minutes. Maybe I'll also find another use for the paper once I've read it.
6/23/2010 3:59 PM
apollo7
Posts: 429 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 91 36
Prospect
deathinahole, again, let the people who play the game with integrity debate this issue.  32 wins...42 wins...your history speaks for itself.
6/23/2010 3:59 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I've mentioned it before but one of my suggestions was something like this:  Up to  5 pitchers and 5 hitters each at RL, LoA, HiA, AA.   3 years or less pro experience.   Top 10 coach at that level(HC or PC).  First season at that level.   Winning record at that level.  Then base it off stats. 

That would give owners reasons to promote players, hire good coaches and monitor their minor league teams.   It would also reward the owners who are investing time and resources into the future of their teams.

It would not guarantee that the players would be of BL quality but, if it's based off stats, you'd think the better players would get the bumps. 
6/23/2010 4:00 PM
apollo7
Posts: 429 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 91 36
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2010 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'll print out a hardcopy that I can read on the throne when I get home from work in around 45 minutes. Maybe I'll also find another use for the paper once I've read it.
I don't understand why you resort to insults...really makes you look bad.
6/23/2010 4:12 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by apollo7 on 6/23/2010 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2010 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'll print out a hardcopy that I can read on the throne when I get home from work in around 45 minutes. Maybe I'll also find another use for the paper once I've read it.
I don't understand why you resort to insults...really makes you look bad.
1)  Exactly what is the insult?

2)  I did read your post, in the manner described above.  Here's my response:

     a)  I fundamentally disagree with your basic premise that if DITR's are going to exist, they need to be "more meaningful".  Which makes the rest of the post moot, in my opinion.
     b)  From a typical draft under the current draft system, one should be able to get at least two, three, or maybe even four potential major leaguers (starters or role players).  Any proposal, such as yours, which suggests that one can get possibly get an additional five potential major leaguers is completely absurd.
     c)  You mention that your original position of boosting DITR without potential risk is off base.  Yet you offer a new system that seems to be full of possible reward but devoid of any risk.  Which smacks of . . . (can you guess where I'm going?) . . . "something for nothing".

3)  The hardcopy will be disposed of in a traditional recycling manner.  Didn't see a need to muck up my septic system.
6/23/2010 5:10 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
HAHAHA!!  The user who called me the "biggest ***** on the site" because I said no one should whine about the quality of free players is now saying insults make you look bad.

Split personality anyone?
6/23/2010 5:14 PM
apollo7
Posts: 429 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 91 36
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/23/2010 5:14:00 PM (view original):
HAHAHA!!  The user who called me the "biggest ***** on the site" because I said no one should whine about the quality of free players is now saying insults make you look bad.

Split personality anyone?
Shall we rehash again, little mikey?  You called me a dumbass (unprovoked mind you), then I called you a *****.  I'm not proud of that, but the difference is my statement was a fact while yours was not, which is undeniably evident to anyone who reads this entire topic, or for that matter to anyone that has spent any time at all reading the forums.
6/23/2010 5:57 PM (edited)
apollo7
Posts: 429 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 91 36
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2010 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by apollo7 on 6/23/2010 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2010 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'll print out a hardcopy that I can read on the throne when I get home from work in around 45 minutes. Maybe I'll also find another use for the paper once I've read it.
I don't understand why you resort to insults...really makes you look bad.
1)  Exactly what is the insult?

2)  I did read your post, in the manner described above.  Here's my response:

     a)  I fundamentally disagree with your basic premise that if DITR's are going to exist, they need to be "more meaningful".  Which makes the rest of the post moot, in my opinion.
     b)  From a typical draft under the current draft system, one should be able to get at least two, three, or maybe even four potential major leaguers (starters or role players).  Any proposal, such as yours, which suggests that one can get possibly get an additional five potential major leaguers is completely absurd.
     c)  You mention that your original position of boosting DITR without potential risk is off base.  Yet you offer a new system that seems to be full of possible reward but devoid of any risk.  Which smacks of . . . (can you guess where I'm going?) . . . "something for nothing".

3)  The hardcopy will be disposed of in a traditional recycling manner.  Didn't see a need to muck up my septic system.

1)  Saying that you plan on wiping you *** with my post, implying my post is ****.  Pretty insulting.

2)  a)  I disagree with you, in my opinion.
     b)  potential for 5 major leaguers in a season, very, very doubtful, did you read the post?  A couple, maybe, at the cost of IFAs, and better draft scouting.  
     c)  see b) risk = not seeing/getting ML quality IFAs, not seeing getting ML quality draft prospects, reward = an equal number of existing minor leaguers become ML quality draft prospects.

3)  Another juvenile insult?  Really?  Your profile says your are 45-54.  Is that a misprint?  I expect as much from little mikey, but come on now...

Did you even read the post or are you just being obtuse now?  The only one of your points that is valid is 2.a.  I can respect that opinion, I just disgree with it. 

6/23/2010 5:35 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 1...8|9|10|11|12 Next ▸
Diamonds in the rough Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.