Everyone remembers the 98 that never was but quickly overlooks the 60 that became a 63.

That's a fair statement and you may be right, though in my limited experience it seems like when I have a guy under-achieve it's often by 5+ points, while the guy that over-achieves only does so by 1-2 points.  Now, it may just be that the only guys I'm paying close attention to are highly rated to begin with and there's a lot more room to be wrong below an 80 projection than above it.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/7/2011 8:18:00 AM (view original):
Not ready to call this a good idea, just an idea.   I still think the real problem is that people can't get their head around the idea that the word "projections" as used by HBD is closer in meaning to "ceilings" than "expected outcomes".

That's fair.  I'm OK with the way it is though.  When I draft someone whose glove is currently 58, and it's "projected" at 90, I know the "projection" is most likely impossible to hit, and I control my expectations.  It's definitely not a ceiling though, because I've seen many guys exceed certain ratings.

Under the covers, there's probably a set of "true" projections that do represent the actual ceiling for the player in each rating.  The projections you see are going to aways be somewhat fuzzy (higher or lower) than the true projections.  So it is possible for a player to exceed the projections that you see in some ratings.

Equate to the injury threads.

Every month or so, someone starts a thread asking "Are injuries up?"     Inevitably, they have had 2-3 big injuries to important players over a short time period.  They SEEM to be up to them because they're difference-makers.    Much like the 88 that only becomes an 82.   That's noticeable.   The 61 that becomes a 63 isn't because A) you were counting on that 88 so you were monitoring it B) you have twenty-seven 61s so it's no big deal that one became a 63.

2 pages later, Projections in HBD still suck.

Players occasionally squeak out 1-3 points over in a few areas, but 5-10 points short in most areas is very common.  My ADV is now very low and I am seeing more players beat their current projections by a bit.  But not the projections I got from higher INT, COL &HS budgets.  Those remain way above average actual numbers at age 27.

Projections aren't adjusted based on new information, like 26 year-old aren't going to jump 5-10 points in a season.

90% of development happens in the first 2 seasons.  Doesn't matter if they player is 18 or 22 when they arrive.  Development can me messed up during those 2 season, but no investment in the next 10 seasons can fix that.  Very unrealistic.

More realistic would be some way to invest in coaching & training that would allow a team to have a shot at reviving a player that is not on track to hit  projections.  That would be offset by a team having a shot to have their high-priced vets and prospect fall off for lack of this investment.  Or by more injuries.  Which would reward depth.

If DITR aren't very rare, it gives every team more good players, which doesn't help any team.  On average, a team should get zero DITR per season that become ML players.  Just like in the real world.  The Maddux and Pujols examples cover the past 20 years.  If they are going to exist, they should be based on merit, not random chance (On this one, I don't have enough data to even guess how it works today.  Based on forum chat, it seems random.)

A guy projected at 27 doesn't come up 5-10 short.  Of course, you don't notice this because, get this, you don't care about the guy projected at 27.

You take your examples from the cream of the crop and say "He didn't reach his projections!"    Only a few players can be in the top 2% of the world.   You know, like 2% of them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2011 4:59:00 PM (view original):
A guy projected at 27 doesn't come up 5-10 short.  Of course, you don't notice this because, get this, you don't care about the guy projected at 27.

You take your examples from the cream of the crop and say "He didn't reach his projections!"    Only a few players can be in the top 2% of the world.   You know, like 2% of them.

I'm not talking or thinking about 27 or 98 projections.  Plenty of examples in the ML to very good MinL range.

Worry about the current, not the projections. 

Posted by tufft on 4/8/2011 5:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2011 4:59:00 PM (view original):
A guy projected at 27 doesn't come up 5-10 short.  Of course, you don't notice this because, get this, you don't care about the guy projected at 27.

You take your examples from the cream of the crop and say "He didn't reach his projections!"    Only a few players can be in the top 2% of the world.   You know, like 2% of them.

I'm not talking or thinking about 27 or 98 projections.  Plenty of examples in the ML to very good MinL range.

Plenty of examples of players who exceed and fall short. 

Very, very few exceed. And they do by very small amounts.

Many, many fall short.  Buy larger amounts.

And it's all set in motion the first 1-3 season.  Nothing much matters after that.  Point here, point there, maybe.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2011 4:59:00 PM (view original):
A guy projected at 27 doesn't come up 5-10 short.  Of course, you don't notice this because, get this, you don't care about the guy projected at 27.

You take your examples from the cream of the crop and say "He didn't reach his projections!"    Only a few players can be in the top 2% of the world.   You know, like 2% of them.

Back to this.

Wow. Apparently, everybody hires the correct coaches, promotes with the correct frequency and plays everyone at the correct position with the correct amount of ABs and IP.

Which explains why it's HBD's fault.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2011 8:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2011 4:59:00 PM (view original):
A guy projected at 27 doesn't come up 5-10 short.  Of course, you don't notice this because, get this, you don't care about the guy projected at 27.

You take your examples from the cream of the crop and say "He didn't reach his projections!"    Only a few players can be in the top 2% of the world.   You know, like 2% of them.

Back to this.

You don't notice the projected 27 for obvious reasons.  You do notice the ML talent level guys.  Isn't it more important that the ML guys have "projections" that are more accurate than the LowA guys? 

And I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything.  I'm comfortable with the way things are.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2011 8:16:00 PM (view original):
Wow. Apparently, everybody hires the correct coaches, promotes with the correct frequency and plays everyone at the correct position with the correct amount of ABs and IP.

Which explains why it's HBD's fault.

Thanks. I think this is another way of making one of the points I'm trying to make.

If everybody hired top coaches, promoted perfectly, and played everyone at their correct position for the correct amount in AB / INN, then many/most player should do better than the projections.  Projections should be a reasonable expectation, not a highly unlikely to impossible dream.

But everybody won't.  What everybody does, on average is, by definition, average.

One of the points you've helping me make is that projections should be the median of what happens across all players in all words, assuming the average appropriate budgets are all 10.

Budget more, invest it well, and make good player moves, a lot of your players should beat those original projections.  Under budget or hire bad coaches, you should get what you get now.  Most players not making projections.

Shockingly, despite players unable to ever reach their obviously unreachable projections, there are over 160 HBD worlds, each with 32 teams that are somehow able to field 25-man Major League rosters.

Or, in other words, it really doesn't matter.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2011 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2011 8:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2011 4:59:00 PM (view original):
A guy projected at 27 doesn't come up 5-10 short.  Of course, you don't notice this because, get this, you don't care about the guy projected at 27.

You take your examples from the cream of the crop and say "He didn't reach his projections!"    Only a few players can be in the top 2% of the world.   You know, like 2% of them.

Back to this.

You don't notice the projected 27 for obvious reasons.  You do notice the ML talent level guys.  Isn't it more important that the ML guys have "projections" that are more accurate than the LowA guys? 

And I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything.  I'm comfortable with the way things are.

As the opposing devil's advocate, are you saying that projection accuracy should vary based on talent level?   That, in essence, scouts should really, really concentrate on being more accurate on the projections of the good players and not worry so much about the lesser players?    This is a sim.  I don't think they're going to set up 2(or 5) different levels of projection accuracy.