Critical news debate - Page 12 - Hardball Dynasty

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Posted by damag on 5/7/2015 7:56:00 PM (view original):
Question for MikeT23:

You've usually said that ADV isn't important if you never trade for another team's prospects. Does this change that?

It depends on if ADV will affect the projected ratings of domestic/IFA prospects before they're signed. We don't know exactly how this is going to work.

If it doesn't, no, there is no change. And I'll continue running 0 ADV.

5/7/2015 7:59 PM

joshkvt

Posts: 6200 (0)

Hall of Famer

664 99

All Star

Posted by rhyno026 on 5/7/2015 7:48:00 PM (view original):
My two cents: I hate the proposed changes to the amateur draft system. When a professional team scouts a player they gain a firm understanding of the players current skill level. For us to scout and not be able to see current ratings is unrealistic. When I finish playing through the seasons I've already purchased I don't believe I'll be purchasing more.

Comparing this to RL doesn't work. Professional teams' scouts are wrong about players' current ability all the time. Because this is a game based on ratings as opposed to RL skills, a player's current rating is accurate. A scout's take on how an LSU junior hits a curveball is not always accurate, and less likely to be accurate for a HS power hitter. There are first-round picks who never get out of A ball; that would never happen if RL teams always have a firm understanding of current skill level. It's more unrealistic that as the game works now we all see the same, 100% accurate current ratings.

The purpose of the change is not to mirror real life but to introduce ways to make ADV important. Getting rid of current ratings for other teams' players accomplishes that to some degree.

5/7/2015 8:00 PM

mchales_army

Posts: 523 (0)

Prospect

1

Rookie

Very well said josh

5/7/2015 8:01 PM

joshkvt

Posts: 6200 (0)

Hall of Famer

664 99

All Star

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 7:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 7:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rwings1927 on 5/7/2015 6:23:00 PM (view original):
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.
But that's how life works. Jason Kendall was one of the most durable C in baseball until he broke his leg running to first.
I agree with this 100%. Injuries are a crapshoot, because that's how they are in real life.

Personally I think a health rating is silly anyway. What's it supposed to be based on in RL? The guy has great MU and your running a 20/20 Training/Medical but the guy has a 35 health and it never improves?

What is he eating Whoppers 3 times a day and smoking a pack of Camels in the dugout?

Some players are injury prone. See Hanley Ramirez for details. He reportedly had a great attitude and work ethic (aka Makeup) to learn to play LF where in theory he'd be less likely to get hurt. It didn't work. There are all kinds of injuries — out-of-the-blue Jason Kendalls and hold-your-breath-every-play Kerry Woods and Howie Kendricks.

5/7/2015 8:07 PM

hockey1984

Posts: 2745 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 1 7 172 64 3 90

Prospect

Posted by mchales_army on 5/7/2015 7:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hockey1984 on 5/7/2015 7:19:00 PM (view original):
So here is my thought then. My budget will be 20 million High school, 0 college. 10 for IFA and wait for others to outbid me. Roll the dice in every draft.
That's how many currently do HS/COL. Makes no sense to go 10/10. May as well go 20/0.

In your budget outline you didn't mention ADV though.

I still think I'm going 0 in advance to be honest. Just do more research on trades (when was he drafted, how much IFA salary did he go for?) etc

5/7/2015 8:15 PM

damag

Posts: 5375 (0)

Hall of Famer

1726 70 11

Veteran

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by damag on 5/7/2015 7:56:00 PM (view original):
Question for MikeT23:

You've usually said that ADV isn't important if you never trade for another team's prospects. Does this change that?

It depends on if ADV will affect the projected ratings of domestic/IFA prospects before they're signed. We don't know exactly how this is going to work.

If it doesn't, no, there is no change. And I'll continue running 0 ADV.

That's why I asked. I don't really see how these changes - taken at face value - necessary make spending ADV money unavoidable.

Unless what they're NOT telling us - the "fuzziness" is the truly important part of the update.

I already don't care about other teams' players. If I'm trading for a veteran, all I care about is his current ratings, how highly he was drafted, and his injury history.

I already don't care about IFA because there are guys in my world who base their entire season around spending the most money on IFA.

I already don't take my scouts' projections at face value. I've been drafting more off currents than off projections for a few seasons now. So, I already view the draft as somewhat of a crapshoot anyway.

I agree with your earlier point about possibly seeing Extreme budget schemes, and being in the middle being death. But we've already seen those types of schemes in play right now. If the goal of this is to make owners have to shift budget dollars into five or six categories instead of only three or four, then I'm thinking the only real way to make us have to do that is to mess with the extremely well-established player development patterns most veteran owners know by heart. Am I wrong?

5/7/2015 8:18 PM

vandydave

Posts: 2122 (0)

Hall of Famer

28 1 1 843 250

Prospect

More variability in player development is a good thing.

Paying more in budgeting to get a clearer if still fuzzy projection is a good thing.

Drafting players below the 2nd round who might occasionally make the bigs is a good thing.

I'd like to see some players keep advancing beyond 26 with more frequency as well, not dramatic improvement but not just an absolute stop like happens with the vast majority of players.

5/7/2015 8:24 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

A few other prospect-player development adjustments we'd prefer not to explicitly detail.*

5/7/2015 8:25 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

That's in response to the last two posts. I think it could be very meaningful.

5/7/2015 8:26 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Not to toot my own horn too loudly but a lot of this looks like it came from a suggestion post from 3 years ago. One of the items:

3. Player development. I'd say it's pretty standard for almost all players. Owners can make a small difference in maximizing(or completely wreck them) development but a good owner develops players in a pretty standard manner. Provide some diversity. At least three different patterns. Have some develop early and max out 2-3 seasons into their careers(18, 6, 1, 0, 0 OVR). Have some develop slowly and be late bloomers(3, 2, 2, 10, 8). And keep some the same(11, 7, 4, 2, 1). The more patterns the better but we need more than one. Savvy owners can look at a 2nd/3rd year player they're considering in trade and say "This is what he's going to be" with pretty high accuracy.

5/7/2015 8:27 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Here, to show you what I'm talking about:

Top 3, IMO, that aren't user-related issues:

1. Coach hiring. Savvy owners don't spend 2m on a hitting/pitching/bench coach because they don't have to. There are 50 of them at any given time of BL-quality.   This creates a disparity between experienced/inexperienced owners that needs to be addressed.   Keep the rehire process as it is but, once that's over, all unhired coaches go into a pool with no positional/level/salary demands. Let the owners sort out the levels and positions.   Cap salaries at 4m per coach(players have a max so coaches can) and make FI the most sought after job. That will prevent jerks like me from hiring all the decent FI as BC so no one else gets one.

2. Advance scouting.   Savvy owners don't really need it.    Again, this creates a disparity between those who know and those who don't.  Change ADV to show projections for players NOT on a BL roster.   This would include HS, college, IFA and free agents.    The higher the ADV, the more accurate the projection.    HS/College/IFA budgets will determine how many players you see but will not tell you the quality of them.    IFA demands will need to be standardized(100k is a good starting point) so owners with low ADV won't be tipped off as to their quality.   Players on rosters can have projections based on ADV as it stands now.

3. Player development. I'd say it's pretty standard for almost all players.   Owners can make a small difference in maximizing(or completely wreck them) development but a good owner develops players in a pretty standard manner.   Provide some diversity.   At least three different patterns.    Have some develop early and max out 2-3 seasons into their careers(18, 6, 1, 0, 0 OVR). Have some develop slowly and be late bloomers(3, 2, 2, 10, 8).   And keep some the same(11, 7, 4, 2, 1).    The more patterns the better but we need more than one.   Savvy owners can look at a 2nd/3rd year player they're considering in trade and say "This is what he's going to be" with pretty high accuracy.

5/7/2015 8:29 PM

alleyviper

Posts: 1320 (0)

Hall of Famer

283 1 1 151

Pro

Posted by overeasy on 5/7/2015 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by alleyviper on 5/7/2015 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Again, to repeat myself, if I can see current ratings, I'm less inclined to care about projections. Give me a current 75 and I'll take him over a 60 current every time. And, if I can get that with 0 scouting, I'm all in with 0 scouting. Which changes nothing from what happens today.
So, again, tie a prospect's current ratings to your scouting instead of eliminating current ratings entirely.

e: honestly, it may not be a bad idea to tie *all* ratings of all players to scouting, current and projected
If all ratings were tied to scouting, that would just swing the pendulum to the opposite spectrum with everyone budgeting 16-20M and leaving it alone. The trick is making it have some value to make people budget for it but also leaving the option for folks to choose not to.

If the quality of scouting is as it currently is, it wouldn't swing the pendulum that far at all. At present I would never, under any scenario, budget higher than 12 in advance - I don't feel the increase in accuracy from 12 to 20 is strong enough to merit that 8m that I could be budgeting to player or prospects.

That said, it's entirely feasible that you could tie current ratings to scouting and find a nice balance. Imagine a team that you built up from scratch. You drafted and signed all your guys as IFAs, so you didn't need the initial advance scouting on them in the beginning, your draft and int'l scouting has you covered there. Once your team is ready to compete and you're ready to supplement guys in FA, 95% of the guys you'll be looking to add you can scout through their performance. There are very few guys who are actually bad that would have multiple seasons of good performance under their belt. Good owners could supplement their team with the game as it's built right now and never even look at ratings, stats will do the job. It wouldn't be ideal but it could be done. And the 15-20m you'd have in your player budget would go a loooong way to adding guys or extending your in-house players.

So tie current ratings to scouting and there's a risk/reward. Do you max it out so you can clearly see the difference between two guys who have a .270/.340/.450 career line and choose the guy who's the better fit for your team/park? Do you punt and just trust their performance to give you a player who is productive regardless how good a fit he is? Are you willing to personally account for how much Coors/Tacoma are inflating or deflating performance? Are you worried about getting an injury bomb, so you make sure to at least budget some to get a clearer idea on their health/durability?

If the game worked that way I might be inclined to go into the 10-12 range on my advance (again, considering how ineffectual high-end scouting currently is). It would be very easy to tweak the importance of scouting too far in one direction and then, sure, everyone is just required to budget 16-20 in advance and one problem is replaced with another. But it absolutely could be done well.

5/7/2015 8:33 PM (edited)

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Obviously nothing happened with #1.

But there are elements, I think, from #2 and #3.

5/7/2015 8:29 PM

dedelman

Posts: 2186 (0)

Hall of Famer

282 191

Pro

Posted by toddcommish on 5/7/2015 6:11:00 PM (view original):
Actually, this is going to result in a big blitz of people downloading entire rosters in every league before the change. A smart commissioner would work a quid pro quo with commissioners in other leagues or have the rosters posted somewhere, so n00bs aren't at a total disadvantage entering a new league.

Agree strongly.

The making invisible of historical ratings gives a HUGE advantage to people who periodically cut and paste all the ratings from all the players in a world into excel spreadsheets. Creating more accounting work to win makes the game much less accessible to n00bs. The other changes modestly disadvantage n00bs--they are going to be transiently stuck with those intermediate scouting budgets we all see as "deadly"-- so to make a change that massively disadvantages them may reduce the supply of new players fairly dramatically. Furthermore, even those who enjoy all the cut and paste work will be several seasons behind all the guys in that world who have 10 seasons of player data from that world.

Given how hard it is to find new players, changes that importantly disadvantage them have to be really carefully considered. The rest of this I like-- but please consider keeping historical ratings visible for all players.

If not reversed, I suppose that I'll have to copy and paste all player ratings from the world I commish every season and post them publicly-- thanks for that idea, tc.

5/7/2015 8:31 PM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Posted by dedelman on 5/7/2015 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 5/7/2015 6:11:00 PM (view original):
Actually, this is going to result in a big blitz of people downloading entire rosters in every league before the change. A smart commissioner would work a quid pro quo with commissioners in other leagues or have the rosters posted somewhere, so n00bs aren't at a total disadvantage entering a new league.
Agree strongly.

The making invisible of historical ratings gives a HUGE advantage to people who periodically cut and paste all the ratings from all the players in a world into excel spreadsheets. Creating more accounting work to win makes the game much less accessible to n00bs. The other changes modestly disadvantage n00bs--they are going to be transiently stuck with those intermediate scouting budgets we all see as "deadly"-- so to make a change that massively disadvantages them may reduce the supply of new players fairly dramatically. Furthermore, even those who enjoy all the cut and paste work will be several seasons behind all the guys in that world who have 10 seasons of player data from that world.

Given how hard it is to find new players, changes that importantly disadvantage them have to be really carefully considered. The rest of this I like-- but please consider keeping historical ratings visible for all players.

If not reversed, I suppose that I'll have to copy and paste all player ratings from the world I commish every season and post them publicly-- thanks for that idea, tc.

That seems insane to me. Insane. I have as much free time as anyone and that is something I wouldn't even consider doing. That's a lot of work for a little gain. How many trades do you make per season?

Tell me, when someone offers you a deal and it appears to lean your way, what do you do?

I'll tell you what I do. I look at every angle to figure out why someone just offered me a deal that apparently helps me more than them. If I get a deal, in the future, that does that the first thing I'll think is "Ahhh, his player is on a steep decline. Screw that dude."

5/7/2015 8:36 PM

Forums

Critical news debate Topic

Search Criteria