Projected Ratings-Too Radical? Impossible? Topic

steelerstime
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 14 7 34 52
Prospect

There is a lot of chatter about making projections even fuzzier-depending on budgets-to try and create more randomness. How about leaving ratings out completely-using a ? instead. And it would be based on amounts budgeted (while also maintaining the fuzziness factor of those projections that are visible).

Take Int'ls for instance. So if a person budgets $20 mill-he would see all the projected ratings. Now if someone budgets $0-then he would see all question marks. And obviously a budget of $10 mill would have half the projected ratings completely hidden. The more budgeted-the more projected ratings that become exposed to the owner. You could also have all teams see all Int'ls that come on the market and eliminate the "wish I had seen him" complaint.

And as miket and others have said-all In'tls show $50k initial signing bonus. To eliminate that hint factor.

The same would take place for college and H.School budgeted and advanced budgeting.

You would also have overall projection hidden from everyone.

So those owners that max budget in a certain area will then have a definite advantage over those that don't in that area. And with no overall projected-it will likely eliminate a lot of trade debates and may even reduce the trade rape of newbies as some owners can't simply look over a teams projected overall ratings for players to pilfer.

Of course-this may be impossible-simply from a programming point.

9/18/2011 10:11 PM
shobob
Posts: 3404 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
Seems like a decent idea to me.
9/18/2011 11:01 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I thought of this with amateurs the other day(we were discussing IFA in Hamilton).

Everyone sees every prospect with his current ratings.  All projected ratings are a ?.    The players get one overall grade based on scouting.   IOW, if I had 20m in scouting, the 2B would be an actual 2B with a correct grade.   If I had 10m in scouting, he might be listed as a 3B or SS and his grade would be incorrect.   He may be an 2B/A+ but I'd see SS/B-.  If I had 0m, I'd see something like RF/D+. 
9/19/2011 8:44 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, of course, IFA would have the same asking price. 
9/19/2011 8:45 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Hey, I really like this.

Problem - you could float out offers to see how high you could go until you're not beat, and that'll give you an idea.

But, the best idea so far on this. IMO.
9/19/2011 3:25 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
That would be fixed with my 1 or 2 offers to IFA suggestion.
9/19/2011 3:37 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
The big problem I have with making any aspect of the projections process more "fuzzy" is that I just see it as a way for the right to get richer. I know everybody hates that top draft picks are (almost) always good, low draft picks never turn to studs, and the same for IFAs. But the more randomness you add, the more lopsided (not less) things get over time. The teams picking at the top "need" the help (intentional tanking notwithstanding though in some sense they too need the help), and the top teams don't need the luck of snagging a stud in the 10th round.

A couple of analogies that I think are along the same lines:

1) The Yankees have been perennial contenders not because they always make the best choices, but because they can afford to make bad decsions. The Yankees don't get "weighed down" by a bad contract, they just cut bait and sign another guy. If the Royals make a bad call on "the" FA signing they make, it is another 5 years of bad teams. I think the same thing happens with "fuzzy" ratings. Make one bad call on overpaying for a IFA, you are hamstrung for a while. Make a few good calls and get the studs, you can take some more risks later. And I think it just spirals. Make a bad call once, and you start "chasing" to make up for things. After a while it looks like tanking.

2) Many "keeper" fantasy leagues that don't think long and hard about ways to get guys back into the draft pool end up devolving into the haves vs have-nots. Teams that pick good (or get lucky) early are at an advantage and can "afford" to take risks (like stashing young guys early etc). Or they can trade the depth of talent to re-load with younger guys. And the teams at the other end start "chasing." They don't have the talent to compete now, and end up being "forced" to take risks on young guys to try to catch up. If it works, the lose now and win later, but if it doesn't they lose now and lose later. And like WiS, if they don't his a home run with the risks, they bail and you are forced to recruit and having to fill those bottom-feeder spots year after year.

I know HBD is far from perfect, but under the current system we know that with patience and semi-intelligent ownership, even the worst team WILL accumulate talent over time. I don't know if that can be said with "fuzzy" logic

9/19/2011 4:53 PM
steelerstime
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 14 7 34 52
Prospect
green-the thing is-the guy that doesn't put money into Int'l scouting has probably chosen a path in the the direction of building throught the draft. And will most likely eschew Int'l signings almost completely (may add low priced ones for minor league depth).

As for fuzziness. This isn't more fuzziness. This is actual unknown. The better the budget-the more known a player/prospect is that owner. Which is actually logical.

Making a bad FA signing will not be affected by this change because actual ratings would still be there. The ? would only be in existence for projected ratings. And most FA's (esp the big FA signings) are usually 27 or older when the player has developed. So FA and the signings would not be affected by this change. As for the  "Make one bad call on overpaying for a IFA, you are hamstrung for a while" just doesn't hold water. It's one signing-and that is the gamble the owner takes if he/she doesn't budget properly. Do you think every big real life IFA signing pans out? I don't. Then why should it in HBD? This change would add the element of unkown to the equation. AND it adds to the importance of budgeting.

Your 2nd point doesn't even make sense to me. As it is-there are currently teams out there with the problems you state. So that problem exists now. I can't even follow your logic. That's just a good owner vs bad owner arguement. There out there in every world.

There are owners that build almost strictly through the draft. And even in the draft-you could make the choice of emphasizing either college OR high school or both. And those owners may even get some real talent in the 5th round (or later)-depending on the world and how many owners choose this path. And I would expect that if they budgted $40 mill for college/high school.

Then there are the owners that go the Int'l route. And should benefit in this area.

And I would expect worlds will show some owners going the Int'l route. Some owners going the draft route. And in the draft route you would have a split of owners between college vs high school. And then you would have those owners that try to cover all areas with lesser budgeting.

Of course you would have to allow greater than $4 mill change to budget eaqch season to allow owners to alter their strategy.
9/19/2011 7:18 PM
steelerstime
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 14 7 34 52
Prospect
green-taking a quick look in your world moonlight

-6 owners have taken the college draft route
-7 owners  have taken the draft high school route
--8 the int'l route (those that budgeted more $15 or more), and another 8 or so that budgted just below $15 mill
-and then another bunch that tried to cover all areas.
-but the most striking thing-half the world has $0 budgted for advanced. So everyone of those teams would see only ? for advanced ratings for all the other teams prospects. How hard would it be for those teams to trade for other teams prospects? To do the "re-load with younger guys" route?

Now this was a quick look at moonlight-if you want to go and correct my numbers and say i was off by 1 or 2 go ahead-the point is the world is differsified in its direction of building/running a team. And with respect to building a team-no owner would have a monopoly on young talent in any area.
9/19/2011 7:32 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
People who use 0 ADV don't care about projected numbers.  Ever.   I know.  I'm one of them. 
9/19/2011 7:37 PM
steelerstime
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 14 7 34 52
Prospect
I realize that mike-and I think there have been threads on the idea, so I won't bother with it here.
9/19/2011 7:43 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

My comment was in reference to this:

"but the most striking thing-half the world has $0 budgted for advanced. So everyone of those teams would see only ? for advanced ratings for all the other teams prospects. How hard would it be for those teams to trade for other teams prospects? To do the "re-load with younger guys" route?"



 

9/19/2011 7:45 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
I'm on the zero ADV train. I don't enjoy the haggling that comes with trading so I don't do much. Since I don't trade, I don't need projections for other team's prospects.

I do see your point on budgets = quantity of ratings (all of them accurate) versus the current process of budgets = quality (see them all but they may suck)

I suppose both are equally suspect to people making poor decisions based on incomplete information.

My more macro point (and quite possibly my analogies did more harm than help) is that "good" owners will always find a way, and "bad" owners will always screw things up. Any change to make talent acquisition "harder" or less "predictable" will only serve to widen the divide in my opinion. If there is any place in the game that should be "easy," I think it should be IFA and draft scouting.

I concede that if you disagree with the opinion that those elements should be easy to keep a more balanced playing field then you can disregard my comment.
9/19/2011 8:24 PM
steelerstime
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 14 7 34 52
Prospect
miket-So your saying it would be easy to "reload with younger guys" with zero advanced budgeted and seeing all "?"-even for the overall projected rating?

Or that you wouldn't/don't do it. 
9/19/2011 8:31 PM (edited)
steelerstime
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 14 7 34 52
Prospect
In the past I enjoyed the draft aspect. I've gotten ML RP in the 4th and 5th rd. I've gotten ML SSlugger C in the bottom of the second round. But changed gears and now budget $0 for the both college and high school. Yet I can still find an ML potential player. I shouldn't. It should be a complete random crap shoot for me. And those owners that do budget in this area should be so rewarded. I simply look at overall projected, then look a little closer at the player and rank. I should not even have that luxury.

And an owner that budgets $7 mill in Int'l should NOT get the only studd SS for the season when my $15 mill budget didn't even see the player. He can be pretty sure he's getting a stud because he can see the projected overall and know it will be in the ball park. If he see's a projected overall rating in the 90's, no amount fuzzyness is going to drop it down to a 70 projected overall. But at $7 mill-you blank out 2/3 of the projected ratings AND the projected overall with a "?"-and suddenly he's not quite sure what he's got.
9/19/2011 8:51 PM
12 Next ▸
Projected Ratings-Too Radical? Impossible? 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.