Note to WIS

Just a point I want to make. I spend a lot of budget on the draft and International FA and the stamina ratting projected vs real time start have turned out to be huge. It looks like I am getting part time talent for big time money. I like the game a lot and have several teams. You folks need to fix that it is a huge hole in the game.56 stamina with 80 as the long term is based on history a gulf that is too far.You don't draft part time talent with the 4th spot in the draft or with a 22 mill bonus.

In fact most player durability scores increase very little over their 4 yr key development time frame from their starting point even in cases with extremely high training and coaching budgets.This omission should be fixed. It is very unrealistic to think a strong scout would miss by such a large extent this major hole in a players performance projection. Particularly the starting point. What team at what level fails to run/show stamina/build stamina?Little league teams do that.

What is your scouting budget?

From 14 14 high school ,college to 17 international. My most recent was 19 and 19 college and high school. The problem is not with my budget and it isn't just a recent issue.

On a side note training is 18 - 19 on my teams. Coaching budget is 13-15.

Post link to player.

There are several I don't want to make examples of them as to do so will hurt my future trades.I would have to think that you could look at your own players and draw a parallel. If you look at most players drafted in the past 5 seasons you will find most do not improve stamina ratings by as much as 10 points over 4 seasons. Most do not improve by 1 or 2 points some not at all. When you see a rating of 56 the odds are they will never hit over 66 over 4 seasons much less reach 81. The point is to see this corrected.

Posted by rmancil on 5/29/2017 1:23:00 PM (view original):
From 14 14 high school ,college to 17 international. My most recent was 19 and 19 college and high school. The problem is not with my budget and it isn't just a recent issue.

I've never seen the extreme differences in current vs. projected stamina that you're referring to, but then I run with a higher scouting budget than you do.

I suspect that your scouting budget is indeed part of the problem.

DUR for starters and STA for RP used to be busted even at high budgets. One of the recent updates they fixed it. It's not nearly as bad.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/29/2017 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rmancil on 5/29/2017 1:23:00 PM (view original):
From 14 14 high school ,college to 17 international. My most recent was 19 and 19 college and high school. The problem is not with my budget and it isn't just a recent issue.

I've never seen the extreme differences in current vs. projected stamina that you're referring to, but then I run with a higher scouting budget than you do.

I suspect that your scouting budget is indeed part of the problem.

17 is extremely high to yield that type of result. 14 is high imop to yield that result. Basic stamina drills take place in little league. It is silly to have these results. It is far from being a reflection of real life.

Perhaps it would help to not take the name of the category so literally. Don't think of it as they're too tired or not conditioned well enough to play every day. It just means that they can only play so many games a season, for various reasons. It's part of the challenge of roster construction.

14m isn't very reliable. Players don't have to be 100% to play. Truth is, if you want reality, we should have virtually no one with high DUR/STM. Every player says "I'm not 100% after April." We should be dealing with 83% on a regular basis.

I did a quick review on Baseball Reference. 123 players in the majors played 140 games or more last season, an average of four per team.

Last season one of my HBD teams had seven players with 140+; the other had eight. Only one of those players had DUR lower than 75, which is pretty typical DUR for a HBD position player.

Yeah, I'm not knocking the OP but we want realism when we like it and not so much when we don't. I probably have 2-3 injuries per season with my BL team. And, in most cases, it ****** me off even though I know that's super low. Most MLB teams have 2-3 per month.

So when we have 7-8 guys playing 140 games or 4 pitchers with 200+ IP or 80 appearances, we should know it's BS. That's not realism.

The point is a scouting report that projects 80 and then we learn the starting point is 56. That is BS. Any scouting report would have a much better idea of the starting range and less on the long term.