Mike's view is a bit myopic - there are still quite a few worlds where 0 ADV is not the majority of owners, and certainly far from universal.

That said, as a fellow 0 ADV owner, the larger point of "hey, I got mine" has merit. I wouldn't complain if we had a 1-time opportunity to reset budgets, but I don't in any way feel entitled to it. The only people I feel a bit for are those who *just now* got down to 0 over the course of 3, 4, 5 seasons and didn't really get to benefit (much) and now feel the need to boost it back up over another 3, 4, 5 seasons.

As for what is impacts, I don't think there's any (reasonable) way they can make *all* projections based on ADV scouting. If they do, then it becomes another almost automatic "gotta get to 20" budget item, while I think the idea is (or should be) making multiple strategies viable again (getting away from the "gotta get to 0" way it is treated now).

If ADV controls *all* projections, a zero there renders the $20M Int'l scouting almost useless. Spend $20M to see a bunch of prospects, but the $0 ADV would mean I'm just taking wild guesses at what sort of players they are (remember, no currents to look at). This is especially true when you factor in no difference in initial demands (a change I think it overdue).

Same thing for HS/College. $20M in each/either is almost useless if combined with $0 ADV. Great, I see lots of names and numbers, but those numbers are no indication of the talent level.

If ADV does all that, the options become even more limited - 1) Go all player budget and zero out at least HS/COL/Int'l, with a minimum for prospect (training and medical may be unchanged); or 2) Sprint to $20 ADV and then feel confident that the HS/COL/Int'l money you spend actually returns some value.

The other thing that I think it being overlooked a bit - lack of historical ratings for established ML players could have more of an impact than people think. That 34-year-old ace with a huge contract that just had a bad season... was it the RNG having some fun or did he legitimately fall off the cliff? Even if he had another good year, sure his control is 85 with 80/80 splits now, and he still looks good... but just last year he was 95/90/90 and once the decline begins it accelerates (even with good MU) - unless this is part of the development change alluded to - so next year he's 72/70/70, then 60/55/55, then 45/40/40 in the last year of his deal. How do you know?

Funny that a lot of the people who are citing $ figures about how many seasons it'll cost them to "catch up" didn't mind spending $100 plus tanking for 4 or more seasons.

Mike, Mantle isn't my only world. You're right, everyone has to deal with it. My point is reacting to the change will cost
me $. Actually, for me, a lot of $ factoring in four worlds. I like making the category relavant, I just don't like I can't react to it more efficiently. The fact others are in the same boat doesn't mitigate that fact, at least for me.

Tempest in a teapot since the update does not even hint at the fact that adv does anything different than it does now.

Posted by zbrent716 on 5/8/2015 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Mike's view is a bit myopic - there are still quite a few worlds where 0 ADV is not the majority of owners, and certainly far from universal.

That said, as a fellow 0 ADV owner, the larger point of "hey, I got mine" has merit. I wouldn't complain if we had a 1-time opportunity to reset budgets, but I don't in any way feel entitled to it. The only people I feel a bit for are those who *just now* got down to 0 over the course of 3, 4, 5 seasons and didn't really get to benefit (much) and now feel the need to boost it back up over another 3, 4, 5 seasons.

As for what is impacts, I don't think there's any (reasonable) way they can make *all* projections based on ADV scouting. If they do, then it becomes another almost automatic "gotta get to 20" budget item, while I think the idea is (or should be) making multiple strategies viable again (getting away from the "gotta get to 0" way it is treated now).

If ADV controls *all* projections, a zero there renders the $20M Int'l scouting almost useless. Spend $20M to see a bunch of prospects, but the $0 ADV would mean I'm just taking wild guesses at what sort of players they are (remember, no currents to look at). This is especially true when you factor in no difference in initial demands (a change I think it overdue).

Same thing for HS/College. $20M in each/either is almost useless if combined with $0 ADV. Great, I see lots of names and numbers, but those numbers are no indication of the talent level.

If ADV does all that, the options become even more limited - 1) Go all player budget and zero out at least HS/COL/Int'l, with a minimum for prospect (training and medical may be unchanged); or 2) Sprint to $20 ADV and then feel confident that the HS/COL/Int'l money you spend actually returns some value.

The other thing that I think it being overlooked a bit - lack of historical ratings for established ML players could have more of an impact than people think. That 34-year-old ace with a huge contract that just had a bad season... was it the RNG having some fun or did he legitimately fall off the cliff? Even if he had another good year, sure his control is 85 with 80/80 splits now, and he still looks good... but just last year he was 95/90/90 and once the decline begins it accelerates (even with good MU) - unless this is part of the development change alluded to - so next year he's 72/70/70, then 60/55/55, then 45/40/40 in the last year of his deal. How do you know?

Right now, projections for prospects are based on that particular scouting.   I can see that you've used 20m 5 times(out of 90 possible) with your 30 season team.    Evidently, you're comfortable with less than 20m.    So do you really believe it's an "almost automatic "gotta get to 20" budget item"?   Your history indicates that you do not believe that.


As for the rest, how do you know anything about players in the real world?   This is a simulation but a bit of unknown with development/decline seems like a good thing.

Posted by roundfrog on 5/8/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Mike, Mantle isn't my only world. You're right, everyone has to deal with it. My point is reacting to the change will cost
me $. Actually, for me, a lot of $ factoring in four worlds. I like making the category relavant, I just don't like I can't react to it more efficiently. The fact others are in the same boat doesn't mitigate that fact, at least for me.

Not reacting to the change will cost you $.   No change would cost you $.    So, if you play the game, it will cost you $.    That's just a fact.    And the fact that others won't be able to react more efficiently is, well, a fact that will cost them $.

There is no disadvantage for the vast majority of HBD owners.   Veterans have largely used 0 ADV for years.   So, if the n00bs get an "advantage" for a few seasons, I can certainly live with that.

I don't see this a game changer by any means.  The biggest difference will be the likelihood of fewer trades.  As someone who runs 0 ADV and also trades quite a lot that doesn't sit as well with me, but I can certainly adjust and I think, overall, the game is definitely better for these changes.

I am interested to know about the fuzziness, etc of new development patterns.  I think it might be a good idea if certain prospects grew quickly to be major league ready in 3-4 years as now, but others are more late bloomers wherein they aren't at "max" projections for more like 5-7 years.  That would put more emphasis on ADV than even what most seem to be expecting here.  As of now, I feel I'm a rare case who might be motivated to do a little ADV since I like to trade, but I can't imagine these changes getting most 0 ADV people to change anything.

I would further wonder why we couldn't perhaps see past development on guys across the whole world once they reach age 27.  This would allow us to see declines and retroactively look at development patterns if they're identifiable.  I think being able to evaluate what is happening in a sim is pretty important and allowing retroactive looks at development would shorten the learning curve on these new 'fuzzy' patterns.  I don't think making that info available at age 27 would have any effect on what they're trying to accomplish here, but it's certainly possible I'm missing something.

One other thing -- I do hope we can see past ratings / development on free agents.  I look primarily at current ratings when evaluating who to sign, but if it's close I move towards looking at stats, ballpark, etc and compare that to the ratings the player had when they put up those numbers.  Not being able to see past ratings for free agents would make free agency more difficult for me (perhaps I'm the minority) while at the same time not really accomplishing anything else.

Another thing that the lack of historical ratings will affect is picking up aging free agents at the beginning of the season. You will not be able to see if their ratings are declining.

I guess I said the same thing gdmetz just said. 

Quote post by gdmetz on 5/8/2015 9:49:00 AM:
I would further wonder why we couldn't perhaps see past development on guys across the whole world once they reach age 27.  This would allow us to see declines and retroactively look at development patterns if they're identifiable.  I think being able to evaluate what is happening in a sim is pretty important and allowing retroactive looks at development would shorten the learning curve on these new 'fuzzy' patterns.  I don't think making that info available at age 27 would have any effect on what they're trying to accomplish here, but it's certainly possible I'm missing something.

You will have your own guy's development patterns to see and learn from.

I'm pretty sure we know that players in their mid 30s are on the decline.   I'm equally sure that we aren't going to see a Barry Bonds getting better at 38 in HBD.   Free agency won't change.    Early 30s:  Safe to give 2-5 year deal knowing that the final year migh be dead money.   Mid 30s: 2-3 year deal knowing that the final year might be dead money.   Late 30s: 1 year


As I read the update, we will NOT see historical ratings for ANYONE not on your roster.   So start planning on that.

 

"You will have your own guy's development patterns to see and learn from."


I get that, it's just helpful to have more.  There's a lot of trial and error relating to having your own to study--it could take real life years to figure out anything meaningful.  Seeing what happens elsewhere with development and looking at coaching staffs, etc would be helpful and shorten that up.  Again, it's not the biggest deal in the world, but I'm not sure of a good reason why they couldn't make that available as I described--it doesn't seem contradictory to what they're trying to do with these changes.

I'd say that I'm surprised that there are so many people bristling at change after demanding updates for years but I'm not.   I've noticed, over the years, that virtually everyone on this site seems to want what works best for them.   The best of both worlds so to speak.  Change but only if that change works for them.   That's not how the world works. 

I think the randomization of the prospect development pattern is a good thing - there's no reason that all players should improve at exactly the same rate.  However, this change further dilutes the value of the ADV change.  From what I can see, the ONLY reason to up your ADV is to see the ratings history of players on other teams.  That's not a huge incentive for anything other than trades for young prospects.  The development randomization further dilutes that impact.  In short, I think there is no need to move off of ADV.