Too long.

I agree. But you're agreeing with me 3 years later.

Still too long. Try to get it down to 3 words or less and I'll consider caring about what you say.

I'm sure my day will not be ruined if you don't care what I say. But I'll check to be sure.











Nope. Don't care. Sorry.

Too long.

Too stupid.

Too long. You're down to getting 2 letters before I'll read what you say.

It might be strong to say an owner cannot affect players development and coaches don't affect it at all, but I will stick by the statement that making a meaningful difference is slim.

So while miket might have a method that he figures gets him a couple extra points out of his players, there is no secret that turns bums into all-stars.

It's pretty clear to me that by not sabotaging your coach hiring, giving a player at least a couple of promotions during his minor league career, and giving him a decent amount of playing time will develop your players. I think WifS does what they can to dummy proof the process so the weakest teams coached by the weakest owners are not completely ruined.

There is also another logic test. In new leagues I remember fighting to find a pitching coach above 80 rated and many teams ended up with upper 60s to low 70s coaches because that was all that was available. Now in most older league you can be the last team to sign a pitching coach and have your pick of 5-6 80+ rated coaches. Yet with the large bump in coach ratings players don't seem to be developing faster.

Doesn't the age of a player affect improvement? I mean, an 18 year old high schooler drafted in round one and a 22 year old college player drafted in year one can't both fit accurately into this same formula, can they? Hmmm. I thought I had learned that college players simply don't progress as much as high schoolers and assumed it was because of their age.

Sorry if this question is stupid. I'm not very good at this game, but it sure is fun

JRNY

Quote: Originally posted by jrnyfan01 on 11/17/2009Doesn't the age of a player affect improvement? I mean, an 18 year old high schooler drafted in round one and a 22 year old college player drafted in year one can't both fit accurately into this same formula, can they? Hmmm. I thought I had learned that college players simply don't progress as much as high schoolers and assumed it was because of their age.

Sorry if this question is stupid. I'm not very good at this game, but it sure is fun

JRNY

I would have thought so also, but it works with all the ages fine. The reasons being that if you take two player that both truly project to about the same rating but come into the league at different ages their starting ratings are different. So the 18 will have further to go, but he will progress faster that first season. As seasons go on the progression slows down.

For instance take these two players whose vR rating ended up very close, but they started at different ages. Clint started out higher, but has less improvement that first season. Jesse had further to go, but gained it faster. The formula was within 1 point of each of their peak vR ratings.

Clint Hutton

Jesse Grace

Quote: Originally posted by duece112 on 11/17/2009I haven't seen it on the high side too much (except injuries or abuse) but I have noticed many if the projections on the low side. I've only ran it out for about a dozen guys in my system so it's a small sample size...
I have a couple of guys who gained 0 in a category from S1 to S2 (1st ST to 2nd ST) but ended up gaining around 7 or 8 in that category. Did you see similar things when 'testing on vets' etc?

Sorry for ignoring a legit question.

I have not seen a player gain 0 from ST S1 to ST S2 and then go on to gain 7-8 points without some other circumstance being at play - like an injury or DITR. Ignoring the formula just look at which seasons players gets the largest gain to ratings boost.

For the question about if the formula is too conservative that was still subjective. The modifier I ended up using was 2.5, but I played around with lots of numbers. What I ended up doing was just reverse engineering a whole bunch of vets to see what their modifiers were. Somebody might find a modifier they like better, but I was happy with the results.

Actually I was just working with vR numbers on hitters and got a number that gave me good data. I figured it was the same for vR, but didn't know about eye, contact, and certainly not power. But I tested it and it worked for all the major hitter ratings. I assumed it certainly wouldn't work for pitchers, but then I tried it and it was still good data.

When you were saying the numbers looked low, were you comparing them to projected numbers? Because it would be lower than most projections.

No, I mean compared to Current ratings. Im on my phone now, but if I remember i'll try to post some examples.

This formula works very poorly for defensive rating, based on a brief scan of veteran players from 2 worlds. Much better on hitting/pitching ratings. D ratings are all over the place. Some move 5 points in season 1 (implying 12.5 point total increase), but only improve by 8. Others will improve by 2 points in season 1 (implying a 5 point total increase), but the increase ends up being 12. This is true for both physical and learned defensive traits.



I also noticed that "premium" defensive positions tended to develop more than expected, while "non-premium" defensive positions tended to develop less than the formula would predict.



Very small sample size.

Ok- so when it comes to budget time next season, do I set the Adv scouting to 18 million or 0?

Yes.