FWIW, I'd say the last 5-7 spots on your roster are just filler in HBD. I know I carry 12-13 pitchers during the regular season and generally 9 in the post-season. That's 3-4 fillers right there. A utility guy and a back-up C make it 5-6. And I generally duplicate a LF/1B/DH for pinch-hitting purposes.

Now, if the only way to win in HD is FB/Press, maybe you have a point. Is that the only way to win?

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2017 11:05:00 AM (view original):
I read somewhere around here that you didn't need to know anything about a subject to offer opinions.

I said you didn't have to have success to offer an opinion. You probably need to know a little bit.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2017 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2017 11:05:00 AM (view original):
I read somewhere around here that you didn't need to know anything about a subject to offer opinions.

I said you didn't have to have success to offer an opinion. You probably need to know a little bit.

When people on here have complained about D1 issues, some folks have commented and told them to stop whining.

The D1 people then said "hey, you have never played D1 so you don't know what you're talking about".

Several others then replied "You don't need to play D1 to have an opinion on it". I could have sworn you were one of those people saying this. If it wasn't you, then I am mistaken but some other people have definitely said this.

I am diligently trying to not come off as whining over this issue. Losing is fine. The new system is fine. The competition is fine. My issue is, if you're going to provide a tool to give the appearance of clarity, then it should provide some. If it's a 70-30 battle, then both teams should be at High. No team should move to Very High until they have a clear and convincing lead. One that basically means they have pulled away and will win the battle. if it's going back and forth, them move their status back and forth. High is great, but Very High is game over. If you're both in the same class, it's anyone's battle. Simple, fair, and clean. Win some, lose some, that's the game...no big deal. I don't think this idea really changes much of what's been done in 3.0, it just makes it a bit clearer.

Posted by bigbuck75 on 2/1/2017 11:50:00 AM (view original):
I am diligently trying to not come off as whining over this issue. Losing is fine. The new system is fine. The competition is fine. My issue is, if you're going to provide a tool to give the appearance of clarity, then it should provide some. If it's a 70-30 battle, then both teams should be at High. No team should move to Very High until they have a clear and convincing lead. One that basically means they have pulled away and will win the battle. if it's going back and forth, them move their status back and forth. High is great, but Very High is game over. If you're both in the same class, it's anyone's battle. Simple, fair, and clean. Win some, lose some, that's the game...no big deal. I don't think this idea really changes much of what's been done in 3.0, it just makes it a bit clearer.

This kind of idea has been discussed. Everyone has their own preferences, but the important thing to know about what you suggest is that you will necessarily have less clarity, not more, if everyone in signing range is listed simply as "high". Right now, if you're "in the lead" 70-30 signing odds, you are listed as "very high" in the consideration tab, as your opponent is listed as "high". This simply means you have more effort credit. You don't know how much more, but you know it's significant enough that your opponent is not in the same category.

The considering tab doesn't tell you that the recruit prefers one school over another, or even that he's "leaning" a certain way. There is no more "Word on the Street". It just tells you who is in signing range, and gives an estimation as to relative effort credit. Think of it like a 3rd party publication, that may or may not have accurate and complete information regarding the recruit's thought process. The outcome is influenced by effort credit, not determined by it (whereas the previous version of this game was deterministic in that way). Changing your mindset in this way is the single biggest key to understanding and appreciating (and ultimately, succeeding in) the game as it currently exists, IMO.

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2017 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/1/2017 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2017 11:05:00 AM (view original):
I read somewhere around here that you didn't need to know anything about a subject to offer opinions.

I said you didn't have to have success to offer an opinion. You probably need to know a little bit.

When people on here have complained about D1 issues, some folks have commented and told them to stop whining.

The D1 people then said "hey, you have never played D1 so you don't know what you're talking about".

Several others then replied "You don't need to play D1 to have an opinion on it". I could have sworn you were one of those people saying this. If it wasn't you, then I am mistaken but some other people have definitely said this.

Stop beating around the bush. Do you have a rudimentary understanding of HBD or roster construction? If you do, then you understand what I mean by 5-7 players being "filler" on a HBD roster. They're required over a full 162 schedule but aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. If you need a full roster of 12 in HD to run your game, that's fine. I won't dispute it. On a game by game basis, I need about that many on my HBD team. But I'll give you starting 8 and 8 pitchers. I need 16 to run my HBD team. The rest are filler. And, if I miss on that last FA, the max money guy I lose on the last cycle, I'm just as screwed as any HD owner who loses a big recruit.

And, truth is, there are only 3-5 FA per season worth fighting over. I'm assuming D1 HD has more than that per season. Correct me if I'm wrong.

.600 is a mediocre season in college basketball, because there are lots of crummy teams to pad your schedule. In HBD, you are competing against 100% human players. It's like conference play in a tough, full conference.

HBD coaches are conditioned to accept some ambiguity, especially since the prospect "fuzziness" was rolled out. You don't have complete control over who you draft, outside of manually ordering your prospects, which I suspect most don't do, past the first round. Injuries are far more common, and destructive. And as Mike says, the guys you "battle" for in HBD are a very select bunch. It's true that these are different games, and I don't want to get into a battle of HD vs HBD. At some level, there is similarity, in that you figure out which attributes work best in the system you implement, and the game becomes figuring out ways to get the attributes you need for the system/style you run.

I won't say I wasn't comparing HD/HBD because I sort of was. Except I was comparing users.

HBD users can get screwed just as bad, possibly worse if you consider that we may have no idea if someone else is after our guy until they take him, but it's sort of taken with "Well, that's how the game is designed."
Whereas HD users tend to give of the appearance that the game is designed specifically to screw them.

I'm sure more HD users say nothing than those that do but I can't recall the last time any HBD users complained about the way FA/IFA works. I don't know if it's the sheer number of games, 162/26, where .600 is good in one, mediocre in the other or if it's just that baseball is "failure based", .300 BA is good/30% FG% is bad, or if it's just simply the user base.

It's just an "odd" difference between the two user bases and I'm sure there are plenty of crossovers.

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2017 12:48:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I started 1 out of 5 at Clemson, lost some more but won two in a row the last session... So I am probably at 33% or 40 %. At Penn State, I have one one battle and lost all others... But It made me change my strategy a lot. I truly calculate everything and try and get free recruits, going to places where nobody will go.

1) First mistake, only focus on late recruits... It could be a huge problem cause once the players are signed in early session, the teams will come for your late prospects.
2) Second mistake, getting into too many battles. You pick your battles (2 max) since they will be all-in...
3) Not scouting your region enough so you cannot find gems or easy pick that you will develop 4 seasons...
4) Not knowing your location, other teams location, other teams needs, other teams money and number of scholly, other teams battles...

Sometimes location is a pain, you are surrounded and battling for everything at D1... And you even get D2 annoying you. This is why I would reduce the impact of distance at D1... Some team will always battle because of their location and it isn't fair IMO. Others will have an edge because they are not challenged... I think there is some work to be done to make it more democratic and not as location-base as It is now.

Weber St has been a dream.

First time I've ever heard of 70-30 edge as NOT being a clear and convincing lead. Lmao ... but whatever

And shoe is dead on in his replys