Idea For Making ADV Relevant - And Other Stuff Too Topic

Player Development (Non-linear - force ADV to be important):

Have some (or most) players develop with jumps and plateaus.  This would be much more realistic, especially with respect to pitchers.  It would also mean that owners would need the scouts input as opposed to applying the all-too-easy to predict development patterns that exist now (allowing many owners to go to 0 in ADV – me included).  If a pitcher suddenly finds his command or adds a few feet to his fastball (like Michael Pineda did last year and is showing this year), his ratings take a huge jump, perhaps exceeding initial projections.  Development patterns would be individual to each player (maybe you only program 10-12 ‘patterns’, but make them time themselves differently.  Allow a handful of players to actually exceed expectations.

Public Budget Information ("True-up the bidding")

Hide all categories, but only show what is actually spent.  Hide transfer amounts.  This would encourage honest top-level bidding from the start for free agents, and especially international free agents.  I should not know what another team’s budget is for anything is.  If a trade offer butts up against another team’s cap, then it comes up in the discussions or in a counter offer.

How to Make Scouting Itself Relevant

Create Scouting groups or companies instead of just budgets (e.g. ABC Scouting Co.). 
Provide 4 ratings for each company that vary – none of the ratings can be 0 and none can be maxed across the board.  For example ABC Scouting could have ratings of 80/70/35/65 in   INT/COL/HS/ADV and cost 35M.  Another might have ratings of 70/20/20/40 and 15M.  Sign the scouting companies for up to three seasons.  For budgeting, combine scouting into a single category that you can transfer into and out of.  For this reason, you would have to depend on your own scouts to determine value (instead of looking at a 1st round pick from 1 or 2 seasons ago and concluding that he is worthwhile because of the budget the original drafting team used).  You wouldn’t have access to other team’s scouting team ratings unless you kept track of them in the bidding process.  Bid on scouting companies in the offseason, much like hiring coaches, but do it in a shorter cycle and finish before FA.  Make it easier in terms of competition though so this doesn’t become the hassle that coach hiring is.  There should be more companies than open positions so owners can pick a reasonable combination, though not necessarily exactly, of the elements they’re looking for.  Simply have the total cost of the scouting companies reflect the overall total rating of the scouting company.

DITR’s (Incentivize the Minors)

Increase the chances of DITR’s by tying them to the roster sizes you carry in the minors.  The would help to make DITR’s relevant while at the same helping to ensure minor league teams are filled.  This will increase the overall quality of the product by providing a more realistic game experience.  Minors would be competitive and there would incentive to have a functional roster.  Make some the tryout camp pitchers potential DITR’s – much like the occasional independent league pitchers that make the big leagues from time to time.

5/19/2011 7:23 AM
Can't find a flaw in any of those.   Although I'd also tie DITR to minor league success to prevent owners from signing 20 TC pitchers to fill out their AAA roster in order to get DITR. 
5/19/2011 10:01 AM
+1 to all of those and +1 to Mike's addition
5/21/2011 8:01 AM
I like the firs and fourth ideas. I don't see any benefit to the second idea.  The third idea has got me a little confused.  I'm not sure I'm grasping the entire concept of hiring a "company" to do my scouting.  Is this similar to outsourcing the scouts?  And I don't understand the part where you talk about bidding.  First you said that ABC Scouting would cost $35 million, then later you say you want to allow people to bid on it.  So which is it?  Does it cost $35 million or do you bid on it? 

Maybe just have scouts with individual ratings, much like coaches, and have them out there in a pool.  Bid on them, then after they are hired, the coach can assign them to whatever "level" they want (advanced, HS, Col, Int).  Sounds a little simpler.  Each team hires 10 scouts.
5/21/2011 10:03 AM
As it stands, I can tell who's bidding what and, if I really try, I can figure out who they're bidding on.  There's no reason I should know you have an offer of 16m for 4 seasons extended to Player X.
5/21/2011 10:06 AM
Is it common for people to put that much time into it?  I will check budgets just to see who has the most available prospect money because I like to know how many teams have more available than I do, but I only care about that if I'm bidding on IFAs and I never look at budgets when bidding on regular free agents.  If I did, I'm not sure I see the advantages.  

How would you know by looking at budgets that I was bidding on Player X? Maybe I'm bidding on Player Y?  Maybe I've got 2 second highest offers out there for both Player X and Player Y?  Or maybe I've got 3 #1 bids for Players V, W, and Z.
5/21/2011 10:13 AM

By making offers to the player I suspect you're bidding on.    

5/21/2011 10:18 AM
I like the dif development track too.  You could tie it in to makeup / patience / temper.  How is makeup defined?  I would think that it has a bearing on how close a guy gets to his potential and how quickly he gets there.  Or is that wrong?

5/26/2011 5:58 PM
Again, since WIfS is doubling staff size, bumping this thread too because it's mine and I like it.  I also find some of the better ideas within the comments to be very helpful too.
9/9/2011 3:24 PM
If a trade offer butts up against another team’s cap, then it comes up in the discussions or in a counter offer.

I think there has to be some transparency for making trade offers. At the rate some owners check their teams/respond to trade queries it would take two actual weeks to get a trade offer to go through. And this problem is most acute in worlds that newer owners play in, so I think this would be a major turn-off.

But otherwise I think you've got some intriguing proposals.
9/10/2011 3:56 PM
In the sprit of tec's bumping of smart ideas, I'm going to do the same with this one....so...er, bump.  Besides, you can't tell if sitestaff actually read this or not, so why not?
4/18/2012 9:43 AM
I know this isn't a DitR thread per say but since his 4th point is about DitR, here is a new idea about them I have not seen in the forums before:

I think the problem with DitRs is that only crappy players can be DitRs.  It seems like there is a cut off point.  If a player's current overall rating is over (I'm guessing) 50, they can not be a DitR.  I track DitRs using the player notes...Out of all 14 DitRs total in 2 of my worlds currently, the highest current overall rating was in the upper 40s with several as low as the mid 30s when they became DitRs.  Why can only crappy players be DitRs?  Why can't a currently good player exceed scout's expectations and become a great player?  I'm not saying get rid of the crappy DitRs.  All I'm suggesting is to let the occasional 55-60-65 current overal rated player get a DitR boost also.

Here is a current real life example.  Matt Kemp was drafted by the Dodgers in the 6th round of the 2003 draft.  6th round indicates the Dodgers thought he would be a decent ML player.  However, they took 5 players ahead of him in the draft so they weren't expecting him to become the MVP/All-Star caliber player he is today.  In HBD terms, 6th round suggests scouts would have rated him at maybe a mid 60s projected overal rating and he is now playing at a current overall rating in the mid 80s( or higher).  Currently there are no Matt Kemp type players in HBD.  (Have you ever seen a 6th round draft pick in HBD make the All-Star team or get MVP votes?)  If 55-65 currrent overall rated players were allowed to be DitRs, Matt Kemp type players would be possible in HBD.

There were many players taken before Kemp in the 2003 draft who turned out to be major busts which HBD does not address either.  That is a topic for a different discussion though.

 
4/21/2012 12:39 AM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/21/2012 8:11:00 AM (view original):
Two A/S appearances:  Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Pinky Hubbard
Mike was able to come up with 1 player who was drafted in the 9th round who made 2 All-Star appearances.  Hubbard was drafted in the early years of HBD, probably in 2007 or so before they gave us the ability to individually rank players on our draft list.  In those early seasons of HBD, you could occasionally find a ML quality RP or defensive sub in the middle rounds of the draft.  I'd like to see someone come up with a more recent example of a 6th round or later drafted player making the ML All-Star team or getting MVP votes.

Even if someone does find a recent player out of the thousands of ficticious players in the HBD game currently, that still does not disprove my overall point.  Having only crappy players eligible for a DitR boost does not line up with what happens in real life MLB today.  Mid-level prospects should be eligible for DitR bumps as well if they want to make this game match real life MLB as much as possible.  

   
4/21/2012 10:33 AM
I came up with one in about 2 minutes after reading your post.   And I'm pretty sure that was when we could rank individually.

MORE GOOD PLAYERS has to come with a negative.   Early pick busts is not the answer.
4/21/2012 12:04 PM
123 Next ▸
Idea For Making ADV Relevant - And Other Stuff Too Topic

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.