Projected Ratings-Too Radical? Impossible? Topic

deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by 98greenc5 on 9/19/2011 8:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm on the zero ADV train. I don't enjoy the haggling that comes with trading so I don't do much. Since I don't trade, I don't need projections for other team's prospects.

I do see your point on budgets = quantity of ratings (all of them accurate) versus the current process of budgets = quality (see them all but they may suck)

I suppose both are equally suspect to people making poor decisions based on incomplete information.

My more macro point (and quite possibly my analogies did more harm than help) is that "good" owners will always find a way, and "bad" owners will always screw things up. Any change to make talent acquisition "harder" or less "predictable" will only serve to widen the divide in my opinion. If there is any place in the game that should be "easy," I think it should be IFA and draft scouting.

I concede that if you disagree with the opinion that those elements should be easy to keep a more balanced playing field then you can disregard my comment.
Perhaps there's a combination.

Keep the current lottery of the amount of IFAs or draft pool one can see based on ampunt of said budget (so that a 0 doesn't have access to the whole pool, and thus may get a lucky hit on a blind player, or plays the bid/remove game to see where the bidding is at), but I prefer the "reveal" idea to what's there currently.
9/19/2011 9:57 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by steelerstime on 9/19/2011 8:31:00 PM (view original):
miket-So your saying it would be easy to "reload with younger guys" with zero advanced budgeted and seeing all "?"-even for the overall projected rating?

Or that you wouldn't/don't do it. 
I'm saying it doesn't matter if I see a 100, 0 or a ?.    Projected ratings do not matter to me.
9/20/2011 6:00 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
In fact, now that I think about it, ADV scouting can never affect me unless it involves current ratings.

I won't go into the whys/hows because I might be giving away an advantage I think I have but the waters can be muddied with signed prospects in any way possible and, as long as College/HS/IFA is the way it is, it won't matter.   And that includes varied development patterns. 
9/20/2011 8:15 AM
steelerstime
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 14 7 34 52
Prospect
Just a suggestion for WIS (I assume they read these).

My guess-it would be too difficult/costly (in terms of resources used) to implement.
9/22/2011 7:45 PM
shobob
Posts: 3404 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
Posted by steelerstime on 9/19/2011 8:51:00 PM (view original):
In the past I enjoyed the draft aspect. I've gotten ML RP in the 4th and 5th rd. I've gotten ML SSlugger C in the bottom of the second round. But changed gears and now budget $0 for the both college and high school. Yet I can still find an ML potential player. I shouldn't. It should be a complete random crap shoot for me. And those owners that do budget in this area should be so rewarded. I simply look at overall projected, then look a little closer at the player and rank. I should not even have that luxury.

And an owner that budgets $7 mill in Int'l should NOT get the only studd SS for the season when my $15 mill budget didn't even see the player. He can be pretty sure he's getting a stud because he can see the projected overall and know it will be in the ball park. If he see's a projected overall rating in the 90's, no amount fuzzyness is going to drop it down to a 70 projected overall. But at $7 mill-you blank out 2/3 of the projected ratings AND the projected overall with a "?"-and suddenly he's not quite sure what he's got.
If you can still see what $ the IFA is demanding, you can guess what his value is.  You would need a ? for the "demands" as well for this to work.  I regularly go with middling to low amounts budgeted for IFA scouting, but I usually end up paying 12-17 mil for an IFA, with mixed success.   I use the guy's demands in conjunction with his signability to determine his value.

As for the adv scouting thing, just like Mike, I wouldn't care if all of the projected ratings, including overall,  were ?s.  That might even help me, because I could completely ignore them instead of them being the slight distraction that they are now.  I use development patterns to determine projections, and make notes in the player note section using the draft scouting info for my own draftees.  It just means that I shouldn't make trades involving 2nd year pros.  No big loss.
9/23/2011 9:35 AM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 36
Prospect
I don't think any of these ideas work well without changing the way that we let people *set* their budgets. I don't think that 4mil movement per year works when you are talking about these aspects of the game. You need to be able to change priorities more flexibily. 
9/23/2011 10:23 AM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Allowing much greater year to year flexibility in scouting would be bad for the game - would make a lot of decisions way too easy.   You could completely re-adjust everything year to year based on where your draft pick is, whether you're planning on signing a bunch of Type As or have a bunch of Type A/B guys departing, etc.  That's part of what budgeting strategy is about - you can completely ignore one area, but just know if you ever change your mind, it's going to take a bunch of seasons to re-adjust.

And that's realistic.  If an MLB team has really been neglecting its draft scouting, they can dump a ton of money into right away, but it's going to take years before they fully reap the benefits.
9/23/2011 11:03 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Agree 100% with AlCheez.  
9/23/2011 1:10 PM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
I didn't read the whole thread so I apologize in advance if this was already brought up... but here's my problem with the idea.  You have newer players in their first 2 or 3 seasons who are probably going to have advanced scouting between $8-14 million.  They see all these ? marks, they have little or no previous experience that tells them how good or bad this player is.  Two things are bound to happen:

1) They won't fully grasp how good some of their players are, and slimeballs will trade rape them and steal their prospects.
2) They won't fully grasp how bad some of their players are, and they'll give them promotions and possibly long term contracts the players don't deserve.

Not to mention, how do you veto a trade in your world?  You can't veto a trade where you see ? marks for projected ratings.  It opens up for alias trade rapes.  "What do you mean this trade is unfair?  I see awesome projected ratings and you see question marks!" 

I have my own ideas for fuzziness... but honestly, I like it the way it is right now best.
9/23/2011 1:47 PM
shobob
Posts: 3404 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
Yep.  Having ?s for projections probably favors HBD vets.
9/23/2011 1:50 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Any game that doesn't require physical skills will favor experienced players.   HBD is no different regardless of what you do. 
9/23/2011 2:02 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 36
Prospect
I think seeing ?'s is silly.  You would have some sort of basis for some sort of projection there.  The ?'s are silly and unrealistic.  If you want Advanced Scouting to work, link it to Big League, in game, bonuses for your players that reflect that you have an accurate scouting report on the opposition.  

If you want their to be more "fuzzyness" just make "Make-Up" have a bigger factor and Coaching "Patience" mean more.  High Patience coaches have a better chance of getting better play out of a low make-up player. Tie High School Scouting and College Scouting more to # of players you can see.

Think about it, in real life, any GM can read baseball prospectus and get sort of a general idea if a guy is going to be a stud or not.  However, if you pay a bunch of money for MORE scouts, and higher quality scouts, you may be able to see that Poopsville, Kansas player who is insanely good off most everyone elses radar.  If you haven't read "The Extra 2%" read it. The story about how Albert Pujoles was discovered was pretty incredible.

Having random *** ?'s on ratings is insane, its like saying "Well my scout could see how well this guy bunts, but has no idea about how he fairs against right handed batters, or how fast he is, but damn he sure seems to pull the ball a lot and can hit lefties."


9/23/2011 2:21 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You could link ADV to current ratings.   MLB doesn't have a 67/88/75/71/80 line on a hitter.  They see some skils and some stats.   That would be a big game changer but it would make ADV almost mandatory.
9/23/2011 2:54 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 36
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/23/2011 2:54:00 PM (view original):
You could link ADV to current ratings.   MLB doesn't have a 67/88/75/71/80 line on a hitter.  They see some skils and some stats.   That would be a big game changer but it would make ADV almost mandatory.
I like this.  It *would* make it mandatory, but it would also require decision points very similar to those of a RL GM.  Basing decisions on *performance* verses *Ratings*.  This would mean your scouts are giving you insight on what he "should" be doing, and you have to decide if the sample size is large enough to pull the trigger based on performance. 
9/23/2011 4:14 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

It's "gameable".   20m and copy the entire world.  Reduce it for 3-4 seasons and move it back to 20m as new players start making debuts.   But, if nothing else, it's better than what we have now.  Beyond this, there's nothing that can/will convince me to invest another $1 into ADV. 

9/23/2011 5:55 PM
◂ Prev 12
Projected Ratings-Too Radical? Impossible? Topic
△Top△Bottom

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.