Q about Ratings Improvement During ST Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You don't need to look at other players. Look at the ones you posted. The best improved 5-6 points after 500 AB. You gave him 50 AB in ST. Math says "half a point improvement." But you know players slow in development when they age. So logic says "less than half a point improvement."
4/6/2010 4:01 PM
ArlenWilliam
Posts: 2106 (0)
Hall of Famer
267 1 37
Prospect
Right. There are numerous parameters. What can be analyzed though, is the curve of development, in players who have been promoted during ST vs. those that have not, at the early part of that season.

I'll be interested in pointing out how these players do.
4/6/2010 4:01 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

You don't need to look at other players. Look at the ones you posted. The best improved 5-6 points after 500 AB. You gave him 50 AB in ST. Math says "half a point improvement." But you know players slow in development when they age. So logic says "less than half a point improvement."

4/6/2010 4:02 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You don't need to look at other players. Look at the ones you posted. The best improved 5-6 points after 500 AB. You gave him 50 AB in ST. Math says "half a point improvement." But you know players slow in development when they age. So logic says "less than half a point improvement."
4/6/2010 4:02 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
If by "narrowly defined" you mean "accept my alternate reality or hit the road", then yes.
4/6/2010 4:03 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You don't need to look at other players. Look at the ones you posted. The best improved 5-6 points after 500 AB. You gave him 50 AB in ST. Math says "half a point improvement." But you know players slow in development when they age. So logic says "less than half a point improvement."
4/6/2010 4:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You don't need to look at other players. Look at the ones you posted. The best improved 5-6 points after 500 AB. You gave him 50 AB in ST. Math says "half a point improvement." But you know players slow in development when they age. So logic says "less than half a point improvement."
4/6/2010 4:05 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You don't need to look at other players. Look at the ones you posted. The best improved 5-6 points after 500 AB. You gave him 50 AB in ST. Math says "half a point improvement." But you know players slow in development when they age. So logic says "less than half a point improvement."
4/6/2010 4:06 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 36
Prospect
Let me make sure you I am understanding you correctly.

You are wondering if there is a measurable difference in the curve of development in players promoted during ST vs, those promoted after spring training?

If that is the case, didn't admin already answer the question by saying that ST, and in season "bumps" are just snapshots and not actually a cause of the bump? Any perceived differences in the career development curve would be just an anomaly unless admin lied.
4/6/2010 4:12 PM
aaronwayne
Posts: 397 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 1 239
Prospect
On a side note, how often, or is it possible, for prospects to hit peaks over their projections?
4/6/2010 4:32 PM
mrdanielx
Posts: 164 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 67 3 36
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by aaronwayne on 4/06/2010On a side note, how often, or is it possible, for prospects to hit peaks over their projections?

From my experience it doesn't happen often (post training bug from a couple years ago).

However it is theoretically possible that, if the projections you see error down vs potential, and you take an ideal development track, that you could go above projections.
4/6/2010 4:43 PM
ArlenWilliam
Posts: 2106 (0)
Hall of Famer
267 1 37
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by mrdanielx on 4/06/2010Let me make sure you I am understanding you correctly.

You are wondering if there is a measurable difference in the curve of development in players promoted during ST vs, those promoted after spring training?

If that is the case, didn't admin already answer the question by saying that ST, and in season "bumps" are just snapshots and not actually a cause of the bump? Any perceived differences in the career development curve would be just an anomaly unless admin lied.
Yes, they did give that answer. And they are not (and have not always been) correct, in what they state about their own system. Calling them liars would be unsubstantiated and repugnant. I can tell you though, that computer programs are not always perfectly written, nor systems analysis, perfectly accurate.
4/6/2010 9:06 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You don't need to look at other players. Look at the ones you posted. The best improved 5-6 points after 500 AB. You gave him 50 AB in ST. Math says "half a point improvement." But you know players slow in development when they age. So logic says "less than half a point improvement."
4/6/2010 9:24 PM
ArlenWilliam
Posts: 2106 (0)
Hall of Famer
267 1 37
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
4/6/2010 9:27 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
4/6/2010 9:28 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
Q about Ratings Improvement During ST 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.