A free ~$18M in Advance Scouting Topic

AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/30/2010 3:25:00 PM (view original):
And, yes, being unable to get a "read" on an entire season of players can be a big deal. 
If you had to do this, I would be more inclined to agree, but like I said, if you have quality draft scouting, you have decent projections for a very large chunk of these players - takes all of a couple minutes pre-draft to copy them off somewhere to have for future reference.
8/30/2010 3:29 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm not sure your change would make any difference at all.   You have 20m in ADV.  I have 0.   You have a guy you drafted at 22nd in the first round.   You see him projected as an 83.    I see him improve from 58 to 61.   You're not selling me on him being an 83.   His value, to me, is 65-66.    Now switch it around with me drafting the guy.  I see his improvement as 58 to 61 but I know I drafted him 22nd for a reason.  I'm not selling him low because he only improved by 3 points in his first season. 

So your suggested change is just change for the sake of change.   We still have OUR value on the players.
8/30/2010 3:31 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by AlCheez on 8/30/2010 3:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/30/2010 3:25:00 PM (view original):
And, yes, being unable to get a "read" on an entire season of players can be a big deal. 
If you had to do this, I would be more inclined to agree, but like I said, if you have quality draft scouting, you have decent projections for a very large chunk of these players - takes all of a couple minutes pre-draft to copy them off somewhere to have for future reference.
I have to admit I'm too lazy for that.   Plus it seems a bit underhanded.
8/30/2010 3:33 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/30/2010 3:31:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure your change would make any difference at all.   You have 20m in ADV.  I have 0.   You have a guy you drafted at 22nd in the first round.   You see him projected as an 83.    I see him improve from 58 to 61.   You're not selling me on him being an 83.   His value, to me, is 65-66.    Now switch it around with me drafting the guy.  I see his improvement as 58 to 61 but I know I drafted him 22nd for a reason.  I'm not selling him low because he only improved by 3 points in his first season. 

So your suggested change is just change for the sake of change.   We still have OUR value on the players.
What's your value of my 70 who jumped from a 58 to a 67 in his first season?
8/30/2010 3:42 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
If you drafted him 22nd and you have a history of drafting well(readily available info), I'd say he's likely to be a pretty good player.    But that just goes back to my issue, as a 0 ADV guy, not being really sure so that would make me hesitant to give up too much for him.    You'd probably demand 83 value, I'd probably say "No thanks" and we'd go our separate ways.     0 ADV owner misses out. 
8/30/2010 3:47 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/30/2010 3:47:00 PM (view original):
If you drafted him 22nd and you have a history of drafting well(readily available info), I'd say he's likely to be a pretty good player.    But that just goes back to my issue, as a 0 ADV guy, not being really sure so that would make me hesitant to give up too much for him.    You'd probably demand 83 value, I'd probably say "No thanks" and we'd go our separate ways.     0 ADV owner misses out. 
But that's the point - right now, if you've got a year of development to look at for a player, there's never any reason for ADV 0 guy to "miss out", because the players approximate ceiling is evident from development to date. You're not going to get fooled into taking a dud, you're not going to miss out a stud, or at least not any moreso than people who are spending a lot more on scouting.

If you're not making trades in this scenario now, then yeah, maybe it wouldn't change much for you - but that's because right now you're not taking full advantage of the information that the development pattern is putting in front of you, the way the others are.
8/30/2010 4:02 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I was assuming your "proposal" under the guidelines you suggested.  Currently, yes, I'd make the trade for him assuming he'd be mid 70s.
8/30/2010 4:30 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Long story short: This is all basically bug exploitation, sooner or later WIS will correct this and all you 0 AS guys will be whining as you now have to start spending in AS again and it will take 3+ seasons to get your number up to a usuable amount.
8/30/2010 4:45 PM
new
Posts: 115 (0)
Hall of Famer
127 2 1 1 150
Prospect
Posted by AlCheez on 8/30/2010 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Overall development shouldn't be random (ie - quality scouting should always give you a good picture of what a player will eventually become), but yes, progression to that final result should not be so linear. Because it's so linear, the only real limitation you have is that you can't really evaluate guys who haven't played a full season, and possible guys who have a major injury early on. Is not being able to trade for a 2nd year pro really that big of a deal? And if you have good draft scouting, you could just copy the prospect ratings into a spreadsheet and allieviate some of that anyhow.

There should be guys who see a big spike in their first year and then plateau, and then also guys who only improve a bit initially and then take off in their 3rd and 4th years. I'm not talking late round surprises or early round busts here - their actual potential wouldn't change and would be discernable with quality scouting - it just wouldn't be so accurately discerned from their initial development pattern.

"There should be guys who see a big spike in their first year and then plateau, and then also guys who only improve a bit initially and then take off in their third and fourth year." 

This would be a hinderance to me and others who budget zero for advanced scouting.  Instead of needing two seasons of development to chart a players potential it would take several seasons.  This would limit the trade options and make that advanced scounting budget mean something. 

8/30/2010 4:46 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Posted by new on 8/30/2010 4:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by AlCheez on 8/30/2010 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Overall development shouldn't be random (ie - quality scouting should always give you a good picture of what a player will eventually become), but yes, progression to that final result should not be so linear. Because it's so linear, the only real limitation you have is that you can't really evaluate guys who haven't played a full season, and possible guys who have a major injury early on. Is not being able to trade for a 2nd year pro really that big of a deal? And if you have good draft scouting, you could just copy the prospect ratings into a spreadsheet and allieviate some of that anyhow.

There should be guys who see a big spike in their first year and then plateau, and then also guys who only improve a bit initially and then take off in their 3rd and 4th years. I'm not talking late round surprises or early round busts here - their actual potential wouldn't change and would be discernable with quality scouting - it just wouldn't be so accurately discerned from their initial development pattern.

"There should be guys who see a big spike in their first year and then plateau, and then also guys who only improve a bit initially and then take off in their third and fourth year." 

This would be a hinderance to me and others who budget zero for advanced scouting.  Instead of needing two seasons of development to chart a players potential it would take several seasons.  This would limit the trade options and make that advanced scounting budget mean something. 

Advance Scouting budget SHOULD mean something.
8/30/2010 4:47 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by csherwood on 8/30/2010 4:45:00 PM (view original):
Long story short: This is all basically bug exploitation, sooner or later WIS will correct this and all you 0 AS guys will be whining as you now have to start spending in AS again and it will take 3+ seasons to get your number up to a usuable amount.
It's not a bug.  But I won't argue the exploitation part.  It works for me, I don't think it would work for everyone.  Especially the "Trader Jacks" of HBD.    However, when/if they change it, I want you to point out when I whine about it.

I used the 3MT to exploit their retarded DUR/STM change because of the fatigue whiners.    When they changed it, I said "Bout f'ing time". 
8/30/2010 4:49 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Did I say MikeL23 would whine about it? Change my original post to read "most of you 0 AS guys"
There will be whining though. In fact, new has already told us that he will be whining
8/30/2010 4:51 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
I didn't read new's post as whining, I just read that as him agreeing that varying the development curve would do what I'm saying it would. 

Whether it's a "bug" or not depends on how you define bug, and it's not worth debating.  But yes, it's absolutely a weaker aspect of the game design that's being exploited currently, by myself included.    It's not foolproof, but if you understand how development works, you're just not giving that much up by forgetting about it.

 But yes, there will be whining, because there is always whining.
8/30/2010 4:59 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
I did originally say "basically bug exploitation". I agree that it is not a true bug, but the way people take advantage of this is akin to the way others bugs have been exploited in the past. One of the reasons that I personally have not dropped to 0 AS is because I do foresee the day that this gets changed and I dont want to be caught by it. But I am starting to seriously consider going to 0 AS if nothing gets changed soon.
8/30/2010 5:03 PM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
If a change is made, WIS has to be careful how they make it.  Whenever you affect scouting, you affect people's long-term strategy.  So you either have to give owners time to change course (if desired) or greater flexibility in budget restraints for advanced scouting.
8/30/2010 5:13 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7 Next ▸
A free ~$18M in Advance Scouting 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.