Posted by tufft on 4/8/2011 10:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2011 8:16:00 PM (view original):
Wow. Apparently, everybody hires the correct coaches, promotes with the correct frequency and plays everyone at the correct position with the correct amount of ABs and IP.

Which explains why it's HBD's fault.

Thanks. I think this is another way of making one of the points I'm trying to make.

If everybody hired top coaches, promoted perfectly, and played everyone at their correct position for the correct amount in AB / INN, then many/most player should do better than the projections.  Projections should be a reasonable expectation, not a highly unlikely to impossible dream.

But everybody won't.  What everybody does, on average is, by definition, average.

One of the points you've helping me make is that projections should be the median of what happens across all players in all words, assuming the average appropriate budgets are all 10.

Budget more, invest it well, and make good player moves, a lot of your players should beat those original projections.  Under budget or hire bad coaches, you should get what you get now.  Most players not making projections.

And, if you read dev chats, HBD leagues are producing stat averages that are close to actual MLB averages.

Thus, your whining seems to be aimed at HBD not lining up with your mystical fairyland you wish to have, rather than a dearth of players that can perform.

Unicorns are delicious if prepared properly.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2011 7:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2011 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2011 8:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2011 4:59:00 PM (view original):
A guy projected at 27 doesn't come up 5-10 short.  Of course, you don't notice this because, get this, you don't care about the guy projected at 27.

You take your examples from the cream of the crop and say "He didn't reach his projections!"    Only a few players can be in the top 2% of the world.   You know, like 2% of them.

Back to this.

You don't notice the projected 27 for obvious reasons.  You do notice the ML talent level guys.  Isn't it more important that the ML guys have "projections" that are more accurate than the LowA guys? 

And I'm playing devil's advocate more than anything.  I'm comfortable with the way things are.

As the opposing devil's advocate, are you saying that projection accuracy should vary based on talent level?   That, in essence, scouts should really, really concentrate on being more accurate on the projections of the good players and not worry so much about the lesser players?    This is a sim.  I don't think they're going to set up 2(or 5) different levels of projection accuracy.

I wouldn't say multiple levels of projection accuracy would be wise.  But if most LowA type guys exceed their projections, and most ML type guys fall short, can't the projections be brought down some overall, to be more realistic on the ML level?  I don't think anyone will complain that their 27 overall is vastly exceeding projections.

And yes, in theory, I would want my scouts to have more accurate projections on the ML level. I'm guessing IRL they watch the talented guys a little more closely than the guys who have "no shot."

While I tend to agree that the top prospects are scouted more heavily(and thus more thoroughly), I doubt BL teams say "Meh, it's the 19th round.  Just gimme that fast kid from Tulsa.   Can't remember his name."

Nonetheless, this is a sim and I'm sure it treats everyone equally.   10% short on a 27 is 2.7, 10% short on a 93 is 9.3.   I think that's what people notice.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2011 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Shockingly, despite players unable to ever reach their obviously unreachable projections, there are over 160 HBD worlds, each with 32 teams that are somehow able to field 25-man Major League rosters.

Or, in other words, it really doesn't matter.

This.

The "problem", as I see it, is that people seem to be losing sight of the fact that it's not just their players who are coming up short of projections, but it's everybody's players.  We're all in the same boat.  In that regard, it's a level playing field.  Completely level.

In the end, what's the big deal?  I mean, really?

Tec, it's not a big deal, and I don't really care all that much.  But at the very least, I think the thread brings up a valid point.  And if you're new, you may have expectations of your players/draft picks that aren't realistic.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/9/2011 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Unicorns are delicious if prepared properly.

Blasphemy!

Everyone knows unicorns are best eaten raw. 

The unicorn drafted a guy and developed him past his projections. He's a keeper.

>> And, if you read dev chats, HBD leagues are producing stat averages that are close to actual MLB averages.
Thus, your whining seems to be aimed at HBD not lining up with your mystical fairyland you wish to have, rather than a dearth of players that can perform. <<

Absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

No matter what players are in the ML, they will perform as they will.  Doesn't matter if the average OVR is 85 or 65. Or if for any period of time HBD has better or worse hitting or pitching numbers.  There used to be a lot more offense, right?

The topic is about projection accuracy.  Not performance.  Projections.

And, as related to that development.  Not performance. The rate of development.

Projections are not accurate.  90% of development happens in the first 2 1/2 seasons, no matter what.

IMO, changing both of these would make it a better game.  More accessible by more people who would like to play.

I don't think we have any reason to believe anyone with WIS ever looks at this, or cares about suggestions.

But at least try to keep the issues straight.

You want to debate performance, please open a tread on that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/18/2011 12:44:00 PM (view original):
No, you don't.   That's number under a player's current rating is his projected rating.   One has to assume a few things to think that's a realistic number.

1.  The projection is 100% correct.  20m in ADV does not do that.
2.  The player plays the perfect number of games at each level.   I doubt that happens as we don't know the perfect conditions..
3.  The player has fantastic coaching.   No one has coaches with 100 ratings across the board.

Since none of those are even remotely likely, it's not surprising that few players reach the numbers you see.

 

Wha what?

Posted by tufft on 4/9/2011 7:31:00 PM (view original):
>> And, if you read dev chats, HBD leagues are producing stat averages that are close to actual MLB averages.
Thus, your whining seems to be aimed at HBD not lining up with your mystical fairyland you wish to have, rather than a dearth of players that can perform. <<

Absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

No matter what players are in the ML, they will perform as they will.  Doesn't matter if the average OVR is 85 or 65. Or if for any period of time HBD has better or worse hitting or pitching numbers.  There used to be a lot more offense, right?

The topic is about projection accuracy.  Not performance.  Projections.

And, as related to that development.  Not performance. The rate of development.

Projections are not accurate.  90% of development happens in the first 2 1/2 seasons, no matter what.

IMO, changing both of these would make it a better game.  More accessible by more people who would like to play.

I don't think we have any reason to believe anyone with WIS ever looks at this, or cares about suggestions.

But at least try to keep the issues straight.

You want to debate performance, please open a tread on that.

Here's part of the problem with what I think you are asking for (using OVR for the sake of discussion):

If a guy currently shows as a projected OVR 89, but only develops to an OVR 84, it sounds like you want to see him projected as av OVR 84 (or maybe an 83, or maybe an 85).

If this were to happen, then we would start to see players coming through on the draft lists, or through IFA, with lower OVR projections.

Then we would start seeing complaint threads along the lines of "Why am I'm not seeing as many high-quality players as I used to?  Overall player quality is decreasing!  This needs to be fixed!".

You know that's what would happen.  It would go round and round.

>> Then we would start seeing complaint threads along the lines of "Why am I'm not seeing as many high-quality players as I used to?  Overall player quality is decreasing!  This needs to be fixed!".
You know that's what would happen.  It would go round and round. <<

I agree with you this.  WIS would have to explain the new system.  IMO, it would be a change for the better.  Long term, better to have projections that are the median.