What would happen if Projections for each player were eliminated?  You would know current ratings and Make-up and have to use those numbers, along with age, to estimate future ability. "projection."

To me this would be a much more realistic feature.  I think the draft AND the IFA process, as currently done with projections, make determining the ability of future players too predictable.  In essence, there are almost no "busts,' and no huge surprises.

Eliminate the projection number, improve an already good game.

moe

Horrible idea.. You'd lose half of the customers..  This would be great for guys who dont use ADV scouting... You'd be able to rob the **** out of noobies and worlds get even more F'd up..

I think you could get the same result, or better, with just a more wildly variable projection of future ability.  it seems relatively predictable now

I actually love this idea.  Obviously they can't implement it because the current process is too ingrained, but if there was an alternative product that did this, I would definitely give it a spin.

More vague.   A-F or 1-5 for projections.  An A would mean anything between 85-100.   And, if you went with 0 ADV, you might see an A when it's really a C.   Or, if you use 1-5, 1 = 81-100 with the same variance based on ADV.    It would add value to scouting and, quite honestly, kill all the "PLAYERS NEVER REACH PROJECTIONS!!!" nonsense because owners won't know if he was supposed to be 86 or 96 based on projections.

Something like that along with non-predictable development patterns too.  Stuff we've suggested before.  (And remove the ability for us to see other teams' budget components other than payroll).

I think I would also make positions a bit less flexable. In fact, I would definately do this.  Players would be OF's or IF's or 1B/LF's, and a few could even be flexable utility guys listed as OF/IF.  But as it is, a guy could never play a certain position in a long career and yet be a GG'er at that position the next year.

Maybe allow a MLB position change (say from CF to 2B) after a certain amount of MiLB innings.  I've got a quality hitter, a star, who I regularly play at 2B, 3B and CF. Doesn't happen in the real world.  Robinson Cano doesn't play 3B tomorrow and CF the next day, yet certainly he has the skill set for that.

Posted by silentpadna on 9/9/2011 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Something like that along with non-predictable development patterns too.  Stuff we've suggested before.  (And remove the ability for us to see other teams' budget components other than payroll).

Remove the ability for us to see other teams' budget components other than payroll?  Genius.

Posted by soursurfer on 9/9/2011 10:55:00 AM (view original):
I actually love this idea.  Obviously they can't implement it because the current process is too ingrained, but if there was an alternative product that did this, I would definitely give it a spin.

It has nothing to do with how ingrained it is. Why would someone spend money on HS/Col/ or international scouting when it would all be based on luck anyway. Making it fuzzier when you do not spend money yes. Eliminating it sorry but no.

Posted by willsauve on 9/9/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
Horrible idea.. You'd lose half of the customers..  This would be great for guys who dont use ADV scouting... You'd be able to rob the **** out of noobies and worlds get even more F'd up..

Umm how great would it be for your draft and international signings? ADV scouting is a very small part of what moe is proposing.

Posted by moethedog on 9/9/2011 6:53:00 PM (view original):
I think I would also make positions a bit less flexable. In fact, I would definately do this.  Players would be OF's or IF's or 1B/LF's, and a few could even be flexable utility guys listed as OF/IF.  But as it is, a guy could never play a certain position in a long career and yet be a GG'er at that position the next year.

Maybe allow a MLB position change (say from CF to 2B) after a certain amount of MiLB innings.  I've got a quality hitter, a star, who I regularly play at 2B, 3B and CF. Doesn't happen in the real world.  Robinson Cano doesn't play 3B tomorrow and CF the next day, yet certainly he has the skill set for that.

I've always thought they should have a position skill level, that is learned by playing a position.  Not exactly sure how to do it, but if you play 3B for years, then get switched to 2B, you would still be good at it, but it may take you a season (or 100 games) before you play to your ratings, and if you play there for the season, you may start to slip with your 3B ratings.  if you start at a 10% loss to skills, and get to 95% after 20 games, then to 99 after 30 games, then...  it would be more realistic, and then you don't lose position rating unless you don't play it for 14 HBD days, at which you lose 1% per two weeks, down to the starting 90%.

Posted by tommy_cian on 9/9/2011 11:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moethedog on 9/9/2011 6:53:00 PM (view original):
I think I would also make positions a bit less flexable. In fact, I would definately do this.  Players would be OF's or IF's or 1B/LF's, and a few could even be flexable utility guys listed as OF/IF.  But as it is, a guy could never play a certain position in a long career and yet be a GG'er at that position the next year.

Maybe allow a MLB position change (say from CF to 2B) after a certain amount of MiLB innings.  I've got a quality hitter, a star, who I regularly play at 2B, 3B and CF. Doesn't happen in the real world.  Robinson Cano doesn't play 3B tomorrow and CF the next day, yet certainly he has the skill set for that.

I've always thought they should have a position skill level, that is learned by playing a position.  Not exactly sure how to do it, but if you play 3B for years, then get switched to 2B, you would still be good at it, but it may take you a season (or 100 games) before you play to your ratings, and if you play there for the season, you may start to slip with your 3B ratings.  if you start at a 10% loss to skills, and get to 95% after 20 games, then to 99 after 30 games, then...  it would be more realistic, and then you don't lose position rating unless you don't play it for 14 HBD days, at which you lose 1% per two weeks, down to the starting 90%.

Once upon a time, the Cubs traded for two shortstops, a veteran and a prospect. They liked the prospect as their shortstop of the future, but planned to play the veteran until he was ready. As luck would have it, when they got to Spring Training they suddenly noticed that they had no thirdbaseman (this is the Cubs afterall), so the prospect wound up making the team as the starting 3B.  In that year's Amateur Draft they selected a shortstop with the #1 pick and immediately tagged him as their new shortstop of the future. They also decided that under the circumstances, their new thirdbaseman's bat would be much more impressive if he could play 2B instead - since it no longer looked liked he would be playing SS in the future. So for the last third or so of the season the onetime SS of the future played mostly second base,  where (at least if you believe SLB rankings) he played exceptionally good defense. The next season, his first full season at secondbase, the SS turned 3B won the first of many gold gloves.

At the time everyone made a fuss about the fact that Ryne Sandberg was the first player to ever win a GG for his first full season at a position, so I guess the exception proves your point ...