One idea... Have a set if ratings that indicate bust, disappointment, mild surprise, super surprise. Assign percentages of each event happening. Make those ratings something an owner has to consider when drafting. Player A has good ratings but high bust percentage. Player b has decent ratings but small bust percentage and a hIgher chance of exceeding expectations.

Isn't that the Makeup rating?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/30/2011 4:00:00 PM (view original):
Isn't that the Makeup rating?

Yes.

But I would not be opposed to making makeup slightly more important than it seems to be now. And perhaps see more of a mix of high-ceiling/high-risk players and low(er)-ceiling/low(er) risk players to go along with that. That might make rounds 3-10 more interesting, at least.

For example, you could take a flier on a guy who *could* potentially reach his lofty projections (ML starter, perhaps) from his very humble current ratings (tryout camp level). Players like this with high makeup ratings might go in rounds 2 and 3, while players like this with lousy makeup would go lower. Of course, dumb and/or negligent owners would go by projections alone or ignore makeup and ... voila! Busts!

It would probably need to be spelled out a bit more clearly, like make a note at the top of the amateur prospects screen that make-up determines bustability.

FWIW I would be in favor of this, to an extent at least.  It might even make me stop punting the draft, altho probably not.

I'd be in favor of that as well, really anything that makes the draft outside the first 10-25 picks more interesting.  Not that you can't get quality MLers in the 2nd, 3rd or even later rounds w/o a DiTR bump, but it would be nice that someone willing to spend 20 hours setting up their draft board, adding the ceiling/risk potential of each recruit would have the advantage over the guy who spends 10 minutes setting up his draft board.

I'd have to think this might make coaching more important than it is now, which would also be an improvement.

Isn't makeup supposed to be one of the factors into likelihood of getting a DITR bump (though I've never really seen a definitive correlation)?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2011 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Isn't makeup supposed to be one of the factors into likelihood of getting a DITR bump (though I've never really seen a definitive correlation)?

I've never seen any evidence to support this. It seems generally random to me, but limited almost exclusively to 1B, DH, C and RP.

Posted by travisg on 12/1/2011 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/1/2011 2:13:00 PM (view original):
Isn't makeup supposed to be one of the factors into likelihood of getting a DITR bump (though I've never really seen a definitive correlation)?

I've never seen any evidence to support this. It seems generally random to me, but limited almost exclusively to 1B, DH, C and RP.

I've seen many SPs and a few COFs get DITR.  Never seen a MIF or CF.  I think the reason is that there is some maximum projected OVR for a player to receive DITR (not based on the projections owners see, but the "real" ones that only the system knows).  I think it's around 59 or 60.  Players under that number are DITR eligible.  Thus, positions with lower relative OVRs tend to have many more candidates for DITR than those with higher relative OVRs.  This is doubly true if we're looking at the much smaller universe of useful DITRs. 

I like the variability, but don't give me a rating.  In reality, there are very few guys that are seen that way.  Said another way, everyone is a lot higher variability than they are in HBD.  Just make it random.  1% of guys should far exceed their projections, and probably 50% should never get close to reaching them.

No to random. Owners who put in the time and/or learn how the game works should be rewarded. Otherwise there's really no point in playing.

What I like about my suggestion upthread (adding players with very low current ratings and higher projections) is that it would add another layer of rewards to owners who spend time understanding the game and scouting/ranking players while adding more variance in player development.

You would be able to draft potential major leaguers in the later rounds, but it would require budgetary investments, minor league micromanagement and some luck to get them to their full potential. And if makeup were made slightly more important than it seems to be now, it would give the appearance of busts. If every single player were eligible for DITR bumps, I think this would solve nearly all the major complaints everyone has -- without randomizing player development.

I agree that makeup should be more important in determining how a prospect develops. It seems like right now makeup only really matters when the player gets injured or gets older. I'd like to see more guys bust based on poor makeup and more guys exceed projections based on high makeup. It only makes sense that a guy working harder all the time is more likely to develop better. This has been a beef of mine since I first started in HBD. Development is far too predictable right now. I get that guys don't want to waste time learning the game and then have 'luck' be a factor and I agree with that but if makeup is tweaked I think it would add another element for those educated owners to either gamble or play it safe on a guy.

It matters for development of younger players.