Player Progressions Topic

oriolemagic
Posts: 253 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 10 93 95
Prospect
How about changing the progression from basically 3 years to something more variable between 3 and 6 years.  Make it so that every player will reach his max progression (not projected ratings) somewhere in that range.  It would make more variance in player development, making it more difficult to 0 out your scouting budget, as well as more realistic having variance in player development.

1/5/2011 10:42 AM
prezuiwf
Posts: 315 (0)
All Star
15 3 27
Prospect
I think everyone would like more variance in player development. WIS says the average hitter reaches his peak at age 27, but I feel like age 23 or 24, especially if a guy was drafted/signed at age 18 or 19, is a very often a player's peak in this game. That is way too young. Some guys should hit their peaks that early, sure, but just as many should hit their peaks at age 33, and the majority should hit them between ages 26 and 28. This is something I wouldn't complain about them changing for sure.
1/5/2011 11:42 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I posted this a couple of days ago:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote post by MikeT23 on 1/2/2011 2:06:00 PM:
The "best" solution is to grade all prospects 1-6 or A-F.   Once they're signed, it converts to 0-100.

Then have players have a "peak development" season that varies.  Some players blossom in their first full season and level off.  Other "get it" in their 5th full season.

This solves a lot of problems because (1) or (A) would be 85-100.   (2) or (B) would be 70-84.    And higher budgeting reduces the chance of a mis-label.  While there's very little differnce between 84 and 85, there's a big difference between 71 and 99.  You'll want your prospect budget high.   And because development patterns will vary, you'll want your ADV budget to be high if you're trading for prospects.   Is that 8 point bump in his 2nd season his "peak development year" or is it just normal development and he's going to get a big one later on?

Of course, this would probably be a MF to program.   Or at least change from the current program.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also suggested, in this forum, that we only be able to view current and projected on a player card.    No history of development.   There are ways to make it very difficult to use 0 ADV.   However, I'm sure any change will be met with much gnashing of teeth from those using 0 ADV.
1/5/2011 11:53 AM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
I'd be okay with a change as long as we have a chance to adjust out of the 0 ADV strategy if we choose to do so.
1/5/2011 12:13 PM
shobob
Posts: 3404 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
0 ADV scouting will always be a feasible option as long as you can make a "note" of the players projections on his player card based on good draft scouting.  That is, unless they implement Mike's fuzzy system (1-6/A-F etc...)
1/5/2011 2:26 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by mhulshult on 1/5/2011 12:13:00 PM (view original):
I'd be okay with a change as long as we have a chance to adjust out of the 0 ADV strategy if we choose to do so.

You will be allowed to adjust out as always.  4m at a time.    That's how it works.   You(and I) have chosen a path.   Walk down it.

1/5/2011 2:28 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by shobob on 1/5/2011 2:26:00 PM (view original):
0 ADV scouting will always be a feasible option as long as you can make a "note" of the players projections on his player card based on good draft scouting.  That is, unless they implement Mike's fuzzy system (1-6/A-F etc...)
It will always be a feasible option no matter what.    If you're not trading for developing players, even if they're in their first season now or 5th season under my "plan", you don't care about projections.  
1/5/2011 2:30 PM
oriolemagic
Posts: 253 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 10 93 95
Prospect
To limit your trades/free agent signings to guys with 6+ years experience would be a whole lot more of a disadvantage then 3+ ;)
1/5/2011 4:15 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
It's always an option.    I doubt I've required 5 players with less than 6 seasons under their belt in the last 2 real life years(35-40 HBD seasons).
1/6/2011 8:03 AM
dyoungquist
Posts: 866 (0)
Hall of Famer
180
Rookie
Posted by oriolemagic on 1/5/2011 10:42:00 AM (view original):
How about changing the progression from basically 3 years to something more variable between 3 and 6 years.  Make it so that every player will reach his max progression (not projected ratings) somewhere in that range.  It would make more variance in player development, making it more difficult to 0 out your scouting budget, as well as more realistic having variance in player development.

+1
1/6/2011 9:37 PM
Player Progressions 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.