"First, HBD isn't real life."

Yes, I'm aware of that...I don't think the images on a player's profile are actual photos of real people.

But real life is what the damn game aspires to. It can't be perfect. But what I'm doing is making a suggestion on how to make it MORE like real life, which is, again, what WIS aspires to. It's why they make changes to the engine in order to more accurately reflect real life. An HBD version of Greg Maddux or Albert Pujols is nearly impossible. I think that's a shame, and I think it's something that can be a part of the game. In fact, that's what DITRs are supposed to approximate in the first place, right? But they don't. If low draft picks becoming great baseball players is a common part of real life, it should be a part of HBD.

And no, I guess I don't understand potential/projections if you keep saying that. I think they're the ratings underneath the current ratings that indicate an owners limited knowledge of what kind of player the player will become. If you can't elaborate any further, then I'll just assume you don't have the ability to communicate what they are, or I'll assume you don't want to communicate it because it gives you an advantage in the game. Either way, our career winning %s are pretty close, and you've only won one championship more than I have despite having played at least four times the amount of seasons, so I don't get the general impression you understand this game much more than I do. I know you make a lot of posts on the forum, and I expect you know what you're talking about, but it's not like you've got the experience and pedestal of, say, oldresorter in HD.

Posted by agentverde on 3/18/2011 1:47:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure I'm not ideal at development...I didn't say I was. As far as I understand it, development depends on coaching, years in the minors, a player's makeup, playing time, etc.

Tec, in your experience, how often do players exceed their draft day projections in HBD? How often do players exceed draft day projections in real life?

Your question about my experience with players exceeding projections is irrelevant.  I've never run with a $20m scouting budget, I'm usually down in the $14m range, so I know that my projections are not accurate.  So for me, it's not about "reaching/exceeding projections", but it's all about "maximizing development".  Wherever the player ends up, that's what I've got.

FYI . . . I have seen players exceed what I originally saw as their projections in certain categories.  Not across the board for a particular player, but maybe in one or two ratings.

The meaning of projection/potential has nothing to do with HBD.   They're words. 

I've suggested, long ago, that WifS do away with the 0-100 numbers for projections.    I've recommended 1-6 or A-F.   It gives you a wider range thus more flexibility.  A 1(or A) could be 85-100.    This still wouldn't allow a Pujols to slip thru to the 17th round(his projections would still be 1 or 2 in all categories) but, rather than going first, he might go 15th.  And the 2-3 guys could easily fall to the 5th-6th rounds. 

Nonetheless, WifS has shown no inclination to change that so it's pretty much a dead point.   And, quite frankly, there wasn't a lot of support from the people.

I like your idea about the letters, Mike, especially since that's closer to RL. However, I think the actual numbers are necessary, even if they're not visible to owners, if only because the mathematics would need more numbers to be more precise in algorithms.

As for projection/potential, I think what you might be saying is the numbers we see are the very apex of what a player could be. So, essentially, it's like a scout coming back and saying, "This is what this player could ultimately under perfect circumstances." I agree the role of an owner is to maximize development based on those potentials.

Let's go back to Maddux, though...scouting reports may have pointed out his control or command, but it wasn't as if anyone said, "This guy could potentially become a Hall of Famer." No one thought he'd be that good, but ALL players could potentially become Hall of Famers with enough work, improvement and baseball acumen, assuming they've got at least some physical ability. In other words, if he'd been a HBD prospect, his projected ratings probably would've been about 50 overall, but over time it became clear he was actually one of the best pitchers of his era, and probably would've rated in the 90s in HBD.

That's what DITRs were made to approximate...that a player overlooked and with low estimated ratings could suddenly be revealed as being far better than initial estimates. What I'm advocating is already a part of the game. I'm just saying it should be a larger part, and it should more accurately reflect real life.

Though the experience on all of this has reminded me why I hate posting on these forums: the feedback is antagonistic and argumentative, and mainly just frustrating.

I'm not a programmer but I do know you can program "85 to 100 = A" as a display while keeping the actual number hidden.   The numbers are what gets people worked up.  You see a 93, he ends up at 87 and that's unacceptable because you see it time and time again.

Yes, now we're on same page.   No guarantee but a goal.

I agree that we aren't finding a Piazza in round 72.    It's just not possible without pure, unadultered luck.  And, as the trade-off, you have to have the guy drafted #2 overall fail every now and then.   Owners will not like that.  I don't want to spend an hour or two ranking players only to have development based on luck of the draw. Not many people do.

DITR, as it is now, is just a gift.   I'd be all for it playing a bigger role if it was something owners could earn by doing the right things.   We discussed a few ideas earlier. 

The reason you found people to be antagonistic and argumentative is because you started three threads in 5 minutes asking for "MORE BETTER!!"   You had the DITR thread, the development thread and the Fielding Instructor thread.   Your requests were not well thought out.   You realize that there were a lot of quality FI in your world and you now know that projections are a "best case" scenario.  You also agreed that flooding the market with a ton of 'roided up DITR would diminish the value of the current talent pool.    So you've changed your stance, at least somewhat, on all three threads.

Albert Pujols would have been a 1st-3rd round draft pick.  He was a USA Today All-American as a Senior in High School.  But he fell because:

1)  He was supposed to graduate in 1998.  He didn't, making him ineligible for 1998 draft.  Fort Osage actually went to MSHAA to get him an extra year of eligibility for the 1999 season, but he "graduated" in winter of 1998 so he went to Maple Woods for a year because he was told playing against college competition would be better for his draft status as he entered the 1999 draft.

2) Signability.  He wanted 1st-3rd round money to sign.  He was not going to sign for slot money, he wanted around a $150K bonus.  When the Cardinals originally offered him $10K to sign, he turned them down and went and played in a Wood Bat Summer League.  He was going to go back into the draft the following year to improve his draft position.  Eventually he and the Cardinals agreed on a $60K bonus because there were other reasons he fell that weren't going to go away.

3)  Age Discrepency.  No one knew how old he actually was.  Many players from the Dominican Republic had these same age "rumors" around them.  Rumors were that he was anyone from 3 to 6 years older than the competition he was playing against.  So while he was clearly head and shoulders above his competiton, he was also physically head and shoulders more mature than the pitchers he was facing.

4)  Location.  The Midwest was an after thought among the scouting community.  If you weren't at a DI school, or played high school ball in Florida, Texas or California, everyone assumed you succeeded because the talent level around you wasn't up to par.  Had he put up the same amazing numbers in one of the hotbeds, he would have been a no doubter 1st rounder.

5)  He had no position.  While he was a SS in high school, he was terrible.  He had a rocket arm, but he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.  His fielding mechanics were also terrible, and to draft a player in the upper rounds that looked like a DH was unthinkable.  He has worked incredibly hard to make himself a good 1B, but if you remember his 2001 season where he played 3B/LF you saw he was just a terrible a fielder.


So when you look at his overall profile, a no position guy who is older than his competition in a non-traditional talent area who couldn't graduate from high school and wants upper round money, it became easy to pass on him.  There are no guarentees in MLB, talent can easily burn out in A ball.  So you have to take the talent with everything else to determine whether he lives up to the talent or not.  There were plenty of people who loved his bat.  In HBD, none of that other stuff matters.  His bat projection gets him drafted.

Same thing with Maddux.  Everyone saw his talent in high school, but it was his build that dropped him.  A guy with A-Level talent, but F-level build in real life gets ignored for the most part.  The fact that Maddux was drafted at all proves his talent was elite.  If under 6-0 tall pitchers in HBD burned out early and at a 95+% rate, Maddux would fall as well.

The way things work now if fine.  It's probably better than any alternatives.  Random players busting/improving based on nothing but a spin of a wheel would be terrible.

@mike: I only changed my position on the FI thread, and I didn't exactly change my mind because I still think the FI component is weak. I don't spend hours scouring the forums and commenting 30 times a day, mike...I've played WIS for years now and I don't complain, but when I think something could be improved, I post about it. I still think the current development and DITR systems suck and could be better. Admitting i wouldn't want a flooded talent pool is not backing off on my original stance. Essentially, i'd say my thoughts ARE well thought out, but you're not reading thoroughly, and you're more interested in arguing because that's what people who scour forums and comment all day do.

As for what people want, I suppose we could poll HBD players and see if they were happy with DITRs. Almost everyone in Feller seems to dislike the component as it stands.

@Jonas: Thanks for those detailed analyses. That was actually really interesting. But I think we'd both agree there will always be players who out do their expectations. Scouts may have seen Maddux's talent, but he still went late, and those two are hardly the only examples of players overcoming original expectations to become great ballplayers.

I asked questions, in both threads where I responded first, to find out what you meant.

FI thread:  You claimed there was a lack of decent FI.  It was shown that there wasn't.
Development thread:   You seemed to misunderstand projections/potential.  Your last statement on the matter:  "As for projection/potential, I think what you might be saying is the numbers we see are the very apex of what a player could be. So, essentially, it's like a scout coming back and saying, "This is what this player could ultimately under perfect circumstances." I agree the role of an owner is to maximize development based on those potentials."

IOW, I gave you the opportunity to explain yourself before pointing out the flaws in your request.   You did and, in both threads, it certainly appears you changed your stance.

As far as DITR, I didn't respond because it was the same broken record.  Your initial request was either something for nothing or change the draft so there would be more luck.   Neither of those are good things. It's been discussed ad nauseum in these forums.

Now you can turn that into a "You were mean to me!!!" statement if you want.  But you just asked for MORE BETTER!!! without thinking it out or getting the facts right.  That means your posts were not well thought out. 

@MikeT23:

"FI thread: You claimed there was lack of decent FI. It was shown there wasn't."

I thought it was stupid to have the highest paid members of the coaching staff consistently be the FI. I was wrong in assuming this was because of a lack of talent (though there is, generally, a lack of talent in that area). You mentioned that it was a problem that could be solved by not having FIs, which don't exist in real life. I agreed, because I thought that was a good solution to what I considered a problem (and which you apparently considered a problem, as well).

As for the development thread: This has just been a crazy comedy of errors in terms of you not understanding what I mean, and you apparently thinking I don't understand what "projections" mean.

I didn't ask for something for nothing. I simply mentioned that I'd like a closer tie-in to real life, where players drafted in low rounds and with low expectations become great baseball players. I'm also not asking to add more luck. DITRs already exist, and I wanted that component improved to bring up better players. If you don't think this game is about luck, you apparently don't understand how algorithms and percentages work. This game is pretty much ALL luck on some level. There's talent involved, sure, but if you think the absolute best manager and team wins the World Series every year...well, I'm not sure what game you've been playing.

My feelings aren't hurt, and you weren't mean. You were just communicating the way most people communicate on forums, which was to argue minor points while missing the bigger points. That's why I generally avoid commenting. I didn't realize the HBD forums required point-by-point theses. I threw out an idea on the FI thread, and you came up with a solution I agreed with. The end. Though it probably wasn't as enjoyable for you. I'll say this: I'm glad I'm in Feller, where the chat room mostly avoids this sort of thing.

@jonas: You said: "The only way to program that into HBD would be to give us current ratings and then have random development. That is not a good way to distribute talent in a computer simulation.  It becomes luck, and no one wants to pay for a luck based game."

What you described already exists. It's called DITR. Under my suggestion, it would make DITR players better. That's it...no major change needed. If you're happy with DITRs being lifetime AAA players, fine, but I think it's fairly worthless at this point.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/18/2011 11:30:00 PM (view original):
No.  Your beef in the FI thread was that you thought there were only 2 FI's rated over 80 in your world.  Period.  You were shown to be mistaken.  Don't try to deflect that by saying that your real problem was their price tag.

Well, obviously you understand me much better than I do. When you figured out the stats of FI players in Feller, I think I accepted that you were right, and I was wrong, but I still think it's stupid for FIs to be the highest paying coaches. MikeT's solution made sense to me...I'd rather have no FIs at all and have fielding linked to other coaches than spend $5m on them.

So let's say that again, even though I've mentioned it a couple times already: MY ORIGINAL PREMISE WAS INCORRECT. I WAS WRONG. YOU WERE RIGHT! I'M HAPPY WITH MIKET'S SOLUTION TO WHAT I SEE AS A PROBLEM.

Wasn't it already explained to you that by increasing DITR growth doesn't make DITR better, it just dilutes the pool so that instead of a 76 being average an 80 is average?  And Greg Maddux and Albert Pujols were not DITR.  Here is Greg Maddux's high school scouting report.  If you don't feel like clicking it says, "I really believe that this boy would possibly be the number 1 player taken in the country if only he looked a bit more physical."

The point I was trying to make is if you want the 10th round pick to turn into a superstar, you also have to have the 1st round busts, so that the ML caliber player pool stays the same.  And to do that you have to take away projections all together and make development 100% random.  As long as people are able to estimate how good a player will end up, they will continue to draft these players ahead of other players.

@Jonas1102: 

I see your point about the 1st round busts...that would be annoying.

The other option is just to water down the talent pool overall slightly...you wouldn't need to make 1st rounders busts. Adding 1 superstar DITR and a couple decent ML DITRs every couple years would hardly dilute anything at all. It might actually deter tanking, which would be a positive thing.

I also see your point on Maddux and Pujols, though I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of scouting report happens a hundred times a year considering the sheer number of prospects and scouts. The account of a single scout apparently doesn't hold much sway, since he predicted Maddux would be gone by the 2nd round. Besides, there are tons of other examples of late round picks becoming very good baseball players. Here's a list of guys playing today.

I don't see the purpose of DITRs if not to have them actually be "diamonds". As much as I like the depth of this game and paying attention to the minor leagues, I don't see the purpose of having a seasonal unveiling of players you thought were lifetime HiA players who are now AAA level. If the possibility of hitting the jackpot with a grousing about DITRs in Feller (which has a number of respected owners).

My experience is limited, but I've never seen a solid ML level DITR. I've read forum posts about guys who became fringe ML players, but I just don't see the point. I think the possibility of getting a Sandberg or Piazza would make the game more exciting, and DITR day could have some of the same anticipation of the amateur draft. Link it to coaching, scouting budgets, success, whatever...If it means a tanking team gets one less superstar draft pick, I think that's a reasonable trade-off.

Lastly, I'd like to mention I've appreciated your tone in this discussion, which feels more like a reasonable debate than a typical WIS thread.

FI thread:  You said there was a lack of good FI.   tec listed the ratings that showed there wasn't.   You changed your suggestion at that point.   No arguing that.
Develpment thread:   You still seem to think projections are 100% accurate.  They are not.   You still seem to think these inaccurate projections should be achieved on a regular basis.  That can be under perfect circumstances.   You can't create perfect circumstances.  Therefore, you cannot achieve the inaccurate projections on a regular basis.  No arguing that.
DITR:  You are asking for MORE BETTER!!! while seemingly understanding that it will dilute the current talent pool.  If you want a handful of superstars to be drafted in the 17th round, good for you.  But it devalues the superstars taken in the 1st round thus turning the game into a MORE luck based game.

As far as the game being luck(and my understanding of alogrithms and percentages), you're right in the short term(like a playoff series).  But, over the course of 162 games, the better teams will almost always have the better records.  You decrease the luck factor by putting 90s on your team when your opponent is using 80s. Throwing random superstars onto teams who did nothing to earn them will INCREASE the luck factor. 

Lastly, in a public forum, I prefer to get to the point.   Beating around the bush in order to avoid damaged feelings seems like a waste of time.   I asked you to clarify your requests, because I didn't want to misinterpret them, and you did.   Your requests have been covered many times.  I pointed out the previously pointed out flaws of your requests.