Better DITR’s!!! Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No one, in their right mind, takes a possible Diamond as a top 10 pick. You have sure All-Stars on the board, you don't take a chance on a dud. But, if you're looking at role players, you take a chance.

And, as I said, it doesn't address what the people want. LATE ROUND STUDS!!!!
2/26/2010 2:47 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I don't like the Diamond branding idea at all. Zero realism.

Plus, I can envision some yahoo putting all the Diamonds at the top of his draft lists for a number of seasons in a row, hoping to win the jackpot, and then having most if not all of them crap out and really screw up his franchise's future. And you know what that usually means . . . . time to move on and let somebody else clean up the mess he's behind.
2/26/2010 2:55 PM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
I agree with you on the late round stud part. They won't last into late rounds, but they will last into the 3rd and 4th rounds and possibly into the 5th and 6th.

I disagree that nobody would take a Diamond with a top 10 pick though. Do you believe that NOBODY would rank a 95 projected overall player in the top 10-15 of their draft just because there was a 66% chance he wouldn't reach that potential? I think a lot of people would.

The only way you're going to get studs in late rounds is if it's almost completely random. Very few people want that. Most people want skill to determine good teams, not luck. You gotta make compromises. My idea will give you HOFs drafted in the 4th-6th round with only minimal luck. If you want studs drafted later than that you gotta use gjello's idea which is 99% luck even if you tie it to a rating.

Another downside of gjello's idea is that it gives a huge advantage to those who have time to go over all the ratings with a fine toothed comb. WIS doesn't want to hand out those types of advantages, and I commend them for that.
2/26/2010 2:58 PM
amorak
Posts: 103 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 75 13
Prospect
I want Mike Piazza and Albert Pujols or I'm quitting!
2/26/2010 3:01 PM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 2/26/2010I don't like the Diamond branding idea at all.  Zero realism.  Plus, I can envision some yahoo putting all the Diamonds at the top of his draft lists for a number of seasons in a row, hoping to win the jackpot, and then having most if not all of them crap out and really screw up his franchise's future.  And you know what that usually means . . . . time to move on and let somebody else clean up the mess he's behind.

HBD isn't MLB. Short of posting fake videos of the players in game action so we can actually "scout" them, HBD is NEVER going to be MLB. We scout based on ratings, MLB doesn't do that.

I personally do not like any system of scouting where it's based on luck. I don't want completely random first round busts and/or completely random 17th round HOFers. I think approximately half of HBD players are like me, and about half want it more random. I think my system is the best way to keep both sides happy. I don't like gjello's idea because even if it's a small sample of only 3-6 players, it's still a crapshoot.
2/26/2010 3:03 PM
examinerebb
Posts: 428 (0)
Hall of Famer
161 20 56
Rookie
Use the MLB 2-8 rating scale with the amateur and international scouts, on the categories MLB scouts use it on. Other than power, speed and velocity, nothing would translate directly to an HBD rating. Any number of HBD rating combinations could produce a Hitting rating of 7, or a Fielding rating of 6, etc. You'd inherently have busts and sleepers.
2/26/2010 3:05 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I've been floating that idea(except with 1-6 or A-F) for about 3 years. It won't take. In fact, you're the first who even semi-agreed with me about it being a good idea.
2/26/2010 3:58 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By jimmystick on 2/26/2010HBD isn't MLB. Short of posting fake videos of the players in game action so we can actually "scout" them, HBD is NEVER going to be MLB. We scout based on ratings, MLB doesn't do that.
Agree that HBD can and never will fully emulate MLB. But it is based on, wherever possible, being as realistic as it reasonably can be. Which is the crux of the arguments against the current drafting system and DITR. People want more first-round busts and 17th round all-stars just like you get occasionally in MLB.

Branding certain players as potential Diamonds seems to go further away from realism than what we have today.
2/26/2010 4:31 PM
examinerebb
Posts: 428 (0)
Hall of Famer
161 20 56
Rookie
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/26/2010
I've been floating that idea(except with 1-6 or A-F) for about 3 years. It won't take. In fact, you're the first who even semi-agreed with me about it being a good idea.
Ah, so what everyone else wants is to know exactly what kind of ratings a player is going to have when they draft said player. Then, a season or two down the road, have that change in a completely random way, but still know exactly what ratings the result of the change is going to produce.

Yes, clearly we're the ones with the bad idea. And the ones claiming to advocate for realism, yet asking for something completely unrealistic. Why didn't I see it before?
2/26/2010 4:57 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/26/2010I've been floating that idea(except with 1-6 or A-F) for about 3 years. It won't take. In fact, you're the first who even semi-agreed with me about it being a good idea
I like this idea, too, but it seems like more of an overhaul than a tweak. Tweaks are much more likely to actually happen. Still, a good idea.

If the bust half of bust/gem is too much for people, I wouldn't even mind a gem-only feature to add 2-3 ML types from the lower rounds every year. If all this did was add a fun message to your inbox each year letting you know if you'd gotten one, and to get people to sign their late round draftees, then it's a good thing. But I still like my original idea, especially if the odds were tied to a rating.

I also think people would try to figure out the formula builder a little more if they were trying to maximize the gem feature.
2/26/2010 5:12 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By examinerebb on 2/26/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/26/2010
I've been floating that idea(except with 1-6 or A-F) for about 3 years. It won't take. In fact, you're the first who even semi-agreed with me about it being a good idea.
Ah, so what everyone else wants is to know exactly what kind of ratings a player is going to have when they draft said player. Then, a season or two down the road, have that change in a completely random way, but still know exactly what ratings the result of the change is going to produce.

Yes, clearly we're the ones with the bad idea. And the ones claiming to advocate for realism, yet asking for something completely unrealistic. Why didn't I see it before?



Now you're catching on. What people really want is their good players to be good players and their bad players to magically become good players.
2/26/2010 5:28 PM
dedelman
Posts: 2238 (0)
Hall of Famer
324 219
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 2/26/2010I don't like the Diamond branding idea at all. Zero realism.
How about this? Every player is created with a per-season probability of getting a DitR, which would be part of the player card. Average would be about what it is now, maybe 2%. Some players would have 0% chance (including most top prospects and all tryout camp pitchers). This number could be called "breakout potential" or "upside."

So now you get a more realistic way of choosing between a guy who appears to top out at AA but has a 5-10% per season chance of DitR, or a guy who projects to be a major league backup with a 0% DitR rate. This would create round 1 busts (owner gambles and loses) and round 2-3 stars. This adds a new dimension of decision-making to the game. And it eliminates the sudden "I got a rock" of finding out your diamond didn't hit.

It would probably be hard to program, but this would be even better if the probability of DitR were seen more accurately the more $$ you put in scouting.

Thoughts?
2/26/2010 5:29 PM
jjboogie
Posts: 48 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 6
Prospect
thats not a bad idea - although yes programming might be hard

i'm still not sure why it's not simply tied to your scouting - whether you see them in advance or not. the more you spend scouting the more likelihood you get a few DITRs

ideally i'd like to see them be better on occasion - hopefully they got it right

why not take away a bit of the randomness and reward the money you spend scouting? or don't spend any and you don't get DITRs
2/26/2010 5:40 PM
jonas1102
Posts: 1016 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 24 43 11
Rookie
Quote: Originally Posted By examinerebb on 2/26/2010

Use the MLB 2-8 rating scale with the amateur and international scouts, on the categories MLB scouts use it on. Other than power, speed and velocity, nothing would translate directly to an HBD rating. Any number of HBD rating combinations could produce a Hitting rating of 7, or a Fielding rating of 6, etc. You'd inherently have busts and sleepers.

This is the best idea and the only idea that should even be in the discussion.
2/26/2010 6:42 PM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
Quote: Branding certain players as potential Diamonds seems to go further away from realism than what we have today.

True, but its the best compromise I can think of to keep the most people happy. I wouldn't like or personally endorse any system in which random unpredictable things happen because it takes away the skill of scouting.

I don't really like MikeT's idea of the A-F system. Not because its not realistic, but because it would be too time consuming and difficult to manage. If realism is the goal, then this is hands down the best idea. I'm all about the greatest good for the greatest number, and for my money, my "Diamond" idea is the best I've seen.
2/26/2010 6:51 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7 Next ▸
Better DITR’s!!! 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.