Having a lead just means a lot less than it used to.

I imagine it's better than not having a lead.

Having the lead means maybe you could push to moderate your worst enemy.

Posted by noleaniml on 1/31/2017 7:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/31/2017 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/31/2017 6:31:00 PM (view original):
In HBD, if you lose 40% of the time, you still had a good season. I guess it's just perspective.

Comparing losing a game and losing a recruiting battle is apples to oranges IMO

Especially in two different sports.

A win % of 60 basically makes you a bubble team in college bball. Not particularly good.

Hence, perspective. I mentioned this before but losing a FA in HBD is disappointing but not "thread-worthy". And it can be a lot more unexpected. You're leading the entire period, have no idea if anyone else is even on him and get topped on the last signing cycle. You suck it up and try to get someone off the FA scrap heap. Happens here, you start a thread and 13 other users share their story of it happening to them.

And they are also completely different games.

So it's your contention that losing a top FA is less damaging than losing a top recruit?

Correct.

I have no idea how HBD works, so I'll leave that to you guys. Benis, I keep saying that having a lead doesn't matter because it doesn't. So this was a one on one deal so let's leave that one out. You're telling me that if 4 guys are in a battle for a recruit, 3 teams are VH and 1 team is H, then the H team has a shot over those 3 other teams? Any shot at all at that point is preposterous. You're trailing. What was the point of the 3 other teams battling? I get it, your chances of winning the battle are slightly higher if you're in a clear lead. All I'm saying is if that isn't the case, don't make the lead appear to be so clear. If a team still has a shot at losing the battle make that expressly clear by keeping both teams VH. That' all. If that's the case, everybody knows anything can happen and you have no idea where you are. if you never have a clear understanding of where you are, then what's the point in having it there. Why doesn't it work with moderate? If I work to get to a VH, but a kid has his heart set on a school that only shows him moderate interest, why not go there? Maybe it's the best fit. Maybe it's the closet to home. You're recruiting efforts don't matter because they have a tick to go play somewhere in particular. Again that's fine, but in all battles that fact should be reflected, so anyone trying to go after them gets the idea that they really don't have a shot.

I think you're thinking of this too literally in terms of "interest" and where a kid wants to play ball.

The point of the interest levels is to help you know where you are at. Some don't like this while others do. Its meant to be an aide not a hindrance.

So if I'm H while someone else is VH I know that I'm behind and only have a 30% chance of getting him. I now know that I should increase effort. Same idea for moderate. Its a clear line that I KNOW I need to get across to have any shot. This is helpful.

the only ambigious thing is VH v VH where I don't know if I have a 45% or 60% chance.

all it is basically doing is replicating the NBA lottery with ping pong balls. Some teams have 100 ping pong balls while another has 50 and yet others have 0.

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2017 9:32:00 AM (view original):
Correct.

Well, that would be wrong 90% of the time. The way HBD is designed top FA are few and far between. In any given class, there might be 3-5 worth "battling" over. Just so you understand, the team that draft/signs amateurs have them under contract for 10-11 seasons(depending on how they play it). Many will resign so that's another 5(if the teams chooses a 5 year contract because the player always accepts). At this point, the players are in steep decline.

Either way, there are far less "worthy" FA than HD recruits. Finding one worth fighting to get, which generally means he refused to resign but will still be in decline before the contract YOU offer expires, is not common. It's far more common for teams to sit out FA and take someone of the scrap heap. Anybody ever sit out recruiting?

So, yeah, losing out on a worthwhile FA is more problematic than losing out on a worthwhile recruit. In HBD we generally accept it, maybe cuss the guy who took him last minute and move on. Perspective, my boy, perspective.

"I fought you, I lost, I had a drink, I took a shower. 'Cause that's how it is in the NBA. Know what I do when I win? Two drinks."

Your roster size in HBD is much bigger than HD. So each player you have on your roster has more importance to your success in HD. Even 1 player can make a huge difference on how your season goes.

If you were to take 2 walk-ons and you run FB/Press, you're in huge trouble. It can be the difference between a 5 seed and not making the postseason.

Posted by Benis on 2/1/2017 10:57:00 AM (view original):
Your roster size in HBD is much bigger than HD. So each player you have on your roster has more importance to your success in HD. Even 1 player can make a huge difference on how your season goes.

If you were to take 2 walk-ons and you run FB/Press, you're in huge trouble. It can be the difference between a 5 seed and not making the postseason.

It's 12 to 25. If you miss on an ace pitcher, it can be the difference between making and missing the playoffs. And, even if you do squeak in, lacking an ace in the playoffs is very bad.

If you need a CF and miss on him, it can be the difference between making and missing the playoffs.

There are a few positions in HBD that aren't a big deal if you get stuck with 3rd/4th options but there are FAR LESS FA worth chasing than HD recruits. But I guess I can defer to your HBD expertise.

I read somewhere around here that you didn't need to know anything about a subject to offer opinions.