If we knew exactly where everyone was going to fall, it wouldn't be much of a game would it?

Projections, scouting etc... even at 20 is fuzzy for that reason.

Posted by Scotb50 on 12/19/2020 11:19:00 AM (view original):
I guess my point is they're neither projections nor hypotheticals if 90+% of the time they are unattainable...they're just numbers.

It seems it should work like...if the dude gets perfect conditions (defined as: regular playing time, at the right levels, with above-average coaching...) he'll get to these projections. What I'm hearing is that this "might" have been true if everything had been done perfectly all along, but this dude is already behind the curve cuz of his first 2-3 years, so those numbers are already impossible...yet we're gonna leave the numbers where they were so you can see what might have been, rather than adjust them down to see what the dude can attain from here forward under perfect conditions.

Put another way...the numbers reflect the dude's once-upon-a-time ceiling rather than his current ceiling....I'd prefer they reflect his current ceiling...but, as mentioned, nobody seems bothered by this. To me, this should be one of the very first things a new owner learns.

You hit the nail on the head better than I did. They're just numbers.

Problem is we don't treat them as such. If you're someone who keeps looking at projections, you keep looking at them wishing they were something they're not.

And yes that should be one of the first things a new owner learns.

But hey, it's not just a simulation game thing. How many real life players have you seen who keep getting chances to prove themselves because they "look the part" or "have all the tools"?

I really don't have a problem with guys not reaching their pre-draft projections. Most of us know (or for good reason, have never heard of) Shawn Abner, David Clyde, Matt Bush, Joe Borchard, Clint Hurdle, Dewon Brazelton, Billy Beane, Colt Griffin, Ryan Harvey, Mike Kelly, Bryan Bullington, Brady Aiken, Mickey Moniak - highly touted first round MLB picks who never came close to their "projections".

The problem I have is that, with the exception of the rare DITR, you have little chance of getting a future ML contributor beyond the 3rd or 4th round, and almost no chance of getting a guy who will be an All-Star, much less a HOFer. Here's a short list of guys who were picked in the 5th round or later in the MLB draft: Tim Hudson, Wade Boggs, Jim Edmonds, Fred McGriff, Goose Gossage, Andre Dawson, Nolan Ryan, Albert Pujols, Jim Thome, James Shields, Kenny Lofton, Orel Hershiser, Bret Saberhagen, Don Mattingly, Ryne Sandberg, Jeff Kent, John Smoltz, Andy Pettite, Roy Oswalt, Kyle Lohse, Kevin Kiermaier, Mark Buehrle, Mike Piazza.

For the first couple of rounds, there should be very little difference between a team that spends $0 on scouting and $20M in scouting. Anybody reading Baseball America or any of a hundred baseball websites can draft Steven Strasburg, Bryce Harper, Gerrit Cole, Manny Machado, Anthony Rendon. But, when you get beyond the top 100 or so players, that's where scouting ought to make a difference and I see no evidence that it does.

Someone mentioned the worthlessness of the "tryout camp" pool. When was the last time there was a player the caliber of Bobby Bonilla, Kevin Millar, or Mike Redmond in that player pool? Or even Randy Dobnak, Kirby Yates, Matt Stairs or Darren O'Day? Granted, there are only 10-15 guys who were signed as undrafted free agents on ML rosters every year, but I'm guessing that in HBD, there are ZERO guys from the "tryout camp" pool who EVER make the major leagues.

I would say you are correct.

Posted by damag on 12/19/2020 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Scotb50 on 12/19/2020 11:19:00 AM (view original):
I guess my point is they're neither projections nor hypotheticals if 90+% of the time they are unattainable...they're just numbers.

It seems it should work like...if the dude gets perfect conditions (defined as: regular playing time, at the right levels, with above-average coaching...) he'll get to these projections. What I'm hearing is that this "might" have been true if everything had been done perfectly all along, but this dude is already behind the curve cuz of his first 2-3 years, so those numbers are already impossible...yet we're gonna leave the numbers where they were so you can see what might have been, rather than adjust them down to see what the dude can attain from here forward under perfect conditions.

Put another way...the numbers reflect the dude's once-upon-a-time ceiling rather than his current ceiling....I'd prefer they reflect his current ceiling...but, as mentioned, nobody seems bothered by this. To me, this should be one of the very first things a new owner learns.

You hit the nail on the head better than I did. They're just numbers.

Problem is we don't treat them as such. If you're someone who keeps looking at projections, you keep looking at them wishing they were something they're not.

And yes that should be one of the first things a new owner learns.

But hey, it's not just a simulation game thing. How many real life players have you seen who keep getting chances to prove themselves because they "look the part" or "have all the tools"?

That last thing is why I like the projection system the way it is—most of the guys on any real-life prospect list will never be what the prospect list says they will be. HBD is the same way.

I would also like it to be more dynamic (a less rigid adherence to the three-season development curve would be great), but if projections were always accurate this game wouldn't be any fun.

Posted by dmalone01 on 12/19/2020 11:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by damag on 12/19/2020 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Scotb50 on 12/19/2020 11:19:00 AM (view original):
I guess my point is they're neither projections nor hypotheticals if 90+% of the time they are unattainable...they're just numbers.

It seems it should work like...if the dude gets perfect conditions (defined as: regular playing time, at the right levels, with above-average coaching...) he'll get to these projections. What I'm hearing is that this "might" have been true if everything had been done perfectly all along, but this dude is already behind the curve cuz of his first 2-3 years, so those numbers are already impossible...yet we're gonna leave the numbers where they were so you can see what might have been, rather than adjust them down to see what the dude can attain from here forward under perfect conditions.

Put another way...the numbers reflect the dude's once-upon-a-time ceiling rather than his current ceiling....I'd prefer they reflect his current ceiling...but, as mentioned, nobody seems bothered by this. To me, this should be one of the very first things a new owner learns.

You hit the nail on the head better than I did. They're just numbers.

Problem is we don't treat them as such. If you're someone who keeps looking at projections, you keep looking at them wishing they were something they're not.

And yes that should be one of the first things a new owner learns.

But hey, it's not just a simulation game thing. How many real life players have you seen who keep getting chances to prove themselves because they "look the part" or "have all the tools"?

That last thing is why I like the projection system the way it is—most of the guys on any real-life prospect list will never be what the prospect list says they will be. HBD is the same way.

I would also like it to be more dynamic (a less rigid adherence to the three-season development curve would be great), but if projections were always accurate this game wouldn't be any fun.

As I said earlier, I have no problem with high draft choices who bust. But, in HBD there very few corresponding later round picks who surprise and turn into Albert Pujols or Mike Piazza.