Why are so many leagues having difficulty filling? Topic

Ya, but if you're a new GM in MLB coming in and your team has the first overall pick, and your franchise has a good scouting department, you aren't told "You don't get to use the full value of scouting until your third year. Sorry."

If WIS wants to fill worlds, I think their hindering that. They're dissuading people from taking over awful teams. You can't expect someone to pay $20 to take over a rebuilding effort when you're crippling their ability to take advantage of the key thing (that top draft pick) that will help kickstart that rebuilding process.
6/2/2016 12:11 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 6/2/2016 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Ya, but if you're a new GM in MLB coming in and your team has the first overall pick, and your franchise has a good scouting department, you aren't told "You don't get to use the full value of scouting until your third year. Sorry."

If WIS wants to fill worlds, I think their hindering that. They're dissuading people from taking over awful teams. You can't expect someone to pay $20 to take over a rebuilding effort when you're crippling their ability to take advantage of the key thing (that top draft pick) that will help kickstart that rebuilding process.
I disagree. If a new front office is coming in, and they have a #1 overall pick, its not the same as an established front office 1-2 years into their rebuild plan with the #1 pick.

As for spending $20 to pick up a team with the #1 overall pick and not having an $18-$20 million budget, I - don't - see a lot of issues getting those teams filled. At least the leagues i am in.

I just took a look at the teams out there. There's basically 3 groups -

One, a group of private leagues that are close to rollover and getting a lot of swaps set up (Negro, Gehrig, Griffey, Hardball, Hunter, etc). Commishs and other owners working hard.

Two, A few worlds working hard on mergers.

Finally a bunch of nearly abandoned worlds that don't look viable at all. Guys complaining. Nothing getting done.

That said, when you look at world chat in say Negro League or Hunter, I see guys working hard to fill it, get swaps going, and welcoming new owners. Those are worlds I look at and say, "that seems to be a good group."

Then I look at some of the half dead worlds and their world chat is filled with "This sucks" and "I should have never bought another season", I'm moving on to look at the next world.
6/2/2016 12:35 PM
"I disagree. If a new front office is coming in, and they have a #1 overall pick, its not the same as an established front office 1-2 years into their rebuild plan with the #1 pick."

There's no way you can make this claim. It depends on the organization and how much they've already invested in scouting. Even if, as a new GM, it's not your scouting team, you still get the benefit of their scouting reports.
6/2/2016 2:13 PM
You can't compare real life teams with a value of $1.2 billion and HBD teams that cost $20. An MLB owner can't trash the scouting department, then leave and come back in before the next season with a new identity and instantly have a top-notch front office. The budget limit here is necessary to prevent alias abuse.

Owners still jump first at rebuiding projects with high draft picks. The fact that there is uncertainty is a disincentive to tank, but the No. 1 pick is always going to be more attractive than the No. 18 pick.

For all the whining, I think WIS did a great job fuzzying up the draft to reward investment in scouting and in time spend looking for hidden gems and productive role players.
6/2/2016 2:21 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 6/2/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree. If a new front office is coming in, and they have a #1 overall pick, its not the same as an established front office 1-2 years into their rebuild plan with the #1 pick."

There's no way you can make this claim. It depends on the organization and how much they've already invested in scouting. Even if, as a new GM, it's not your scouting team, you still get the benefit of their scouting reports.
As a new real-life GM you have no idea how good/accurate those scouts are. Kind of like having a $14M scouting budget, no?
6/2/2016 2:24 PM
Posted by joshkvt on 6/2/2016 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 6/2/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree. If a new front office is coming in, and they have a #1 overall pick, its not the same as an established front office 1-2 years into their rebuild plan with the #1 pick."

There's no way you can make this claim. It depends on the organization and how much they've already invested in scouting. Even if, as a new GM, it's not your scouting team, you still get the benefit of their scouting reports.
As a new real-life GM you have no idea how good/accurate those scouts are. Kind of like having a $14M scouting budget, no?
You'd have some idea based on their reputation and history of draft picks.

And I'm not sure of the answer to this, but how often do people get lucky now in HBD? Is it possible to have a $14M budget and draft a guy that matches or exceeds the scouting projections? If that's built in, then I may soften my stance a bit. Because even with a weak scouting department, I think you're still more likely than not to hit on a #1 pick in MLB. There are definitely busts, but usually there is a consensus #1 pick every season.
6/2/2016 2:27 PM
I couldn't care less whether the guy I draft exceeds projections. I care whether he's better than other players picked in similar spots in the same draft, and comparable — at the end of his development — with players from similar spots in past drafts. The panic seems driven by lower projections post-draft, which is meaningless if everyone's post-draft projections are similarly lower than they used to be.

Wouldn't "You'd have some idea based on their reputation and history of draft picks" be exactly what we get, and should get, with $14M? Some idea.
6/2/2016 2:35 PM
Owners shouldn't pick a world based on what draft pick they get or how good a team is. That's really the answer to "Why are so many leagues......?" You can remake a team. Maybe it takes two seasons. Maybe it takes eight. Either way, it's a "dynasty" game. You can't remake a world in a couple of seasons. If a world has 10 openings, it's been a long time in the making. And it will take a long time to correct whatever went wrong. Knowing that your #1 pick is going to the HOF doesn't change that.
6/2/2016 3:06 PM
Posted by joshkvt on 6/2/2016 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Jtpsops on 6/2/2016 2:13:00 PM (view original):
"I disagree. If a new front office is coming in, and they have a #1 overall pick, its not the same as an established front office 1-2 years into their rebuild plan with the #1 pick."

There's no way you can make this claim. It depends on the organization and how much they've already invested in scouting. Even if, as a new GM, it's not your scouting team, you still get the benefit of their scouting reports.
As a new real-life GM you have no idea how good/accurate those scouts are. Kind of like having a $14M scouting budget, no?
Agreed Josh. And many times those scouting reports are ignored or trashed.
6/2/2016 4:58 PM
Posted by Jtpsops on 6/2/2016 11:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2016 12:49:00 PM (view original):
The draft is infinitely better. This game has never been for those requiring a "quick fix of fake baseball".
Perhaps, but there is something to the argument that you should be able to adjust your budgets more in the first year of ownership. If you take over an awful team with the first overall pick, and the highest you can get your draft scouting to is $14M, that pick could potentially be wasted under the new format, even though the current owner did absolutely nothing wrong in his budgeting.
Many of us agree with this logic. It has been suggested in support tickets and forum threads that the player/coach/prospect chop option should also apply to scouting, training, and medical (only to supplement them upwards, not downwards). This way, in year 1 you would get to chop upwards to 20 training right away, with penalty, and/or if you had a top draft pick you could hedge into scouting to make sure you were able to view the entire player pool and draft the best possible player. Additionally, this versatility would peripherally help curtail both overpriced long-term free agent signings and all-in IFA strategies in year 1.

Support has admitted in ticket responses that they intend to address budgets and make changes, but that there is no ETA. Until then, keep sending them sitemails and support tickets to bug them about it until they do.
6/2/2016 5:46 PM
So new owner comes in, logically assumes that because scouting is important the first thing he does is bump Adv, HS and College to 20. He wants to sign the next Cespedes, so let's go with 20 to get a great IFA. A month later he realizes 20 in HS and Col is a waste, and doesn't like being at a 20M disadvantage to those who have 0 ADV. Does he stick around for 5 seasons to get HS or COL and ADV down to zero? Or are we better off if he's only at 14 when he starts to gain more knoweldge about the game?

Can you provide an example of a ticket response where support admits there is a problem the way things are. That would seem to go against everything they said during discussion for the last update, when they repeatedly said there would be no lifting of the $4M limit and budget reset. The flood of requests to bug them into changing the system might be outnumbered by the requests to keep it as is.
6/2/2016 7:38 PM
◂ Prev 12
Why are so many leagues having difficulty filling? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.