BTW, DUR/STM has never been realistic. As noted, we have far too many players playing 87% of the games. And there's no way a MLB team would carry a pitcher capable of only 33 innings a season(the dreaded 46 DUR/5 STM HBD guy). I'm not even sure there's a professional pitcher who can only throw 8 pitches a game then needs 4 days off to recover.

So a lot of DUR/STM is based on forcing us to construct 25 man rosters and not 17 man rosters.

Just out of curiousity, has the peak durability ever been an issue on any of your teams? I mean have you developed players into potential all stars who can only play half the season or half a game? Maybe you're looking at the category from a different perspective than is intended. Jimmy can run 2 laps just fine but he needs a minute before he runs the next 2. With training that gets better but sometimes not as well as we thought it would.

I really don't think that any of these are flaws in The game. Everyone has to deal with them. As Tec says, you draft them, and then you develop them, and you essentially forget about who they will be until they reach the point where the development stops.

Again paying as much as 19 scouting budget for college and High school and 17 international scouting budgets isn't short changing the scouting process. Granted a difference in total projections should differ from 14 to 20 in a budget.When you see a projection of 81 with a high budget it is a kick in the teeth to get a 56 stamina starting point given the extremely low rate of gain for that department historicaly.Studies show that at age 24, a professional football player relying on strength will be peaking at the same time as a 24-year-old tennis player known for her foot speed . Only four years later will a star baseball player and an elite long-distance runner top out at about 28 years of age.In the general population, VO2max tends to decline by about 10% per decade after the age of 30.

Athletes who continue to compete and train hard can reduce the drop by about half, to 5% per decade after the age of 30.Now 56 is 69.135 % of 81 which means that our highly paid scout expects this highly conditioned young man to reach a little over 30% improvement in 4 years. Which is pretty much impossible in real life as well as in the make believe game and again with scouting budgets as high as 19.The gulf is too wide. Scouting does not have to be a exact science as it clearly is not in real life. However the basic concept of durability should not be this far off ever with any of the mentioned budgets.

It is in fact a hole in the game.

Actually, it's not a fact. It's your opinion.

Sorry that not everybody is agreeing with you.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/30/2017 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Actually, it's not a fact. It's your opinion.

Sorry that not everybody is agreeing with you.

The numbers support my position pretty clearly.Once upon a time the vast majority of the world believed the world was flat as well. That however did not make them right.

Scouting does not have to be a exact science as it clearly is not in real life. However the basic concept of durability should not be this far off ever with any of the mentioned budgets.

Well, I'm just gonna say one final thing, and it's not to be argumentative, okay?

This began with the drafting of a player at a high draft slot whose durability turned out to be far less than expected. Clearly the player was thought to be worthy of the slot due to what I assume are his projected skills.

Am I to infer then, that If the drafting team had seen a clearer view of his true durability, that team would have passed up this player for one with lesser skills but more durability?

Because I can tell you, being an owner who usually drafts in the 20s, that's exactly the type of player who I hope falls to my slot. (The Andrew Miller comp, IMO, was bang on.)

Posted by damag on 5/30/2017 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Well, I'm just gonna say one final thing, and it's not to be argumentative, okay?

This began with the drafting of a player at a high draft slot whose durability turned out to be far less than expected. Clearly the player was thought to be worthy of the slot due to what I assume are his projected skills.

Am I to infer then, that If the drafting team had seen a clearer view of his true durability, that team would have passed up this player for one with lesser skills but more durability?

Because I can tell you, being an owner who usually drafts in the 20s, that's exactly the type of player who I hope falls to my slot. (The Andrew Miller comp, IMO, was bang on.)

Which is where the player with a part time projection belongs.

I think your definition of "part time" is the problem.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=4735675

Omar James had stamina of 55 when drafted and got as high as 67. For the most part, he's logged between 170 and 200 innings/season when used correctly. That's not a part time player.

Posted by Jtpsops on 5/30/2017 3:40:00 PM (view original):
I think your definition of "part time" is the problem.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=4735675

Omar James had stamina of 55 when drafted and got as high as 67. For the most part, he's logged between 170 and 200 innings/season when used correctly. That's not a part time player.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=6583310 is a platoon catcher and he is a part time player by definition. I would in most draft classes never take a platoon player with a top 4 pick. A pitcher stamina rating results in great inning pitched vs a every day player. I expect you already knew this however.

You made reference to someone being 56, after projecting at 80. That was clearly a pitcher you were referring to.

A pitcher with that kind of stamina when drafted is NOT a part time player, unless durability is under 20.

And while Lee may not be Top 4 pick material, few would complain about getting a .875 OPS catcher who will hit 30ish homers, even if he only gets 400 ABs.

Posted by Jtpsops on 5/30/2017 3:49:00 PM (view original):
You made reference to someone being 56, after projecting at 80. That was clearly a pitcher you were referring to.

A pitcher with that kind of stamina when drafted is NOT a part time player, unless durability is under 20.

No the players are not pitchers.

Posted by rmancil on 5/29/2017 7:47:00 PM (view original):
The point is a scouting report that projects 80 and then we learn the starting point is 56. That is BS. Any scouting report would have a much better idea of the starting range and less on the long term.

There's no way this refers to a position player.

Unless you meant durability, in which case you really should pay attention to which category you're referencing.

I am a DII college baseball coach. We signed a JuCo guy this past year. His JuCo coach told us that he can only pitch once a week because of how long he takes to recover. I got him on my recovery program and started making him throw the day after an outing to increase blood flow. He whined and moaned about doing this until he noticed how much better his arm and body were feeling. He voluntarily came back and threw on 2 days rest in our regionals at the end of this season. Our scouts, his former coach, misevaluated his durability. This pitcher was actually more durable than what the scouts thought, but it works vice-versa as well. I think this is a very realistic aspect of the game.