
11/27/2013 2:44 PM
Posted by jwynkoop2424 on 11/27/2013 2:19:00 PM (view original):
There are always going to be exceptions to the rule. I said it was a soft rule. Obviously it would not apply to a player of Grover Hernandez's stature (complete stud!) But for the majority of players, I constantly see players come up and there overall ratings growth slows way down. At the same time as my 90% rule I try to give hitters 1500 AB's or 750 innings for starters in the minors. And going back to Grover, he was at 88 overall when you brought him up, so he basically was at 90% of his overall potential (I can't see what is overall projected ratings is).

But aside from the exceptions to the rule, I constantly see players, as an example, with an 85-86 overall rating and owners bringing them up with only 2-3 seasons in the minors and they are at, say, 67 overall rating. Just because they cannot be patient and give them time to fully develop.
Keep in mind that unless you are going with $20m scouting budgets, the projections you see are going to be fuzzy.  The further away you ar from $20m, the less accurate they will be.  There is even a slight bit of fuzziness at $20m.

So your "90% rule" is based on an inaccurate number to begin with.

One of the bigger factors in development is the distance between a player's current ratings and his "true" projections (which you can never really see).  This is why younger players appear to develop more quickly . . . they have a larger gap to bridge.

The better rule of thumb is: once a player's current ratings reach the point where he is better than the guy you currently have penciled in at his position, he should be promoted.  He will continue to grow at the ML level.
11/27/2013 3:37 PM
Tecwrg, you make a very good point. It is somewhat subjective for each franchise based on their budgeting for scouting. And based on my scouting the method I use seems to work well for me. Everyone will have an opinion of the best way to handle when and if to bring up a prospect and their development.

Mike T23, you are a prime example of someone that just looks at one thing and does not delve into everything to form an educated opinion. You also neglected to show the 5 previous seasons and the money spent and the declining record. But you also cannot see how active I was in the world and all the transaction that were made. 

Let me ask one thing, is it better to spend $63.7MM and win 58 games or to spend $17.9MM and win 59 games or to spend $28MM and win 84 games as I did. OR as is in our world now, a team that spends $113MM to win 56 games or $100MM for 66 wins. 
11/27/2013 4:15 PM
What you did prior to getting your tank on is irrelevant.   The way the game is designed prevents someone who's giving effort to win from losing 100+ for consecutive seasons.    You cut payroll, lost a bunch, collected high picks, signed big money IFA and, surprise, surprise, you started winning 3-4 seasons later.   That's EXACTLY how tanking works.    Regardless of what you believe "in your heart", you tanked it up for a real life year.   Which, I admit, takes more patience than I have.   Congrats on your tainted WS titles.
11/27/2013 4:17 PM
11/27/2013 5:37 PM (edited)
To quote one of my favorite football coaches, "you are what you put on tape."

And actually, thanks to the posts above, we have an observable telltale sign that answers the initial post "what constitutes tanking?"

A fire sale trading spree that clears out serviceable, useful veteran players making salaries above the minimum.
11/27/2013 6:54 PM
Sorry, wrong argument.
11/27/2013 6:57 PM
jwynkoop2424 - Thanks taking the time to explain your strategy.  I'm not going to attack you for sharing your ideas.

You've provided good examples of a few points made earlier - Tanking is subjective. Tankers can justify pretty much anything.

What you've done is exactly my definition of tanking. Does not mean that's your definition. Although I wonder what your definition would be, if not this.

I know for sure that, if I decide to join another world, I'll make sure it's a world that would have tossed you out after Season 20.
11/27/2013 9:15 PM
Tanking simply does not exist in private HBD sarcasm intended.
11/28/2013 7:58 PM
Good rebuttal
12/2/2013 2:31 PM
I do think it is acceptable to hold a prospect back a year if you think your team isn't ready that year. Real life teams do this EVERY year to avoid arbitration. It just has to be in the context of a team that is close to contending and not just trying to be in last place. For instance if I have a team that is going to win 65-70 games then holding a prospect back a year is justifiable. Now, holding 2-3 guys back and winning 45-55 is not. 
12/2/2013 2:53 PM
A lot of that depends on who's playing in his not-yet-taken place.   Just using a 1-10 scale, I don't see a problem with holding back an 8 if you've got a 6 or a 7 in the bigs.    If you're playing a 3, you're probably tanking. 
12/2/2013 3:09 PM (edited)
I can agree with that. What the owner should do in that situation though is find a serviceable stopgap player to plug in until the prospect is ready. Real world guys that fit this mold are usually some kind of veteran who has bounced around the league in a number of cities.
12/2/2013 3:23 PM
Yes, players like that can be found after FA for 1-2m.  
12/3/2013 7:37 AM
of 6

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

