Make it more fun

[Dad of Ian and Joseph]

Because the projections suck.

A reliever who saved 50 games one time and has a career average of 40 saves over the best years of his career has a projection of 50.

Not realistic. Look at the history of the game and what 50 saves or even 40 saves means.

In the real world a stock that is expected to make 10 million in one year is usually valued less than a stock that is expected to make 40 million in one year.

All things being even, a stock that is expected to earn 10 million and a stock that is expected to earn 40 million should not be treated equally.

I understand that an expectation of 10 million that earns 10 million, is basically the same as an expectation of 40 million that earns 40 million.

How about this, a baseball hitter that is expected to hit 10 homeruns a year to get his predictions has about 1/4 the run production of a guy who is projected to hit 40 and does.

Both players have met their projections but it is obvious that one is more productive than the other.

I can hear Wolf and Rich beeeching now.

But the projections award the subpar average players for besting their subpar bests. Rather than rewarding the superstar for being way above average.

[markjohn]

Interesting perspective. In real life short term stock gains are most dramatic when companies greatly exceed analyst's expectations. In this game short term gains and fast growth are achieved in the shorter term (monthly and quarterly) portfolios by chosing the daily winners. As players continue and progress into the yearly and total portfolios long term growth does come from buyng and holding the good stocks(splitters).

[tymy]

Originally Posted by Dad of Ian and Joseph

Because the projections suck.

Strong words....but I'm not sure entirely correct.

Given all that may or may not be improved here the fact remains that most things are amazingly consistent. Overachievers usually will divi better than a steady achiever. Both are good buys depending on which comp you are competing in. Oddly similar to the real Wall Street and what goals, both long and short term, you have for your portfolio.

[SiteWolf]

First things first

In your time here, point me to a time you've seen me 'beeech'

Now, projections

I think we've gone over some of this before...perhaps you've forgotten or misunderstood.

1.) Projections here are based on what the player himself has set for a pace with his recent performance

2.) Projections here aren't intended to specifically infer stats a player is expected to achieve in a given year- they are intended to set a DAILY projection for our formulas to compare actual stats to

3.) Realistic or not (I'd agree, a shade high), relievers are projected for 85 appearances in a season. Francisco Rodriguez, for example, appeared in 76 games last year.

So remember- we're not saying we expect the closer you're looking at to save 50 games. We're saying that, by the pace he himself set with recent play, he would get 50 saves in 85 appearances.

A player with a HR projection of 10 SHOULD receive a noticeably higher divi for hitting one than a guy projected for 40, yes? After all, the latter guy hits 4 for every 1 the former guy hits. Comparing this to the stock market, the latter guy is simply a blue chip stock- he's not a stock you're likely to day trade very often because his gains will be smaller, but more frequent while the 'high risk' stock with low projections is a stock you'd want to get in and get out of in the real market.

No, the issue you're having really isn't with our projections. The issue you're having is more with our formulas. IYO the difference between the dividends a blue chipper gets compared to a low projection guy is too much.

I have no problem whatsoever discussing this or any other aspect of our game. I don't profess to have this thing perfect; I KNOW it isn't perfect. I do, however, believe there's a lot of logic involved in the vast majority of our game.

[DadOfTwo]

A feat that has been done 5 times since the 1880's.

His Divi bonus will probably be something lame.

Because it is based on projections for recent play or something like that.

[SiteWolf]

Originally Posted by DadOfTwo

A feat that has been done 5 times since the 1880's.

His Divi bonus will probably be something lame.

Because it is based on projections for recent play or something like that.

if projections are not based on what a player has done in the past, exactly what SHOULD they be based on?

He's projected to steal 38 in 162 games right now because last season he stole 25 in 109 games. Exactly what else should he be projected for? Or more to the point, what exactly would you NOT consider 'lame'?

I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from here...I'd like to know what you'd do different rather than see you simply respond to my previous reply by assuming Crawford's divi will be 'lame'.

I don't see it as bettering the game if I infuse subjective elements. I would agree, however, that our formulas 'could' include 'bumps' to a divi as the quantity of a stat on a given day increased (i.e. slightly more for a 2nd homer in a day than the first) but that's simply not as easy as you might think w/o further exaggerating what you perceive to be 'awarding sub par players'.

Listen, there's no assumption of perfection on my end....but there's a lot of things that are the way they are here for legitimate reasons...and, by and large, a lot of the rest is the way it is simply because there's not been enough revenue coming in to get them changed/updated/fixed. Wanna help me solve that dilemna? I'd be MORE than happy to listen.

[rich76]

Originally Posted by DadOfTwo

A feat that has been done 5 times since the 1880's.

His Divi bonus will probably be something lame.

Because it is based on projections for recent play or something like that.

It's obvious that you're still not quite sure what's going on here......instead of making sarcastic and accusatory posts..why not suggest solutions for the perceived problems.

[jimbob1327]

Have not seen arguements so harsh on here in a while. i think a solution to these lame divi's is what was previously stated, giving more of a bonus for hitting a 2nd home run, i know this would be difficult, and actually i dont really think its needed or meritted (if thats a word), however, for 6 stolen bases or 4 homeruns, thats another thing. i argee on the part about projections should be based on previous performance especially if we can get some timely updates to projections ( ). anyways if you are that upset about a reliever having projections of 50 saves as oppose to 40 something then quite simply you might need to take a break from this game for a while. just a few of my thoughts

[rich76]

I'm finding it hard to understand why you guys think the divi's are lame? I just don't get it.

Harsh?....... not even close to harsh.....

[h20guy]

I'm not taking sides, but I think the divi's are fair. If a player has a subpar season this year, their estimates are usually lower the next year. I guess I could kind of see how newer players to Jockstocks could get frustrated. They're buying players that "should" make money. Ex. Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, Etc. but their are other players who dish out a higher divi. Just my take on it.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the current system except for the fact that Orren's in charge.

[tymy]

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

I don't see it as bettering the game if I infuse subjective elements. I would agree, however, that our formulas 'could' include 'bumps' to a divi as the quantity of a stat on a given day increased (i.e. slightly more for a 2nd homer in a day than the first) but that's simply not as easy as you might think w/o further exaggerating what you perceive to be 'awarding sub par players'.

IMHO this would be similar to the old "arch divi's" and most of us know what a mess that was. I don't claim to know the divi formula inside and out but then again I don't think I or anyone else outside of the admins should.