Broken Bat - Help: what should i do with this guy?

Forum >> Help >> what should i do with this guy?

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#49850	06/04/2017 6:51:44 am
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	A. I wouldn't refer to 112-114 as stunted. It's well within his rated potential. B. If you bring him up now and throw him in the fire, He should be a solid starter by the time he's 24. I would rather get 2+ more seasons out of him than bring him along slowly (AAA and long relief) and hold out for a couple more SI. That's not a universal answer for me in these situations but it would be my strategy in THIS situation. Good luck whatever you decide.

#49851	06/04/2017 8:33:21 am
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	I wouldn't refer to 112-114 as stunted. Most wouldn't. The term used to describe guys brought up in their teens that missed their cap by 25-30 points. Now it means 111 SI 13 pots.

#49852	06/04/2017 8:34:57 am
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9601 Haverhill Halflings III.1	To me stunted equals "did not reach full potential". So if you think a guys peak is 113 and you think he can get to 113, then no issues. If you think his peak is 117 and you think he can only get to 113, then you are stunting him. So if you think he hits 112-114 because that is his peak, then I wouldn't call it stunting either. EDIT: Just to add to the definition - "Stop developing before reaching his peak, and stayed there for at least a year." I wouldn't consider guys who start declining while still growing as really being stunted. Updated Sunday, June 4 2017 @ 8:37:32 am PDT

#49855	06/04/2017 8:49:23 am
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	To be fair, I think this pitcher's potential is 112-119. Anywhere in there is what I would expect. Well I expect 112 and hope for 119. But I don't have any sure way to know which he is more likely to be.

#49856	06/04/2017 9:07:30 am
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	To me stunted equals "did not reach full potential". So if you think a guys peak is 113 and you think he can get to 113, then no issues. If you think his peak is 117 and you think he can only get to 113, then you are stunting him. So if you think he hits 112-114 because that is his peak, then I wouldn't call it stunting either. It used to be an objective term. There is no question about Izzo. With a margin of 1-2 SI the term becomes subjective. Did he really miss his potential? Perhaps his scouting is off. Maybe pot bars are based on the real numbers we don't see rather than the integer values we do see. Stunting used to be a fact. Now its an opinion. Natural dilution of language I suppose.

#49857	06/04/2017 12:31:37 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9601 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I've had guys get 1.5 years in AAA, promote when recommended, and miss the bottom range of their POT by 5-6 points. Maybe subjective, but I suspect stunting. The only way you can tell is to wait until they have retired to see what their true potential really was. I don't really consider it dilution of the language. From Webster: Stunt transitive verb : to hinder the normal growth, development, or progress of Anything that hinders the normal development of a player I would consider stunting. So promoting too early and not reaching full potential is stunting. Updated Sunday, June 4 2017 @ 12:35:19 pm PDT

#49859	06/04/2017 2:13:12 pm
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	I've had guys get 1.5 years in AAA, promote when recommended, and miss the bottom range of their POT by 5-6 points. You mean Byrd? What if my suggestion above is correct? Pot bar is based on the the underlying real values as opposed to the rounded integers we see? If all Byrd's skills were X.9 he'd actually have 113-114 SI. 14 pot. That would be pretty extraordinary, but then again Byrd is a bit of an extraordinary example. Maybe subjective, but I suspect stunting. The only way you can tell is to wait until they have retired to see what their true potential really was. Retirement shows what the player achieved, not what their true potential was. Izzo, the example I linked above, is retired. Is his true potential 73 SI? At 12 pot? I think the timing of events during the flip may be misleading you. Meadow's development graph shows a higher max SI than his player card. I don't really consider it dilution of the language. From Webster: Stunt transitive verb : to hinder the normal growth, development, or progress of Anything that hinders the normal development of a player I would consider stunting. So promoting too early and not reaching full potential is stunting. The problem is that you can't be certain this isn't normal development. There is uncertainty built in to the system. Drawing conclusions based on a margin of error that is smaller your uncertainty is bad science. You are free to use the word however you wish. I feel posters to the help forum may benefit from knowing your usage is more generous than most.

#49860	06/04/2017 2:40:16 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9601 Haverhill Halflings III.1	The margin of error goes both ways. You have no way of knowing that you haven't stunted players. Especially now that I have been seeing more and more guys break their POT. So to say a guy is not stunted is just as misleading as to surmise that he is.

#49864	06/04/2017 2:59:58 pm
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	The margin of error goes both ways. You have no way of knowing that you haven't stunted players. Especially now that I have been seeing more and more guys break their POT. So to say a guy is not stunted is just as misleading as to surmise that he is. Agreed. Byrd may well have missed due to insufficient training. Just as plausible as my pot bar calculation suggestion. Maybe moreso. Which is why I think it should be an objective term for cases that are clearly stunting (brought up at 18, misses by 25 SI), rather than a subjective term to be used whenever you have a "feeling". When you start using the using the term to describe players within the range of uncertainty, it is basically worthless.

#49867	06/04/2017 3:52:25 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9601 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I'm using the term to mean "hinder the development" of a player. Same way I have always used it. You want to talk about Severely Stunted players, that is fine. I just don't see why I shouldn't use the term as it is defined in the dictionary. I've been working with slow growers of late (because I can't get much in the draft), and I have noticed a lot of them don't reach their POT. Could be I just keep picking these low end guys whose true average does somehow get them over. But I suspect a number of them are simply not reaching their potential. Most of the guys I promoted after the all-star break at 26 (after 1.5 season in AAA) have come up on the short end and stopped developing before they turn 28. Players I left in longer seem to still be flushing out at 29. A few times the AI has suggested promotion earlier than I would have suspected. Then they end up on the low end. Its hard to tell if they stunted because of early promotion, or if I thought it was early because I had higher expectations. That's why I am trying to leave guys down for a few extra weeks just in case.