Quote:
|
Originally Posted by endgame
The vast majority of the responses are generally comprised of "leave everything at 5's and don't Ask Coaches."
|
That's the way I do it.
I sometimes change point allocations, but in exactly the opposite way of what the original post suggested.
If I have a good contact hitter who's a poor power hitter, I take all of his points away from power and give them to contact.
To me, if a guy doesn't hit for power, he doesn't hit for power. That's it. Who cares? What's the difference between one HR a year and five HRs a year? (I know . . . 4 homeruns a year . . . hardy har har)
So to me, I'd rather take the points away from power and give them to contact to turn him into a great contact hitter.
Basically a great contact hitter with no power is better than a good contact hitter with very little power.
Likewise, if a guy is a bad defender, I'll take the points away from D and give them to the hitting categories . . . if he's nothing special now, maybe I can make him a good DH.
The only other thing I'll try is if I have a guy who's a career minor leaguer or a has-been with no talent left, I'll set all categories to 0 and give literally all the points to one category; I figure my only shot to get him to the bigs is to do something drastic. And if it fails, who cares? He was never going to make it anyway.
EDIT:
The reason for this is because, I feel, that ignoring an area hurts more than paying attention to an area helps. So to me, if you take away from a strong category to focus on a weak category, you get an average ballplayer.
So like I said, I'll tinker with certain guys, but on the whole, I just leave them all at 5s so they come out the same as they went in. I never, ever ask the coaches, no matter how good the coaches are.