Change to 100 top prospects=bad

[gopads02]

Originally posted by Henry
After reading this at least 50 times, I'm begining to think the problem is a basic one...

In real life, what do you have? ...statistics. It is ALL you have. You do not have talent ratings, current ratings, potential, or anything else. You ONLY have stats. Any perception of who or what a player is - is based on stats, or some narative from a scout, or otherwise, that says "this guy is good".

In OOTP, you have TONS more data. you have stats, which everyone is used to using as a way to determine value, you have ratings which create the stats, and you have talent, which puts limits around what the ratings can be. Too much information - and we can argue forever as to which one is best or worst in the evaluation of a player.

IRL "You do not have talent ratings, current ratings, potential, or anything else. You ONLY have stats." This is not true, IRL, we are able to SEE/WITNESS LIVE-IN-PERSON-OR-ON-TV a pitcher's fastball, we are able to see the movement on it, we are able to see the pitcher's mechanics or deceptive deliver, we are able to see the RADAR readings of a pitcher, we are able to see the loops and holes in a hitter's swing, we are able to see a hitters bat speed, we are able to see how muscular a hitter is, etc. I can go on and on.

Until OOTP has a graphics engine that allows us to evaluate these aspects ourselves, we must rely and therefore NEED these ratings as a replacement for these so called "scouting aspects" of the evaluation process. So instead of witnessing for ourselves what a hitter's bat speed and stroke is like, we instead have the "Batting Avg vs Right Handers" TALENT & RATING display, and so on and so forth with the other crucial categories.

There is nothing wrong with the aspect that the game is generating the stats based on the ratings and whatever hidden attributes out there. What's wrong is that in the development of players; the ratings of players are capped by their Talent, and as result, in those cases where the statistics generated for certain low-talent players are surprisingly good (which btw is representative of the wide variance found in real life), these players can never develop high enough ratings to continue their growth in the majors- unless they get randomly picked to receive a talent increase.

Therein lies the problem and the reason why we don't use stats to evaluate players in addition to ratings, we only use ratings. This is inherently not realistic and is, in my opinion, a crucial element of real life that is missing from the game.

Originally posted by Henry

I think too few of us turn the ratings off and work at the talent level only... it's really what real life is like. In that mode, it doesn't matter what's happening to the ratings because you can't see them anyway. If a guy goes into a slump, you have about as much an idea in real life why - and the same if he gets hot.

Hmmmm... maybe rating should be just hidden entirely... maybe that would solve our dilemma.... ?

OMG you're missing the point , that would not solve our dilemma as now the game is just reliant on stats. That is like replacing one problem with another. We don't want to rely just on ratings only, and we don't want to rely on stats only either to evaluate players. Currently this aspect in the game is not like IRL. You don't see GMs in real life put together there teams based solely on statistics, do you ? No in real life, GMs can actually see the ratings of the players before there own eyes at games or on TV. That is essentially what you're asking us to do by turning off the ratings system. Remember in this game the Talent Bars are just bars representing Potential, and having just that along with stats is not enough for this game or in real life; you are missing scouts ratings.

Most of us, and I think it's a majority out there, want to incorporate Statistics, Talent Potential, and Scouts Ratings in evaluating and more importantly developing Players just like IRL. And by developing I mean choosing who we decide to allocate playing time for.

[Skipaway]

I think there is no dilemma. What's wrong with the game only relying on stats? Is it really a problem that most of the Matrix was fake computer graphics while Kill Bill wasn't?

The game is only creating a universe that only looks real from certain angles and perspectives. How does the game do that is as important as how the Matrix was made.

[gopads02]

Originally posted by Henry
gopads02,

We also have two "ratings systems"...

1. The Blue/Gold Stars
2. The Top 100 list

I think it would be a huge mistake to end up with both rating systems telling you the same thing - yet part of this discussion centers around how to make the rating system (in this case th Top 100 list) more accurate.

I think both rating systems (Blue Stars and Top 100 list) should in fact vary. For ultimate realism and challenge, these two systems should be somewhat different in their results. To do that, we need two different methods to rate players - and neither should really be correct. Follow ?

Henry

OK we might be confused and thus arguing the same point and only differ in semantics, or we may not...but let me clarify.

Both systems should not vary in how they are generated. Just because they are derived from the same criteria or master list does not mean they will be telling you the same thing.

I believe you are wrong in thinking "it would be a huge mistake to end up with both rating systems telling you the same thing." They are not telling us the same thing.

Let me give you a business analogy regarding consumers looking at a purchasing a product within a product class or industry.

The Blue Star System and Talent-Ratings are like "nutritional labels" or "product labels" for the product (the players). They tell you on a micro level where the player stands grade wise and describe to you what they are like. This is done so you can evaluate your players in close detail. The Top 100 List, on the other hand , is like a "Consumer Report" or an "Industry Report" that tells you where the product stands compared to the other leading products in the industry- it gives you a macro view. One gives you detail, the other gives you perspective, and both are essential in helping you evaluate whether you want to purchase a product or trade for a player.

Now let me make a distinction between real life and OOTP. IRL, both types of "ratings systems" are derived from the same truth that is the core tangible product that we can hold, feel, use, and consume for ourselves. Additionally IRL, this does not mean that these "rating systems" are the truth. In fact the truth is blurred by advertising, branding, and other distortions such as the author's opinions. In OOTP we don't see the truth either, and in fact these same distortions exist in the form of scouts interpretations etc. Hence, both the Blue Star System and the Top 100 list in order for it to be realistic should be derived from the same truth (whether or not we are able to see it is inconsequential).

However, what you're suggesting is that these two "rating systems" should be derived from different truths or else they'll be redundant. This is fallacy. In order for it to be realistic and more importantly consistent, it must be derived from the same truth.

The game will still be real because we have to discern for ourselves whether or not we believe what we are told. However, there is no misleading information, and no confusion about inconsistencies in how these rating systems are put together. That is the problem I have- I don't think the extra confusion and mis-information adds any element of realism to the game and actually detracts from it.

You are saying that this is an issue of "Accuracy," this is not an issue with accuracy, it is in fact an issue of "consistency". There is a fundamental difference between the two and I hope you see it. I could care less if after the patch, the top 100 list is more accurate or less accurate as long as it stays consistent with the Blue Star System and the Talent/Ratings system however flawed these systems are.

I don't want to be misled in thinking that stats are something I should consider in choosing whether or not I should continue to develop a player, that is what the new patched top 100 List does. I don't want to see a top 100 list that includes players who are in there because their stats are high, while their Blue Star rating is 1 or 2. That is not consistent. If you're going to factor in stats as an element of evaluation for development, then these stats should actually mean something by having some factor in development. Other wise the top 100 list with the players who are on it that don't belong is just "Smoke & Mirrors," and will be a feature of the game that will be ignored and rendered useless.

As in you very own honorable and distinguished words, "Follow ?"

[Skipaway]

Originally posted by gopads02

Now let me make a distinction between real life and OOTP. IRL, both types of "ratings systems" are derived from the same truth that is the core tangible product that we can hold, feel, use, and consume for ourselves. Additionally IRL, this does not mean that these "rating systems" are the truth. In fact the truth is blurred by advertising, branding, and other distortions such as the author's opinions. In OOTP we don't see the truth either, and in fact these same distortions exist in the form of scouts interpretations etc. Hence, both the Blue Star System and the Top 100 list are derived from the same truth (whether or not we are able to see it is inconsequential).

In real life there are tons of different prospects rankings. Why can't the Blue Star System and the Top 100 list just be considered as rankings from two different media as in real life?
Like baseballprospectus and baseball america?

[gopads02]

Originally posted by Skipaway
In real life there are tons of different prospects rankings. Why can't the Blue Star System and the Top 100 list just be considered as rankings from two different media as in real life?
Like baseballprospectus and baseball america?

I agree with you Skipaway, I do consider it like two different views from different media, however, you're still missing the boat here.

Please reread my post again and read the last paragraph. That should explain to you why it's important to have the two systems be consistent and be derived from the same rankings/truth.

I'll give you a couple minutes to reread that post...btw I did edit it to make the points more clear.

...


...


...


...

OK see what I mean ? It doesn't make sense if on your top 100 list you have a guy who is 1-2 blue star rating. Now seriously, would you ever consider trying him out at a starting spot in your MLB lineup with the current way development of ratings is configured ? I wouldn't and so why throw him in the top 100 list other than just to superficially throw him in there just to make it seem as if minor league stats mean something when in fact it doesn't.

Either make minor league stats mean something by letting it be a small factor in development and include those type of players in the top 100

or

Keep the system the way it is and keep the top 100 the way it was (pre-patch)with the exclusion of "good stats/low talent" players that you'll never use anyways.

[Skipaway]

Originally posted by gopads02

OK see what I mean ? It doesn't make sense if on your top 100 list you have a guy who is 1-2 blue star rating. Now seriously, would you ever consider trying him out at a starting spot in your MLB lineup with the current way development of ratings is configured ? I wouldn't and so why throw him in the top 100 list other than just to superficially throw him in there just to make it seem as if minor league stats mean something when in fact it doesn't.

Why doesn't it make sense? Prospects were often rated very differently in different media, and it's known that some media just do a better job than the others. And have you really seen top 100 lists containing 1-2 blue star players? I think you are exaggerating too much to make a point.

Maybe you should have argued the other way that the smoke and mirrors in the blue star system was not enough. That could be enhanced since now we've gotten the top 100 list fixed. Heh.

[gopads02]

Originally posted by Skipaway
Why doesn't it make sense? Prospects were often rated very differently in different media, and it's known that some media just do a better job than the others. And have you really seen top 100 lists containing 1-2 blue star players? I think you are exaggerating too much to make a point.

Yes I am exagerrating to make the point, because obviously you're missing it. Either way whether or not there are 1-2 blue staar players on the top 100 list, the list will now include more marginal prospects than before. Prospects who ultimately will have no further chance for development in the majors unless they get lucky and get a random talent bar increase. Notice I said CHANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT not development (member' luck-->talent--->ratings-->stats).

It is pretty ironic and funny how the quote you have on your signature from Billy Beane (taken from the interesting book Moneyball)is exactly making the point you're missing and that I'm trying desperately to communicate to you.

Originally posted by Skipaway Billy Beane: Sometimes Joe doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions.

Right now in OOTP the facts [stats] don't get in the way of the opinions.

Right now all of us wannabe "Billy Beane" GMs are, just in fact, "Joes" who don't factor in the facts [stats] we just rely on the opinions of the ratings presented by our scouts [ratings & talent bars]. We're doing this not because we choose to, but because we have to since we know stats are not relevant in a players development which is wrong, it should be a factor.

The top 100 list is the problem itself, it's merely a really good symptom that sheds light on the real problem which is Talent Increases are totally utterly random and have no connection to performance [stats].

[Henry]

gopad202,

I think your assuming too much in the area of my use of "smoke and mirrors" or "fog of war" or whatever you want to call it.

I never said that the Top 100 list would show a 2 star player as the top rated prospect... but I do see maybe a 4 star rated player rated higher than a 5 star player from time to time. If you don't have some variance - then there's no use in having two systems. Both systems would be based on "fact" but would weigh those facts differently.

Let's be honest about something else as well, ANY ratings system that ranks players when they are 20 years old is bound to be significantly inaccurate in most cases - as it should be.

If you take 100 players and rank them 1-100 when they are at Single A - then go back later to see how that ranking played out, you'll find something like this (just a guess to make a point)..

1-25 (ten players were correct = 40% accuracy)
26-50 (7 players were correct = 28% accuracy)
51-75 (4 players were correct = 16% accuracy)
76-100 (1 player correct = 4% accuracy)

The basic goal here, then, is to try and mirror the above ratios (or whatever is accepted as realistic. If the current system does that, then it's not that far from what the real-world owners/GMs have to work with. All this discussion about more accuracy should never increase it above a level consistant with the real-world.

On another point, I think you took my comment about "only having stats" way beyond its intention. Yes, we have all kinds of "extra input" to determine whether a player is "good" or "bad" but this input, for the most part, isn't summarized in a 1-10 scale for us. We don't go around saying "Joe Doe" is a 9 and "John Doe" is a 5. We say "Joe is better than John".

For the most part, knowing the player's Talent level in OOTP and looking at his stats is pretty much equivalent to what we have in the real world to rate players. Rating are nothing more than a "number" needed by the game in an equation to represent the players current capabilities. In real life, you don't have such a variable.

Most of this discussion consists of "sidebar" issues.. the original issue is/was "should a player that is performing significantly above or below his ratings be adjusted to bring his ratings more in line with his performance" ?

This is where I stand on this (more or less)...

Since the "hidden rating" is primarily what determines whether a player performs above or below his posted ratings, it's a given that he will always perform in this manner for his entire career. If I have a shortstop, for example, that consistantly hits .310 even though his ratings say he should be hitting .270 then I am going to play him - no matter what his ratings say.

I'm not convinced I have to see his ratings rise to match his performance. This would take some of the "magic" out of the game for me. I think his ratings should stay the same - but his Star rating should change to reflect his performance rather than his ratings.

I also am not convinced we need to touch his Talent ratings beyond only those players that "consistantly" out-perform - or under-achieve. A small adjustment here would be ok - and could make sense.

[clarnzz]

Originally posted by gopads02

OK see what I mean ?

Never argue with anyone who is going to use either "fog of war", "smoke and mirrors", or some Matrix analogy as their explanation.

[Henry]

Originally posted by gopads02
The top 100 list is the problem itself, it's merely a really good symptom that sheds light on the real problem which is Talent Increases are totally utterly random and have no connection to performance [stats].

Talent changes are based on age, coaches abilities to push them one way or another, and randomness. That isn't "totally utterly random".

[gopads02]

Originally posted by henry & clarnzz
I think your assuming too much in the area of my use of "smoke and mirrors" or "fog of war" or whatever you want to call it...

Never argue with anyone who is going to use either "fog of war", "smoke and mirrors", or some Matrix analogy as their explanation.

OK please get it right, i'm not the person who brought up either of these obscure terms. It's kinda funny if you look back in this thread it is in fact, You-clarnazz who brought up the term "smoke and mirrors", Henry who brought up the "Fog of War" analogy, and Skipaway who brought up the Matrix analogy.

I was just only using your own obscure terminology so that you maybe could have a better grasp of what I'm trying to say.

Of course, all of this is moot and this current conversation is just an attempt to sidetrack us off the real topic of this thread (btw, it's working )

Also Henry I can see how thoroughly your skimming through my long arguments (or as I'm sure how u see it, diatribes) when you're mixing "smoke and mirrors" with the "fog of war" analogies, which were used to express two distinctly different points/ideas.

[draven085]

Originally posted by gopads02
Prospects who ultimately will have no further chance for development in the majors unless they get lucky and get a random talent bar increase.

This is the real point the guy is trying to argue, and I agree with him. This discussion really belongs in the talent/development thread that clarnzzz started and has been brought back from the dead a few times. The completely random talent bumps/hits are one of the most unrealistic parts of OOTP.

A player with a 'fair' talent in hits will never have an overall hits rating higher than 4, it's simply impossible without a random bump. Even if the guy proves his mettle and his over .300 at every stop in the minors, that 'fair' will prevent him from hitting for a good average at the major league level. Where's the logic and realism in that?

[Henry]

Originally posted by gopads02
Also Henry I can see how thoroughly your skimming through my long arguments (or as I'm sure how u see it, diatribes) when you're mixing "smoke and mirrors" with the "fog of war" analogies, which were used to express two distinctly different points/ideas.

LOL... not agreeing with all your points does not qualify as "skimming" your threads. It is possible I just don't agree with everything you said

[gopads02]

Originally posted by Henry
gopad202,

For the most part, knowing the player's Talent level in OOTP and looking at his stats is pretty much equivalent to what we have in the real world to rate players. Rating are nothing more than a "number" needed by the game in an equation to represent the players current capabilities. In real life, you don't have such a variable.

AHHHH (gopads02 shoots himself in frustration), OK I don't want to repeat myself again since u really should be reading my posts as thoroughly as I read yours, but here goes.

In Real Life You have such a variable...in fact you have those variables and more. IRL These variables are the capabilities, skills, mechanics, and physicality that you and your scouts are able to see and witness with our very own eyes.

In real life, these variables include and are not limited to the hitter's swing, their bat speed, their muscular build, and for pitchers: their throwing mechanics, their fastball velocity, their lanky or sturdy body type, etc.

In Real Life these variables exist, are taken into account, and are not ignored. So you can't say, "In real life, you don't have such a variable." Hence, in THE GAME the "ratings numbers" are used to compensate and represent these variables/elements that we see IRL, especially since 2D/3D graphics aren't developed yet (not that I want Marcus to program one).

That's why Ratings Bars are crucial to us just as Stats should be, along with Talent Bars if we truly want to be real and have the same amount of complexity as we do IRL.

[clarnzz]

Originally posted by gopads02
OK please get it right, i'm not the person who brought up either of these obscure terms. It's kinda funny if you look back in this thread it is in fact, You-clarnazz who brought up the term "smoke and mirrors", Henry who brought up the "Fog of War" analogy, and Skipaway who brought up the Matrix analogy.

Exactly, I agree with everything you said. I think you took my point the wrong way. Is just your fighting a losing battle, whether or not the prospects list is a less useful too now than it used to be seems to be irrelevant, some claim even making it more inaccurate is the desired intent.

If your arguing like I was that the list has became less accurate, and then they tell you. "Yeah, making it less accurate was the intent". There isn't much you can do other than just ignore the top 100 prospect list as 30% garbage.

[Henry]

Originally posted by draven085
This is the real point the guy is trying to argue, and I agree with him. This discussion really belongs in the talent/development thread that clarnzzz started and has been brought back from the dead a few times. The completely random talent bumps/hits are one of the most unrealistic parts of OOTP.

A player with a 'fair' talent in hits will never have an overall hits rating higher than 4, it's simply impossible without a random bump. Even if the guy proves his mettle and his over .300 at every stop in the minors, that 'fair' will prevent him from hitting for a good average at the major league level. Where's the logic and realism in that?

I hate to say this - but you have it all wrong...

First of all, a player who is "fair" today may not be "fair" tomorrow. He can get a boost or a bump based on age and/or coaches as well as a random bump.

Age plays the most primary reason a talent level will change. A player has a significantly better chance of getting increases up to age 27, and also a significantly better chance to get decreases after age 33.

Better coaches will effect this to a lesser extent - and random fluctuations will occur as well.

The "hidden factor" (let's say for arguement runs between 90-110%) is added directly to the player's ratings (resulting in a performance modification).

Now, let's follow a sample player.... and we'll only talk about hitting...

"Joe" starts out as a "poor" talent in Single A, but has a hidden rating of 110% (max). As he moves through the minors, he has maybe 3 things going for him.. (1) age, (2) the 110% hidden rating, and (3) minor league managers ratings. If he manages to move through to AAA, and if he doesn't get hit by a random "decrease" or two, he'll find himself in AAA performaing above his expectations...

His Rating may be up to a "5" and his Talent up to "Average"... so he's promoted to the majors...

"Joe" continues his success, but it seems without the help of his ratings. He's at "6", with a "Good" Talent rating, but bashing out a .300 batting average.

I'll stop here for a moment, because this is where I want to take issue with the comment "A player with a 'fair' talent in hits will never have an overall hits rating higher than 4, it's simply impossible without a random bump."

If all goes well with "Joe" he might get a "Excellent" or even better Talent rating as he approaches age 27. At 32 he may have a "7" rating, and an "Excellent" rating and his 110% hidden rating is resulting in a .350 batting average.

The point is the current system allows for all of this and more to happen already. It's not right to claim these things are not possible except due to randomness, when that's not the way the system works.

The arguement centers around the fact that some want "Joe's" success to be reflected in his ratings so he can even go higher... why? If the current system allows him to become a Hall-of_Famer" why do we feel we need to give him more of a boost?

[clarnzz]

And then you get some chaos like that last post. Can't believe I got sucked back into this......

[Henry]

Originally posted by gopads02
AHHHH (gopads02 shoots himself in frustration), OK I don't want to repeat myself again since u really should be reading my posts as thoroughly as I read yours, but here goes.

In Real Life You have such a variable...in fact you have those variables and more. IRL These variables are the capabilities, skills, mechanics, and physicality that you and your scouts are able to see and witness with our very own eyes.

In real life, these variables include and are not limited to the hitter's swing, their bat speed, their muscular build, and for pitchers: their throwing mechanics, their fastball velocity, their lanky or sturdy body type, etc.

In Real Life these variables exist, are taken into account, and are not ignored. So you can't say, "In real life, you don't have such a variable." Hence, in THE GAME the "ratings numbers" are used to compensate and represent these variables/elements that we see IRL, especially since 2D/3D graphics aren't developed yet (not that I want Marcus to program one).

That's why Ratings Bars are crucial to us just as Stats should be, along with Talent Bars if we truly want to be real and have the same amount of complexity as we do IRL.

This part of the discussion is really about whether to turn Ratings details on or off. It's not a prime part of the discussion at hand. All I was trying to say was that all the variables you mentioned are currently encapsulated in the variable we call "ratings". I will agree that IRL we have many pieces and parts that make up this rating - but it's likely not possible to ever program such a detailed simulation.

Given what we have, I think we all agree that Talent - Ratings - and Stats are what we have to work with in OOTP. So the issue comes back to a question... are these three variable correct in their present form? ..and if not, how can they be improved ?

[gopads02]

Originally posted by Henry
gopads02,

Let's be honest about something else as well, ANY ratings system that ranks players when they are 20 years old is bound to be significantly inaccurate in most cases - as it should be.

If you take 100 players and rank them 1-100 when they are at Single A - then go back later to see how that ranking played out, you'll find something like this (just a guess to make a point)..

1-25 (ten players were correct = 40% accuracy)
26-50 (7 players were correct = 28% accuracy)
51-75 (4 players were correct = 16% accuracy)
76-100 (1 player correct = 4% accuracy)

The basic goal here, then, is to try and mirror the above ratios (or whatever is accepted as realistic. If the current system does that, then it's not that far from what the real-world owners/GMs have to work with. All this discussion about more accuracy should never increase it above a level consistant with the real-world.

On another point, I think you took my comment about "only having stats" way beyond its intention. Yes, we have all kinds of "extra input" to determine whether a player is "good" or "bad" but this input, for the most part, isn't summarized in a 1-10 scale for us. We don't go around saying "Joe Doe" is a 9 and "John Doe" is a 5. We say "Joe is better than John".

OK, I am in total AGREEMENT WITH YOU ON THIS POINT Henry. In fact, don't you remember I said this,

Originally posted by GoPads

I could care less if after the patch, the top 100 list is more accurate or less accurate as long as it stays consistent with the Blue Star System and the Talent/Ratings system however flawed these systems are.

I have nothing against the current system of how no matter what a certain percentage of the top prospects will fail. In fact I embrace and love this aspect of the game.

What I'm trying to get at is now you're including players in the top 100 who otherwise might not have made it before based on their ratings but who are included now since the top 100 list incorporates current stats...these players will never ever even have a chance to FAIL let alone succeed. they are doomed from the start unless their talent bars receive a random bump. Hence, the top 100 list is misleading now because it is now including these players or to a lesser extent moving mediocre ones up. Notice I'm not saying "flawed". It is still flawed It can be more flawed; it can be inaccurate; Like I said before I like this realistic feature.

What I don't like is now the top 100 is basically misleading us by telling us that we should account for Stats (since it factors it in now when it generates the list), while the game engine itself is not factoring Stats at all when generating the development of players. Notice the disconnect ? The top 100 is for prospects, prospects are meant to be developed. Hence the top 100, whether you use it or not, is a tool for choosing players who should be developed (IE given a chance to fail/succeed). This tool uses stats to evaluate players, therefore it's implying we should use stats to evalute players too! But we shouldn't since stats currently don't affect development of ratings, it is merely a by-product of it - that is the flaw-while the accuracy or lack of accuracy of the top 100 is fine and not a flaw.

To quote myself again

Either make minor league stats mean something by letting it be a small factor in development and include those type of players in the top 100 list

or

Keep the system the way it is and keep the top 100 the way it was (pre-patch)with the exclusion of "good stats/low talent" players that you'll never use anyways.

[gopads02]

Originally posted by draven085
This is the real point the guy is trying to argue, and I agree with him. This discussion really belongs in the talent/development thread that clarnzzz started and has been brought back from the dead a few times. The completely random talent bumps/hits are one of the most unrealistic parts of OOTP.

A player with a 'fair' talent in hits will never have an overall hits rating higher than 4, it's simply impossible without a random bump. Even if the guy proves his mettle and his over .300 at every stop in the minors, that 'fair' will prevent him from hitting for a good average at the major league level. Where's the logic and realism in that?

BINGO!!!!!!!

BINGOO!!!! Now Draven085 please tell me what stuffed animal you want as your prize for "getting it" ? the bugs bunny plush or Sponge Bob plush ?

And the fact, how henry is saying what Draven085 just summarized of my points as wrong shows how he is missing the point.