[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Afino

Yeah - I've completely ignored the waiver wire and don't sign 5-star prospects like that. I see them, but leave them for the other teams.

I just don't think it's fair to be scooping them up. Guess it's a part of the "house" rules.

I checked - they are still out there with AI "ratings evaluation enhancement" settings of 65/25/10/5 although it's been only "two weeks" in game time since my last post. I'm with you, though, now that I've read through this thread. It just is too easy to grab those guys, even if only one of the six or seven or so actually turns out to be a superstar. Yet, if I don't, it will bother me that the AI continues to ignore them also. A quandary.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

There's no right answer here. There's only what works best for you. For some of us, playing stats only gives us something we really like. It may not do the same thing for you. Whatever, it's your game, play it your way.

Well said. I may be joining you ultimately.

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I have used the same settings you have and I have seen some players with real high potential sitting in the free agent list as well. I have sort of chalked it up to my scout being one of the best and his opinion is different than other scouts in the league. However, I also find it hard to believe that none of the other 23 scouts see what mine does.
Yeah, but you are having the same feeling as me; if I look at those ratings and drool, at least one of the 29 AI GM's should be as well. Moving my AI ratings evaluation weight up should have worked in that regard, but not yet.

I don't sign free agents. I build my team strictly through the draft and I allow ghost players in the minors so I have no need to fill every slot. When need arises I may make a trade. I have trade set on hard so I can't succumb to the occassional craving to cheat the other team.
Yeah, but not signing free agents is a rather harsh and unrealistic house rule. I also have my trading set on hard, which is much better than Average for sure.

I had not thought of putting a lot more emphasis on ratings. That would make sense to me. I was thinking of making it 100% rating evaluation since when I look at ratings and stats of some players, one named Drew Butler for example, the two don't jive meaning their stats have never lived up to the ratings. So this would make it seem going strictly by ratings may elevate their evaluation, but that doesn't mean they will live up to those. This seems most realistic to me when it comes to going after players. If you're going for a free agent with no major league experience, in real life scouts base their opinions more on what they see of the player than their stats from the past, even though that would play a role to a point because what someone does in high school or college is a lot different than what they may do on a professional level where they are playing against good players every day. Looking through the history of the major league draft shows what I am saying. How many early round draft picks actually had any kind of career?
I'm thinking of bumping ratings weight up to 75% and leaving the stats weights to total 25%. That about matches my style of play anyway; I depend heavily upon scouting reports.

The only way for stats to matter heavily would be if they had a history in the majors. Then you could combine ratings, stats and age of player to figure out where they are going a lot more accurately. Then if you use coaches, you would have to look at the quality of your coaches to see if you could get that player to have more success than in the past. These are things I look at, even more than ratings.
I think that, for human and AI to be somewhat closely matched in ability in this game, that the AI has to be tuned to look at things the way the human does. Hence my prior post about making AI use ratings as much as I do. See the example that I talked about again where, if I am correct, my entire brain is focused on five stars while poor AI only has 45% of his working on the problem.

Another thing I look at is intelligence and work ethic. I refuse to go after anyone with super potential who has super low work ethic because I don't feel that player will ever reach his potential since he doesn't seem willing to work to get there. On the other hand, I will go after someone with so-so potential with extremely high work ethic and good intelligence because I have had success with those type of players. Combined with my scouts those players seem to overachieve a lot more often than fail.
Big ditto on these comments about intelligence and work ethic. I was fixated on work ethic for a long time as a determinant of development but read just recently here that intelligence also plays a role in that. I had always thought intelligence was just for better ballplay.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I guess using just stats would results in the same ends.
Good thoughts. Thanks for sharing them.

Originally Posted by deadringer

1998 Yankees, for me it's all about suspension of disbelief. With ratings on I can see all the little things that bug me and I can't get over them and enjoy the ride. I find the game way too easy with ratings on without choking the hell of myself with house rules. In an ideal world, I'd much prefer to have ratings on and be challenged but it just isn't happening.
Well, like I said to The Wolf, if I cannot resolve this dilemma of wanting to use ratings and scouting reports without either dominating the league year after year (I'm not that rabid a Yankee fan, just a devoted one) or needing to adhere to unrealistic house rules such as never signing a free agent, then I may be joining you guys soon.

Personally I'd love to see a whole new mode of the game offered in the future where instead of ratings we get something like "tools". IRL most of the scouting reports I've got to see talk more about a players physical abilities or characteristics and what the scouts belief those tools will translate into numbers. You can kind of get that in the game using potentials only but it's not quite the same.
Yes, Wolf talked a bit about enhancements just for stats-only play. See some of his earlier posts in this thread.

By the way, on the waiver wire issue I still have to use house rules to keep from cherry picking all the high end talent. I only allow myself to claim players who have major league experience and are out of options. Then I only claim players who would go on my major league roster right now.
Ratings off and still need house rules? Remind me never to join an online league with deadringer.