Quote:
Originally Posted by HH20xx convert
There are teams that are consistently better at drafting and developing players than others. Good ones for many recent years are the Braves and Cardinals. For years the Orioles and Mariners were just awful. Just a few examples. I would like OOTP to replicate this--teams with better scouts and larger scouting budgets get better results with their later draft picks than those who choose to allocate their resources in other places.
|
I think there's merit in the desire to see this emulated in the game. It is in a manner, that is, as experience grows and familiarity with players exposure over time. What needs the tweak, is to emphasize this familiarity with the corresponding skills, budget, and focus designation, specifically in the early years, IF the Amateur investment is made. Right now, IMHO only, the game doesn't treat the youngest candidates with enough familiarity to render any 'scouted' judgment fairly, especially in comparison to other scouts. In some sense, OSA does just as a good a job and could serve as a relative comparison. But those same players, with the same scout, observed over a long period of time- years plus -will have truer, more predictable, returns on those investments. So I guess I'll be advocating that scout's skills should have a one level up sort of treatment for the draft class, as an overall observation.
Now, as an experiment- and granted random -I'd shortlisted some feeder players immediately on creation and had them individually scouted, in the event that any made it to my first year draft, first year of the league. They have not, but what I'm hoping to discover- though the sampling is probably not large enough -is whether that early individual look returns any perceived value. I like the idea; I'm just not sure how to put it into practice or how the game should implement it.
