Quote:
Originally Posted by PSUColonel
the problem I am finding with very low scouting accuracy, is simply that scouts will rate half the players in the draft 4-5 stars, and it's just ridiculous and not realistic.
I am not happy with this portion of the talent distribution at all. I am going to use TCR at 200 with normal scouting in an effort to create a realistic MLB environment. I have no idea if it will work, but the inflated ratings are just a joke IMO.
|
That is actually how it is in real life. All the kids coming out of HS and Col have "potential" to be great and there is very little difference between anyone after the 1st 20 picks that distinguish them from anyone else. Does that mean that the "other" guys should be rated lower? Dont be too sure since many of the greats came from lower rounds and many high ranked prospects end up fizzling out thus, its clear, that the potential scale has a very wide error range and that is exactly how Marcus modeled it in ootp 17.
As for development randomness, its a matter of flavor. If you set it to 200, it will be as if you were saying that the scouts dont matter nor does experience and skill. Everything is random including the performance of veterans. This has been discussed to length in the past as well and for the most part, I think many will agree that development really isnt that random in reality. If you look at 1st round picks, many do make it to the bigs eventually, albeit most are barely average. Also, established (veteran) superstars and stars dont usually flake out very often and are very consistent for many years (minus injuries) so again, thus it really isnt that random at some point in a players career. Certainly there is some randomness (most acute with younger players), so I just stick with the devs default of 100. I wish there was a separate scale based on age (as age increases, randomness should decrease).