[NoOne]

Edit: yeah, you may need to hammer out what you are looking for, first... glossing over here, so don't be too literal in application:

obp guy -- high contact, high eye(really just overall obp main concern)

slugger - high contact high power... etc etc..

eye is good, don't get me wrong. but, a .350obp made of .350average is better than one made with some walks, objectively. also, they mean less to a slguger than a leadoff batter. every walk they take is one less chance at an XBH etc. question will be is their Con high enough to warrant such an aggressive plate approach. i'd avoid the very low eye guys unless they are superior in quality in most other aspects.

contact is made up of babip(unseen outside editor), avoid K's and Power. understanding how contact is calculated helps you use it in evaluation. all sorts of ways... e.g. dafting - if oyu can deduce that the players unseen BABIP rating is below 1/2 scale, i'm a bit wary... a few more ticks down and even with a high contact rating they can't hit for nothing.

pitchers are the pain. you should not have any problem figuring out batters, but do expect a slower learning curve with pitching. i've written enough to give an idea i hope... don't focus on 1 rating with pitchers. there's no magic bullet to sorting by any 1 of them. each rating influence results of various stats, use common sense just as i did with batters above.

you don't need the league's highest movemnt to be dominant, so don't require it. you don't need the league's highest control to be dominant, so don't require it. >scale stuff is highly correlated to success, so even if you don't sort by it, it's the *Main* factor i look at (goes without saying to consider age and potential increases in velo). Stuff and Contact are the primare ratings for each, but they alone guarantee nothing. (although a super high contact batter can at least be a good leadoff batter quite often, whereas a figurative ton of pitching prospects will have ~good-to-high stuff and "1"/200 move or control, likely, and completely non-mlb viable)

-----------------

some of the thresholds i use may not be perfect. but, if you find the demarcation line i speak of, it should make sense over time. settings and various other factors will impact them. only use root logic of what i say, not the specifics. only way due to complexities of ootp options.

@ Normal scouting with max budget and legend scout -- i will say specifically you should go by ratings, first. then go by intangibles when all the players 'look' the same quality. i'd stick with this mantra until you can see with editor that it's a complete crapshoot no matter what you do (ie very low accuracy, bad scout, no budget -- at some point toward that end)

i'd sort by potential until ~30* for batters and ~50* for pitchers. after that, i'd adjust how you sort... (*these thresholds are not precise/accurate).

the players at top really are the best...we cannot see through scouting inaccuracy. if not "normal" accuracy, you may want to test what puts the most viable choices near top of any sorted list. maybe, sorting by potential for your league is terrible from the start, for example. simply sort as you want, then go into editor with comissioner mode on scroll throught the top 20-50 names and see how many are MLB vs not MLB.. also peak quality etc. i cna tell you that with low accuracy, you don't want to sort by potential after first 10-30 picks or so, depending on depth of the draft. (asuming 30team league throughout)

batters after that point i'd sort by contact, but i won't choose them by that order... i look at the various options ~near top, though.. IE i won't take the 80con pot if he is terrible otherwise. after the 'better' players are gone, i find that sorting by Gap Pot then looking for high contact pot at top of list does well too -- i only tested that sort of "sorting" with low accuracy scouting. with normal+legend+$$$, may not be the better choice.

for batters, you could use filters on the other 2 primary batter's ratings and sort by the other. use comissioner mode to see what puts highest proportion of 'better' players at top of list. don't set those filters too high. leave some wiggle room for inaccuracy.

pitchers - i'd split these up into 2 categories (for both sp and rp). use a short list to get them "together" visibly... look at above age 21 and below age 21 differently.

your scout's skew on tools/ability may make this look different to you. i use neutral. if you skew to tools, it may improve what their stuff potential looks like?? not sure. one reason never to skew what you see -- outside mechanics of scouting inaccuracy being a good thing. more difficult to translate and work with it over time to learn.

i use potential at first, but only for top-tier SP/RP. i soon switch to sorting by Movement Pot with a filter on 55ish to 60 or greater stuff and 50 or greater movement. i leave it a bit below what i "want" to not miss the slightly mis-scouted players. That's for the under 21 crowd. for the over 21 crowd i sort by Stuff pot and use a filter on move/con pot.

< 21 is likely to increase velocity and therefore can make huge increases in Stuff potential that is unseen. So, i'd sort these younger players by Movement after ~50 potential and lower are available.

Everything is relative to Round/Pick and what's available etc. IE you don't need to find 10 viable options for every single pick... a few will clearly be better than the rest.

you may want to shortlist prospects to watch that you won't draft, but outside of that, only invest time evaluating players that are "good" choices at that point in draft.

use work ethic and intelligence as a straw that offsets 2 ~similar players. but, don't let the gap between the 2 be too great.

even though i may sort by various things after the obvious 'best' players are gone, i don't select them solely by who is at top... but 99% of the time it's very near the top... 10-20 names... further out in the draft the farther down the list i expect to find ~equivalent choices for teh round/pick. also, it starts to become a splitting hairs contest... who cares when the picks get that junky.

with normal accuracy you will reach that point by the 3rd-4th rounds most years.. on low or lower accuracy, more top-tier guys *can fall in the draft. in a lucky year you can find a sure-fire HoFer in round 9-10. (no Talent Change Randomness effect required.)