Quote:
Originally Posted by ezpkns34
I mean, is pretty common to see the 20/80 rating system used on baseball prospect scouting reports at least  |
It is, but IMO the whole paradigm of how scouts work in the game are off. If you accept that there are ratings that produce statistics (amidst a bunch of other factors of course), scouts can’t ever know the “ actual” ratings of a player. They can look at that player play and come to conclusions but there will always be cases where a guy had the flu the weekend the scout was in town to look at him, or caught someone’s attention by raking in BP, or - and this is probably my biggest gripe - found their bat speed slowing but found other ways to compensate (so a scout might say “his Avoid Ks is now only 40/80” based on the perceived bat speed loss but he’s actually still doing just fine).
Those ratings really should be inaccessible and yet for the players where this arguably matters most - veterans who may or may not be at the end of their rope - we not only have the most accurate information on them but we know in advance of actual statistical shortfall when a guy is “losing it”.
In real life, the Angels kept Pujols on their roster for like 6 years when in OOTP terms he had clearly declined. Why? Sunk cost fallacy definitely played a part, but if you were to convert this to OOTP terms, people in the front office weren’t convinced that his ratings had irretrievably dropped. Maybe he’d get the power back if he was healthy, and maybe once the power came back he’d be more selective… it’s easy to see why you’d hope that Pujols could be that guy he used to be and how that hope turns into “let’s just keep kicking the tires here and see”.
There’s no way to simulate this in OOTP I don’t think except to go stats only and put yourself in that “no info” position. I have to say that now that I do this, I do get guys like this, both in the sense that a team I’m managing sticks with them for too long and also that sometimes I’ve cut bait on a player who I thought lost it but actually did not.