Scouting appears to give extremely inaccurate ratings for players with two systematic errors that lead to overrating certain players well beyond previous games.
Systematic error 1:
The error rate for a scouts measurement does not appear to properly account for the new rating range changes. Previously the ratings where linear with the 1-100 scale that is no longer true. Scouting measurement does not seem to account for this, which leads to high skewed scouting reports for major league level players a ± 20 in 0-550 has dramatically different range in 1-100 depending on the players actual rating. For a player with a rating in the 90 range it is 82-104. This leads to systematic overrating of players. It is extremely problematic on players with stat ratings above 500 as they get extremely exaggerated.
Code:
Rating 1-100 20-80
30 4 20
50 6 25
100 12 25
150 18 30
200 24 35
250 29 35
300 35 40
350 43 45
400 50 50
410 54 50
420 58 55
430 62 55
440 66 60
450 70 60
460 74 65
470 78 65
480 82 70
490 86 75
500 90 75
510 97 80
520 104 80
530 111 85
540 118 90
550 125 95
Systematic error 2:
I am not sure what triggered the following change but comparing 100 scouted clones with fixed equal hitting potentials (83 1-100) there appears to be a dramatic shift in the correlation between scouting ratings. In 23 there was an r^2 of .64 in 25 the r^2 is .98. This leads to a dramatic decrease in the accuracy of scouting reports due to increasing variance at the overall level. Low correlation reduces variance at the player overall level. I assume this is a bug related to the scale changes.
Further it does not appear that the max values for EYE and HR power are scouting the same as the max values for K% BB% and BABIP.
Code:
HT P K P GAP P POW P EYE P
88 88 88 100 101
88 89 88 99 99
87 87 87 97 98
87 87 87 96 97
86 87 85 94 97
87 85 86 91 94
86 86 86 92 94
86 87 87 93 93
86 85 85 89 92
86 85 85 89 92
86 86 87 94 92
86 85 86 92 92
85 86 85 91 91
85 86 85 91 91
85 85 85 92 90
84 85 85 90 90
85 85 85 89 90
85 85 85 90 89
85 84 84 89 89
83 84 85 89 89
84 85 84 88 89
84 85 84 88 89
87 84 84 89 89
85 84 85 89 89
85 85 85 89 89
84 86 86 88 89
85 84 83 89 88
85 84 83 87 88
83 83 84 87 87
84 84 85 87 87
83 83 84 87 87
85 84 84 89 87
83 84 85 87 86
82 83 83 85 86
83 83 83 85 86
83 84 83 86 86
82 81 81 82 85
83 83 82 85 85
83 83 83 85 85
83 83 82 85 85
82 82 81 83 85
83 83 84 86 85
82 82 83 84 84
81 82 82 83 84
82 82 82 84 83
83 83 82 83 83
81 82 81 82 83
83 84 83 84 83
82 82 81 84 83
82 82 82 83 83
82 81 82 83 83
81 82 80 82 83
82 82 84 85 83
81 82 82 83 83
81 81 83 81 82
81 81 81 81 82
81 81 81 81 82
81 81 82 83 82
81 81 82 82 82
83 82 83 83 82
82 81 81 82 82
81 83 82 83 82
79 81 81 81 81
81 80 80 81 81
80 79 80 79 81
79 79 79 81 80
79 77 77 78 79
79 80 80 79 79
79 80 79 79 79
80 80 79 79 78
79 79 77 78 78
77 77 77 76 77
77 78 77 77 77
77 77 77 77 77
77 77 75 76 77
76 77 77 77 76
77 76 76 75 76
77 75 75 76 76
76 77 75 75 75
77 76 76 76 75
77 75 75 75 74
75 75 74 74 74
74 73 72 73 74
75 74 74 75 74
75 75 74 74 73
74 76 75 74 73
74 72 71 72 72
73 73 72 72 71
72 72 71 71 71
71 73 71 71 71
73 73 71 71 71
72 72 72 71 70
73 73 71 70 70
71 71 69 71 69
71 71 69 70 69
71 70 68 69 68
69 71 69 67 68
68 67 67 67 67
71 70 69 69 67
71 70 67 67 67
The pow and eye ones are correct and give the correct avg when the underlying ratings are regressed in the others are too low.
Just as a side comment, I do not think it is good for the game or justifiable that the range between 40-50 rating is the same as between 50-75. (20-80)
I know these ratings are not directly populating overall but since they seem highly related I assume that it is the same scale range. A 40 FV player should be around 0 WAR a 75 FV player should be around 6 war. The scale range in here is the opposite of what you would expect by normal measures. There should be
half the range between 40-50 as between 50-75 not the same. I know this leads to a more accurate number of players but it is way to far from expectations to be reasonable. A 40 rating in any stat is more or less in unplayable territory now.