Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Matter2003
I disagree Dan...
A scouts job is to evaluate talent. If the scout incorrectly evaluates talent(which happens quite a bit even to the best scouts IRL), then a player you choose based on the scouts recommendations may not be the player he is made out to be. This has the effect of choosing a player that may be a bust over choosing another player who may go to the next team that could be a 8 time All-Star. Now the way it SHOULD work, is that for each scout rating they should have a %age chance that they are going to recommend a player that does not correspond to the talent level of that round.
Obviously the first round is going to be where the biggest chance for misjudging a player is, so for instance, give an excellent scout a 55% of evaluating a 1st round talent as a 1st round talent. This means the other 45% of players he is saying are 1st round talent are NOT 1st round talent. They may be 2nd round talent, or 4th round talent, but they are not 1st round talent. Going down from there, the next scout level might be 47%, then 42%, then 38%, etc... The percentages go up slightly for each round after the first, as it gets a little easier in theory to seperate the potential good players from the rest. This is a rough example of how it should work, because I have no empirical data in front of me...I did an extensive study on this in football for possible inclusion in TPF2, but as far as baseball goes, I am not sure what the %age of draft picks that don't pan out is in MLB(it's high in the NFL...the BEST scouts only get 1st rounders right about 40-45% of the time).
Now, from the other side of the coin, the player development issue would depend on the player....how hard he works, how much he accepts coaching, how his talents relate to MLB, etc...
So for instance, I am saying that scouts should mis-rate players initially and then players should develop or not develop based on other factors. If there are no scouts then all teams theoretically see players the same way, which is not indicative of how it should happen.....
However, as you have stated, if the scouts do not work like they are supposed to then yes, I agree that there is little value to having them...
just my 2 cents,
Matter2003
|
I hate to use such a vulgar, common word after such a lengthy response, but "huh?"
I'm not quite sure where we disagree. I've read and re-read the post, because I have been known to totally miss something (I once practically flamed some poor soul because when I read his response I saw
disagree instead of
agree.
Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but your first sentence -
"A scouts job is to evaluate talent" practically mirrors mine when I said
"It seems to me that seeing/evaluating talent is the singular job of the scout."
In regards to development, you say
"... the player development issue would depend on the player....how hard he works, how much he accepts coaching, how his talents relate to MLB, etc...", when I asked
"In real life, do scouts have any impact on how a player will develop?" followed by my assessment of what a scouts job actually is.
You then say that the way the game handles it when scouts are turned off is not how it should be, but fail to follow that up with your reasoning why ... which I didn't even address in my post.
Is there something I'm missing?