Booms/Busts without scouts?

[BillyMadison]

Many of you have suggested turning Scouts OFF, however wouldn't this totally eliminate late round booms and first round busts? Or are the ratings still clouded without Scouts?

THanks

[streetballer67]

Good question.

[Ben E Lou]

There are still booms/busts with scouts turned off. I've had them off from 2021-2024. For example, my fifth-round pick in 2021 is looking like he's going to be something, my ninth-round pick in 2023 will probably be decent, and my first-round pick from 2022 sucked almost from day one.

[Dan Theman]

Without scouts, the ratings are not clouded but varying development curves still exist. This means that there will still be booms and busts, but not due to incorrect scouting.

[Matter2003]

Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind turning the scouts off?

Isn't incorrect scouting the reason there are booms and busts in the first place, IRL?

What one scout may think is a great player, another may think of as a 5th rounder...
Likewise, all the scouts could rave about a player that turns out to be a horrible pro...

Matter2003

[HolyCow98]

Whether you play with scouts or with them disabled....the 5 Blue Star stud may fizzle along his way to the majors just like in real life.

Playing with them off...the AI and the human GM are viewing the players ability the same way.

Playing with them on is supposed to give each team a varied look on each player. Its been quite some time since I played with them (all though I used to exclusively) but it was easy to get the best of the best of the coaches and scout pool....and it just felt like there were loopholes of being able to view ratings through other teams scouts as well as your own. Although its been since OOTP 3 or 4 since I used them.

I do however like the fog of war aspects of playing with them on however.

[akw4572]

Originally Posted by Matter2003

Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind turning the scouts off?

Isn't incorrect scouting the reason there are booms and busts in the first place, IRL?

What one scout may think is a great player, another may think of as a 5th rounder...
Likewise, all the scouts could rave about a player that turns out to be a horrible pro...

Matter2003

Makes teams all on an even keel. I don't like the fact that you can't resign scouts.

[messenjah]

Because it's just a hassle that doesn't really mean anything. And the logic with booms and busts is coming from somewhere else. In OOTP booms and busts mostly come from guys who didn't develop right. Meaning that a player with all the athletic talent in the world could slack off and end up being a nobody, but a guy who is the worst possible player to ever play in the minor leagues could work hard and eventually become a star. Whereas you are basically saying, that all players are gonna be what they're gonna be, it's just that scouts aren't seeing it right.

[Dan Theman]

I'm a little confused, messenjah -

In real life, do scouts have any impact on how a player will develop? It seems to me that seeing/evaluating talent is the singular job of the scout (outside of a bit of PR work with potential draftees). They certainly aren't needed in a video game, but they just as certainly add a bit more realism to it. Of course, this level of realism is a matter of personal taste: I like them, but can just as easily see why someone would just as soon do without.

[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

[Matter2003]

I forgot to add that poor scouting is the major reason why "bad" teams remain "bad", and good scouting is why "good" teams become "good". Consistently choosing bust players over the course of many drafts will have an obvious negative effect on the talent level of your club over a period of 5 or 6 years. Conversely, consistently choosing good players over that time period will have a positive effect.

According to the "no scout" theory, all teams should have an equal chance of drafting poor players and an equal chance of drafting good playres, which is not the way it works, IRL...

Matter2003

[Andy]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

There are still booms/busts with scouts turned off. I've had them off from 2021-2024. For example, my fifth-round pick in 2021 is looking like he's going to be something, my ninth-round pick in 2023 will probably be decent, and my first-round pick from 2022 sucked almost from day one.

Kind of a related question....I remember in previous versions it was recommended to have 4 or 5 rounds in the Amatuer Draft becuse the AI would keep them and good players would be blocked from playing in the minors. With all of the new roster rules in V6, is this still necessary? What is a good number?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Andy

Kind of a related question....I remember in previous versions it was recommended to have 4 or 5 rounds in the Amatuer Draft becuse the AI would keep them and good players would be blocked from playing in the minors. With all of the new roster rules in V6, is this still necessary? What is a good number?

Well, I pre-simmed 2004-2020, and took over the team in 2021. All of those years were done with 10 rounds. I do my amateur draft in June, then make sure I have no more than 2 players at any position at any level in the minors, no more than 5 SP's, no more than 5 MR, and no more than 1 CL. Because the draft is June 1st, I make my minor league cuts then. So far, here are the numbers I've had to cut after the draft (and none of these guys were any good whatsoever):

June 1st, 2021: 7 cuts
June 1st, 2022: 3 cuts
June 1st, 2023: 2 cuts
June 1st, 2024: 2 cuts

FYI, looking at the transaction logs, it appears that the AI teams are doing the same thing on the first Monday after the amateur draft. I am consistently seeing that day as the biggest in-season day of releases. They're typically releasing 5-10 players at that point.

Personally, it sounds realistic to me that when the new guys get drafted, some haven't-shown-much-promise prospects have to be released. It is the offseason between 2024 and 2025 right now, and I have 17 players in AAA, 17 in AA, and 21 in A. Most AI teams have a few more than that, but not many--more like 18-25 per level. That sounds pretty good to me.

[BillyMadison]

OK, for those with them OFF who say they would like the uncertainty of how a 5 star blue chipper will turn out, isn't the simple solution to just turn ALL SCOUTS to AVERAGE? That way, every team is on an even playing field, and you still get a boom bust factor?


Settting them Average seems much better solution then turning them off.

[Dan Theman]

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?

[Matter2003]

Hehe :P

I guess I must have gone on rambling...I was a little tired last night so maybe I need to clarify what I am trying to say...

OK, With all scouts set off, you see the player thru the eyes of an average scout. My whole thing with that is in IRL good teams become or remain good teams because of the quality of their scouting department(usually), and bad teams become or remain bad teams because of their lack of quality in this area. With all scouts equal, there would be no difference and all teams theoretically should be almost the same in terms of talent in about 7-10 years. Now I know there are other factors that come into play such as market size and money, since you cannot resign good players unless you have enough money. Player development also comes into play, since not all players are going to turn out to be good.

My whole point is that we are putting all teams on a fair playing field where there are big differences IRL. Your two premises that scouts singular job is to evaluate talent and that they have nothing to do with player development are true to a degree. However, it IS a scouts job to make sure the players they are recommending have the ability to develop after they are selected. So I guess indirectly they DO have an effect on player development because you can't compete against Ferrarri's and Lambroughini's if you are driving a Pinto. It is the scouts job to make sure the coaches are being given a Ferrari and not a Pinto.

Have I clarified what I am trying to say at all?

Matter2003

[Dan Theman]

Matter2003 -

First off, with all scouts off you don't see things through an average scout - you see actual ratings ("set all scouts to average" is a seperate option). But don't sweat it - I think I've figured out where our disagreement comes from - simple miscommunication and differing interpretations (i.e. - it doesn't really exist).

As a preface, I would NEVER devalue the role of a scout - in real life or in OOTP. They are the eyes of every GM and manager. Also, I agree that in real life it IS up to the scouting department to at least get a feel for the overall character of the potential draftee (I'm assuming this is the areas of scouting that you're referring to). Any shrink worth his salt would tell you the difficulties at determining what's an enduring personality trait and what's just temporary with the background checks that teams do, but at least there is one and there is an art to them.

However ...

interpretations
In OOTP, as we all know, there are talent scores. To you, these signify ceilings for physical talent. To me, they signify ceilings for the ability to apply physical talent. The difference between rating scores and talent scores reflects everything within a player that goes into development, and therefore reflects his ceiling in regards to performance and not just physical prowess.

miscommunication
My reference to the lack of a scout's impact over the player's development points to his discontinued contact with the player and the administering of coaching and experience - which then drives the actual player development, and has nothing to do with his propensity for it.

So here's some flowers for you, because we can agree

Now why isn't there an emoticon for beating a dead horse? I guess I'll go with this one:

Thanks for the reply, and I'll catch you later.