Scouting Question/Comment

OldFatGuy · 05-30-2008, 11:44 PM

As I was involved in another thread discussing scouting, and the default (SISA or OSA) scouting in particular, I would like to ask a question and give my comment on a part of the game I'm unsure of. Being unsure, I'm once again unqualified to speak, but he!!, never stopped me before.

In the discussion of default scouting, there seemed to be a consensus brewing that this scouting needed to be better (at least for veterans), but not too good as to make hiring scouts unnecessary. Well, I'd like to comment on something I'd like to see with the "good" scouts, even the best rated scouts in the game. And I'm talking here about current ratings as well as potential, but I see the biggest impact of this in current ratings as potential are already a crap shoot depending on the age of the player.

I'd like to see them get it wrong sometimes. Yeah, that's right, even the 250 out of 250 rated scout should get it wrong sometimes. I know, I know, I can hear the screams now. That's ok, I'm hold and don't hear so well anymore anyway. Now I don't mean to say that I'd like to the random (or possibility of getting wrong) be applied to ratings, but to players.

In other words, I've always thought of scouting, as currently configured, working something like this. A 9 out of 10 rated scout would take the actual current ratings of a player, and get each rating within about 10% accuracy. Is this how it works now??? And a 10 out of 10 scout would report the current ratings pretty close to actual.

I think it would be fun to first do a random check on the player, before the scouts ratings are reported, and sometimes, even the best scout would get it wrong. I.E., a 9 out of 10 scout might have a 2% chance of failing the "scout check" I'll call it, and if he passes, he reports the ratings as usual, within say 10% accuracy. But if he fails, his report could be much more off, say the ratings on this player will be reported as though the scout were only a 4 out of 10 scout. Am I making sense??? Probably not, I'm sure.

I'm just saying that even the best scouts money can buy get it wrong sometimes. I mean get it dead wrong. And I mean even current ratings. Imagine the scout of the Yankees reporting Lou Gehrig was a backup at best before that fateful day that Wally Pip got injured. I just think it would be fun if sometimes you've got a guy on the bench that's rated, oh I don't know, on a 1-20 scale maybe a 9-8-7-8-9. Mediocre at best right? So one day your forced to put him in the lineup because of an injury, and the guy hits .420 with 5 HR's while the other guy is on the DL.
Right now, if you've got a 20 out of 20 scout, you pretty much KNOW that's just a fluke and he'll come back to reality. But IRL, you DON'T KNOW, even with the best scouts money can buy. Maybe this guy is the next Babe Ruth??????????

Corsairs · 05-31-2008, 01:40 AM

I take your meaning and agree with your point. Scouting is an inexact science at best. I think most of us who play with scouts on want there to be a bit of "fuzz" involved with the process - and yes, that's even when we're using a top-rated scout. Sometimes the best stories in baseball come from the guys whom everyone thought were busts and instead bust out... or vice versa.

conception · 05-31-2008, 02:24 AM

I wish that there were a lot more guys in the draft that slip through and get drafted very late yet turn out very well. I actually find the draft very challenging to find great players in if I don't have high picks, but it would be very fun if more guys prove the scouts wrong.

Erik W. · 05-31-2008, 02:29 AM

What? The scouts are always right.

Love,

Albert Pujols, draft pick #402

----

Seriously, though, I do see good players come out of low rounds occasionally, but it happens via the same thing that gets roundly complained about: the unpredictable player development engine.

I've had one-star players (with scouts off, so that's their actual rating) balloon into 5-star players.

OldFatGuy · 05-31-2008, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik W.

What? The scouts are always right.

Love,

Albert Pujols, draft pick #402

----

Seriously, though, I do see good players come out of low rounds occasionally, but it happens via the same thing that gets roundly complained about: the unpredictable player development engine.

I've had one-star players (with scouts off, so that's their actual rating) balloon into 5-star players.

Yeah, I know about the potential ratings being way off, but I'm talking about the possibility of the current ratings being off too. Like the guy you've got riding the pine is scouted at 1 star right now, but he's actually a 3 star right now. I mean even the best scouts IRL get this wrong too.

Erik W. · 05-31-2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Yeah, I know about the potential ratings being way off, but I'm talking about the possibility of the current ratings being off too. Like the guy you've got riding the pine is scouted at 1 star right now, but he's actually a 3 star right now. I mean even the best scouts IRL get this wrong too.

Well, two things.

1. That totally does happen. Well, I can't say for certain that it happens in 2007 or v8, because I haven't used scouts in a long time. But I know scouts were wrong on current ratings in 2006 and before, and I know they'll have the potential to be wrong at some point in the near future. *wink wink*

2. Once the guy is in a position to ride the pine, I would say the assessment is in the manager's hands and not the scout's. He's the one who would see him during spring training, BP, etc, and decide whether or not he can play. But I don't think OOTP can replicate that well.

emcgman · 05-31-2008, 02:46 AM

I definitely agree it's fun to put someone in the lineup who appears to suck ratings-wise, just to see what he can do. Sometimes a guy like that will end up batting .320.

I also have a related question instead of starting a new `Scouting Question' thread.

Are there really as many bad scouts and coaches in real life as the long list of scouts and coaches in the game that are rated so poorly?

I would think that even an avid fan would be better at scouting than most of the `available' personnel. Granted, the guys pre-assigned to your team are usually at least half decent, but go to `available personnel' looking to hire someone, and there is just a long list of guys that couldn't be any worse.

1998 Yankees · 05-31-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emcgman

Are there really as many bad scouts and coaches in real life as the long list of scouts and coaches in the game that are rated so poorly?

No comment on the number of poorly rated personnel, but just to support one aspect of your thinking: I'm pretty sure that I remember reading somewhere here that although scouts ratings of players can be quite inaccurate, the ratings of personnel themselves are true.

kq76 · 05-31-2008, 01:44 PM

The thing that worries me about this is even without using scouts it's difficult to make sure your prospects are in the best level of minor leagues for them. I don't really find the stats minor leaguers put up to be that indicative of what level of minors they should be in and then if you don't have a good handle on what their ratings are either it's going to stunt development that much more. I mean, you promote a guy to AA becuse his stats and ratings say he should be, but his stats are a fluke and his ratings are off, that hurts.

This isn't a critique of your idea necessarily, more of scouting in general, but if you do add more fog into it it just makes it worse. I don't know, even if Markus gets scouting perfect, I think there's still going to be apprehension towards it because of this.

Kelric · 05-31-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik W.

What? The scouts are always right.

Love,

Albert Pujols, draft pick #402

P.S. Tell Lasorda I said hi!

Signed, Mike Piazza, 62nd round draft pick.

OldFatGuy · 05-31-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kq76

The thing that worries me about this is even without using scouts it's difficult to make sure your prospects are in the best level of minor leagues for them. I don't really find the stats minor leaguers put up to be that indicative of what level of minors they should be in and then if you don't have a good handle on what their ratings are either it's going to stunt development that much more. I mean, you promote a guy to AA becuse his stats and ratings say he should be, but his stats are a fluke and his ratings are off, that hurts.

This isn't a critique of your idea necessarily, more of scouting in general, but if you do add more fog into it it just makes it worse. I don't know, even if Markus gets scouting perfect, I think there's still going to be apprehension towards it because of this.

Then the problem here might be the stats generated in the minors, not the the scouting. My point about being "off" currently really only applies to guys NOT playing. I mean, if you play a guy 50 games, you get a better feel for his ability regardless of the scouting, and the same could be said in the minors. If your scout's telling you he's a top notch prospect that should be in AAA right now, but after 50-60 games he's hitting .168 with little power when he should, there's a clue your scout is wrong, and he belongs in AA. Or, as you said, your scout is right but the stats in the minors are generated poorly. If that's the case, then having the possibility of a "miss" by your scouts could be damaging. My fix to that would be to "fix" the reason for poorly indicative generated stats, not make the scouts "superscouts" who never miss. JMHO, though, and still too much of newbie to be qualified to speak, especially on this issue as I've played little with the minors. But, hey, never stopped me before.

EDIT: And, again, I'm not talking about the "best" being a little more off on all players, I'm talking about having a "scout check" BEFORE he rates them, and having the possibility that he's significantly off accross the board only on a player here and there. I see a difference between a good scout being off on RATINGS here and there and a good scout being off on a PLAYER every now and then, if I'm making sense, which I usually have difficulty doing.

Kelric · 05-31-2008, 02:03 PM

No, it makes sense. Not a bad idea, really. No scout is ever completely right.

kq76 · 05-31-2008, 03:04 PM

True, but remember, besides the specialist scout, we really only have a scouting department now so shouldn't the scouting department as whole come to general agreement on players and so even if your best scout in this scouting department is off on prospect X, shouldn't the rest of the scouting department be able to say, "no, Joe, we think you're wrong about the kid and here's why..."?

Now, yeah, I agree, some scouting departments should be better than others, but in general I think they should be pretty good as long as you fund them well. I also agree the department as a whole should be off on some players or at least just totally miss their future brilliance, especially those not in the organization, but let's not forget it is a department of scouts, not just an individual.

kq76 · 05-31-2008, 03:33 PM

Actually, OFG, I wonder if by this check on the player you mean each player has a say likelihood of potential being seen rating whereby it's difficult to see the future potential of great players like Albert Pujols or Mike Piazza. Because if it's just a matter of how good the team's scouts are then those players might be totally missed by some teams, but seen for how good they really are by some teams and taken in the 1st rd which is rather unrealistic. A lot of teams miss out on some great players, not just some teams. Or, we could just continue seeing these players as those 1 star players who become 5 star players that Erik talked about.

Curtis · 06-01-2008, 08:59 PM

kq76, please don't forget that OldFatGuy isn't talking about misreading potentials. He's talking about 'misreading' current ratings.

kq76 · 06-01-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curtis

kq76, please don't forget that OldFatGuy isn't talking about misreading potentials. He's talking about 'misreading' current ratings.

Yeah, thanks. After my first post it looks like I forgot that part. Got a little carried away too it seems.

Nez477 · 06-03-2008, 07:45 PM

I guess my question to all of this would be:

How do you really know if the scouts are right or not? I mean, I guess you could go into the editor and figure out exactly what a player SHOULD be rated at, but without doing that, do we ever REALLY know that the scout is right about a player?

I had a scout rate one of my MLBers as 88 (out of 100) power in a season of mine and he hit 12 HRs in 485 ABs. I mean, sure, it's sample size obviously, but I like to think that "Hmm... maybe my scout was wrong about this guy."

I guess maybe I don't want to know if they are right all the time as it is now. But I've pretty much assumed that margin of error is built into the scouting system. Maybe I'm wrong though.

OldFatGuy · 06-03-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kq76

Actually, OFG, I wonder if by this check on the player you mean each player has a say likelihood of potential being seen rating whereby it's difficult to see the future potential of great players like Albert Pujols or Mike Piazza. Because if it's just a matter of how good the team's scouts are then those players might be totally missed by some teams, but seen for how good they really are by some teams and taken in the 1st rd which is rather unrealistic. A lot of teams miss out on some great players, not just some teams. Or, we could just continue seeing these players as those 1 star players who become 5 star players that Erik talked about.

Unfortunately, I'm not very good at explaining what I mean to others cause I know what I mean and I don't know that others don't know what I mean, you know what I mean?

For any RPG gamers out there, maybe they could help. For example, before an attack, the defender might do a perception check. If he passes, he's able to better defend himself. If he fails this check, he's caught off guard and his defenses suffer.

Well, I just think it would be neat if each scout had to do a perception check, say once every other month (3 times a year), BEFORE he reported his findings on EACH PLAYER he's asked to scout. If he passes this "perception" check or "scout" check, than he gives his normal ratings based on his abilities, but if he fails this "perception" check, he's way off, even on current ratings, ON THIS PLAYER ONLY.

To me that would do a couple of things, at least in OOTP8 because I'm not sure just how different scouting will be in OOTP9. It would provide for the possibility that you might be misjudging the current abilities of the guy you've got riding the pine (or the one you've got starting everyday) AND it would provide incentive to have more than one scout actually scout players. I know I've found myself more or less relying on one or two scouts exlusively (the best "Scout hitting and hitting potential" scout and the best "scout pitching and pitching potential" scout). If you knew there may be a player who's being "missed" by one of your top scouts, you may be more inclined to scout him with more than one scout.

To me it would add "realism" because even the best scouts miss some players. And to take it to a higher degree of realism, it would be cool if some PLAYERS were marked such that NO scout passed the perception check, thus the possibility of the next Albert Pujols.

There, I did it again. I have no clue how to be brief. Not sure if its an old age thing or a plain lack of intellect, but I can't do it.

05-30-2008, 11:44 PM	#1
OldFatGuy All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Northern Va., Loudoun County Posts: 1,895	Scouting Question/Comment As I was involved in another thread discussing scouting, and the default (SISA or OSA) scouting in particular, I would like to ask a question and give my comment on a part of the game I'm unsure of. Being unsure, I'm once again unqualified to speak, but he!!, never stopped me before. In the discussion of default scouting, there seemed to be a consensus brewing that this scouting needed to be better (at least for veterans), but not too good as to make hiring scouts unnecessary. Well, I'd like to comment on something I'd like to see with the "good" scouts, even the best rated scouts in the game. And I'm talking here about current ratings as well as potential, but I see the biggest impact of this in current ratings as potential are already a crap shoot depending on the age of the player. I'd like to see them get it wrong sometimes. Yeah, that's right, even the 250 out of 250 rated scout should get it wrong sometimes. I know, I know, I can hear the screams now. That's ok, I'm hold and don't hear so well anymore anyway. Now I don't mean to say that I'd like to the random (or possibility of getting wrong) be applied to ratings, but to players. In other words, I've always thought of scouting, as currently configured, working something like this. A 9 out of 10 rated scout would take the actual current ratings of a player, and get each rating within about 10% accuracy. Is this how it works now??? And a 10 out of 10 scout would report the current ratings pretty close to actual. I think it would be fun to first do a random check on the player, before the scouts ratings are reported, and sometimes, even the best scout would get it wrong. I.E., a 9 out of 10 scout might have a 2% chance of failing the "scout check" I'll call it, and if he passes, he reports the ratings as usual, within say 10% accuracy. But if he fails, his report could be much more off, say the ratings on this player will be reported as though the scout were only a 4 out of 10 scout. Am I making sense??? Probably not, I'm sure. I'm just saying that even the best scouts money can buy get it wrong sometimes. I mean get it dead wrong. And I mean even current ratings. Imagine the scout of the Yankees reporting Lou Gehrig was a backup at best before that fateful day that Wally Pip got injured. I just think it would be fun if sometimes you've got a guy on the bench that's rated, oh I don't know, on a 1-20 scale maybe a 9-8-7-8-9. Mediocre at best right? So one day your forced to put him in the lineup because of an injury, and the guy hits .420 with 5 HR's while the other guy is on the DL. Right now, if you've got a 20 out of 20 scout, you pretty much KNOW that's just a fluke and he'll come back to reality. But IRL, you DON'T KNOW, even with the best scouts money can buy. Maybe this guy is the next Babe Ruth??????????

05-31-2008, 01:40 AM	#2
Corsairs Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,360	I take your meaning and agree with your point. Scouting is an inexact science at best. I think most of us who play with scouts on want there to be a bit of "fuzz" involved with the process - and yes, that's even when we're using a top-rated scout. Sometimes the best stories in baseball come from the guys whom everyone thought were busts and instead bust out... or vice versa. __________________ Founder of the Planetary Extreme Baseball Alliance (PEBA) Premiere OOTP fictional league where creativity counts and imagination is your only limitation Check for openings - contact us today! Join the PEBA

05-31-2008, 02:24 AM	#3
conception All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,150	I wish that there were a lot more guys in the draft that slip through and get drafted very late yet turn out very well. I actually find the draft very challenging to find great players in if I don't have high picks, but it would be very fun if more guys prove the scouts wrong. __________________ Check out my unique and endlessly thrilling no-trade OOTP league. Once you play this way, you will never want to go back! http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...xperience.html

05-31-2008, 01:44 PM	#9
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 11,770	The thing that worries me about this is even without using scouts it's difficult to make sure your prospects are in the best level of minor leagues for them. I don't really find the stats minor leaguers put up to be that indicative of what level of minors they should be in and then if you don't have a good handle on what their ratings are either it's going to stunt development that much more. I mean, you promote a guy to AA becuse his stats and ratings say he should be, but his stats are a fluke and his ratings are off, that hurts. This isn't a critique of your idea necessarily, more of scouting in general, but if you do add more fog into it it just makes it worse. I don't know, even if Markus gets scouting perfect, I think there's still going to be apprehension towards it because of this. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project)

05-31-2008, 03:04 PM	#13
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 11,770	True, but remember, besides the specialist scout, we really only have a scouting department now so shouldn't the scouting department as whole come to general agreement on players and so even if your best scout in this scouting department is off on prospect X, shouldn't the rest of the scouting department be able to say, "no, Joe, we think you're wrong about the kid and here's why..."? Now, yeah, I agree, some scouting departments should be better than others, but in general I think they should be pretty good as long as you fund them well. I also agree the department as a whole should be off on some players or at least just totally miss their future brilliance, especially those not in the organization, but let's not forget it is a department of scouts, not just an individual. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project)

05-31-2008, 02:29 AM	#4
Erik W. Global Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Rivière-du-Loup, Qc Posts: 4,615	What? The scouts are always right. Love, Albert Pujols, draft pick #402 ---- Seriously, though, I do see good players come out of low rounds occasionally, but it happens via the same thing that gets roundly complained about: the unpredictable player development engine. I've had one-star players (with scouts off, so that's their actual rating) balloon into 5-star players. __________________ Free agent baseball fan. Let's go (insert team name here)!

05-31-2008, 02:46 AM	#7
emcgman Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 63	I definitely agree it's fun to put someone in the lineup who appears to suck ratings-wise, just to see what he can do. Sometimes a guy like that will end up batting .320. I also have a related question instead of starting a new `Scouting Question' thread. Are there really as many bad scouts and coaches in real life as the long list of scouts and coaches in the game that are rated so poorly? I would think that even an avid fan would be better at scouting than most of the `available' personnel. Granted, the guys pre-assigned to your team are usually at least half decent, but go to `available personnel' looking to hire someone, and there is just a long list of guys that couldn't be any worse.

05-31-2008, 02:03 PM	#12
Kelric Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Greater Boston Area Posts: 3,992	No, it makes sense. Not a bad idea, really. No scout is ever completely right.

05-31-2008, 03:33 PM	#14
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 11,770	Actually, OFG, I wonder if by this check on the player you mean each player has a say likelihood of potential being seen rating whereby it's difficult to see the future potential of great players like Albert Pujols or Mike Piazza. Because if it's just a matter of how good the team's scouts are then those players might be totally missed by some teams, but seen for how good they really are by some teams and taken in the 1st rd which is rather unrealistic. A lot of teams miss out on some great players, not just some teams. Or, we could just continue seeing these players as those 1 star players who become 5 star players that Erik talked about. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project)

06-01-2008, 08:59 PM	#15
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	kq76, please don't forget that OldFatGuy isn't talking about misreading potentials. He's talking about 'misreading' current ratings.

06-03-2008, 07:45 PM	#17
Nez477 Minors (Single A) Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 68	I guess my question to all of this would be: How do you really know if the scouts are right or not? I mean, I guess you could go into the editor and figure out exactly what a player SHOULD be rated at, but without doing that, do we ever REALLY know that the scout is right about a player? I had a scout rate one of my MLBers as 88 (out of 100) power in a season of mine and he hit 12 HRs in 485 ABs. I mean, sure, it's sample size obviously, but I like to think that "Hmm... maybe my scout was wrong about this guy." I guess maybe I don't want to know if they are right all the time as it is now. But I've pretty much assumed that margin of error is built into the scouting system. Maybe I'm wrong though.