My scout amatuer draft

[wiggins]

Glad I brought up the subject. The only thing I want, is a better written report at least telling me about the potential of the player he suggests I choose. Even if he is dead wrong. I'm not talking about accuracy. I love that he may be dead wrong. But if he is telling me to choose that player, then tell me why he thinks he is going to be good.He can't tell me this is the guy and then tell me "Always a minor league filler, no aptitude to learn".....As I said earlier, it's a complete disconnect. I didn't start this thread because I don't know how or not how to use scouting. I've been playing since V.6. It's the whole realism thing. How hard can it be to change the phrases to be positive??? Again, I don't care how wrong he is.

[Xpert7777]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Written reports need to be updated. Everything is fine if you are looking at the numbers.

Also to comment on the above post, it depends on what the scout prefer. Do he prefer skills or tools? That may be why he suggested someone else rather than a player who seemed to be rated higher.

I was browsing looking to say just this. I rarely, rarely ever look at the written report by my scout. Look at stats, groundball %, pitches and pitch potential and if you have potential turned on you have more than enough to make your own decision about a player. If a pitcher has the potential ratings to be a star and is dominating in HS or College, I will have no reservations about drafting him even if the written report from my scout tells me he might only be a #3 pitcher.

[wiggins]

Again, and for the last time. Then I'm going away. That's not the point!!!

[SirMichaelJordan]

Yea its not a stats only vs ratings thing.

This year, players are rated correctly on draft day instead of taking a hit in ratings after they are on your roster/farm system for awhile (the game rerating the players by comparing them to other players in your universe)

Basically, prospects are rated by how they compare to when going up against other the players in the game on draft day instead of prospects being compared to just other prospects in the draft class.

Now we see written reports that read as if the players are scrubs during draft day instead of the user randomly reading his reports months later and realizing the guy he just drafted wasn't the player he though he was because OOTP adjusted and rerated (NOT A TCR HIT) the players.

Written reports need to be updated.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Now we see written reports that read as if the players are scrubs during draft day instead of the user randomly reading his reports months later and realizing the guy he just drafted wasn't the player he though he was because OOTP adjusted and rerated (NOT A TCR HIT) the players.

Written reports need to be updated.

I disagree. If the guy is going to be a scrub, scouting reports that tell us otherwise are worthless.

In a draft, we draft a lot of players for the reason that, out of a pool of players who will suck, we, or our scout, make a guess that he's the unsuckiest of the players left. But, it doesn't change the fact that he is going to suck.

[olivertheorem]

I think maybe the written reports on the draft pool guys need to be reworked to reflect how players think about the guys they're looking at.

For example, if I'm looking at a guy, and his potentials are something like 45/60/40 (for a pitcher), that on its own is not a big-league player. But, I (at least) look at it like "well, if he catches some breaks and gets that stuff and control up a bit, he's at least a back-end starter."

So, the written reports should be done from the perspective of "if everything breaks right, he will be X" instead of "based on his potentials now, he will be Y". Don't know how much work that would be though.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by olivertheorem

I think maybe the written reports on the draft pool guys need to be reworked to reflect how players think about the guys they're looking at.

For example, if I'm looking at a guy, and his potentials are something like 45/60/40 (for a pitcher), that on its own is not a big-league player. But, I (at least) look at it like "well, if he catches some breaks and gets that stuff and control up a bit, he's at least a back-end starter."

So, the written reports should be done from the perspective of "if everything breaks right, he will be X" instead of "based on his potentials now, he will be Y". Don't know how much work that would be though.

Agree. Especially with the TCR being default at 100. Unless someone turns TCR to 0 then the initial potential ratings are going to change for the better or worst throughout the player's minor league career so there should be some sort of optimistic when it comes to prospect's written reports.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Agree. Especially with the TCR being default at 100. Unless someone turns TCR to 0 then the initial potential ratings are going to change for the better or worst throughout the player's minor league career so there should be some sort of optimistic when it comes to prospect's written reports.

If the player is never going to amount to anything at the major league level, then optimism is just going to decrease the accuracy and usefulness of the reports.

There will be losses because of false optimsm. Some prospects will not develop to their full potential because their promotions will be blocked since your scout is insisting that the player ahead of him is going to amount to something. There will be trades that won't be made of reluctance to trade prospects your scout tells you are going to be better than they will be, while their only hope of doing so (other than the luck of TCR) is via polyjuice potion.

We'd need some extra comments coming from scouts. We could still have "has elite power potential" as a comment, but we'd also need "has elite power potential and THIS TIME, I REALLY, REALLY mean it."

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by nyy26wc

If the player is never going to amount to anything at the major league level, then optimism is just going to decrease the accuracy and usefulness of the reports.

There will be losses because of false optimsm. Some prospects will not develop to their full potential because their promotions will be blocked since your scout is insisting that the player ahead of him is going to amount to something. There will be trades that won't be made of reluctance to trade prospects your scout tells you are going to be better than they will be, while their only hope of doing so (other than the luck of TCR) is via polyjuice potion.

We'd need some extra comments coming from scouts. We could still have "has elite power potential" as a comment, but we'd also need "has elite power potential and THIS TIME, I REALLY, REALLY mean it."

Im not saying it should be false reports. Something like Olivertheorem suggested. If a player has a potential of 4 (2-8 scale) in contact, it wouldn't be unrealistic for a report to say. "This guy struggle with contact and will probably Be a career minor leaguer unless he improve some aspects of his swing" instead of a clear cut and dry "This guy will never make it to the majors" lol thats a bold prediction on an 18-22 year old player that YOU suggested I drafted..

I don't really read the written reports because of that problem but I have the same approach as above on how I look at players because I know he will more than likely not have that 4 rated contact potential for his entire life span in OOTP. That 4 could easily jump to a 5 (or drop lower) or even a 6 so I usually draft guys who are closer to the median number of 5 (2-8 scale) no matter how bad my excellent rated scout tells me he is and how he will never amount to anything.

[nyy26wc]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Im not saying it should be false reports. Something like Olivertheorem suggested. If a player has a potential of 4 (2-8 scale) in contact, it wouldn't be unrealistic for a report to say. "This guy struggle with contact and will probably Be a career minor leaguer unless he improve some aspects of his swing" instead of a clear cut and dry "This guy will never make it to the majors" lol thats a bold prediction on an 18-22 year old player that YOU suggested I drafted..

I can agree with that.

[wiggins]

I guess I couldn't go away. My whole point was that the guy that "will never amount to anything and is a career minor leaguer" is the same guy that my scout is telling me to draft, and it's his report. It's like going to buy a new flat screen and the sales guy says "I suggest you purchase this one here, It has a bad track record for screen burn in, the picture is fuzzy and the refresh rate sucks". Wha, Wha, What???I don't need him to be accurate. I just need the report to echo the reason he is telling me to draft him. I'll figure out on my own if necessary how good the player might end up being. It's about the whole immersion factor.

[nyy26wc]

Wiggins, are you just looked at the "summary" or are you also looking at the other categories.

I have a copy of my league made the day after the 2013 draft. So, the player scouting reports are almost as close to contemporarous with the draft as you can get. It was my first draft for OOTP 14. I had been playing with historical rookies imported to their IRL original teams, but finally reached the point where there are no more left, so time for an actual draft. I drafted for the first 5 rounds and then turned things over to the scouting department and simmed the rest.

When I look at my picks, even in the last few rounds, there's always some little thing in their scouting report that can explain to me why he was picked. OK, for a few of them, I don't see the reason looking at the scouting report. But, for example, 20 year old CF Walt hayden "has well above-average speed" and is "an average fielder". OK, that explains why, in the 23rd round, he could be the choice.

I even see why why I drafted Alfredo Rodriguez, with the 29th pick in the 30th round. He "really shows good command, and picks his spots well, Probably won't walk too many. I wouldn't say his control is outstanding, but definitely above average." I can see why the odds are, if this 17 year old is in Yankee Stadium when he's 21, he has better odds of it being as a hot dog vendor than he has of it being on the pitcher's mound. But, I can see that there is at least some reason why, when you're down to the penultimate pick of the entire draft, how it's that guy and not someone else. (And, no, the answer isn't he's the absolute bottom of the barrell, but the other guy left in the draft is so far below the bottom, he didn't make it into the barrell. I set it to give me 30 rounds, with enough players for 35.)

[nyy26wc]

I don't think the new flat screen is a valid analogy. When you go to buy a flat screen, you don't start from the premise that it's a proven fact that the success rate of the flat screen sucks. In baseball, the facts leave us with no other conclusion than we have to start with the premise that the success rate of draft picks suck.

[PSUColonel]

My issue is why a scout will recommend players it rates poorly??

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

My issue is why a scout will recommend players it rates poorly??

Because they are the same players (talent wise) as last year just that the reports are not updated for the way prospects are rated in 14. Last year prospects were rated against each other (higher ratings until they were on rosters and the game adjusted itself and lowered their ratings)

In 14, prospects are rated against everyone in the database (lower ratings; no more sudden drops in ratings what many thought was a TCR effect)

[PSUColonel]

OK I see...so really even potential stars should be ignored?, or just the written reports?

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

OK I see...so really even potential stars should be ignored?, or just the written reports?

I personally ignore them for hidden prospects (typically rated lower than IFA's) and late rounders because that is where the reports begin to be useless with my scout telling me that everyone stinks.