For those who play stats only...

[Papa3]

I like the general concept of this, but I don't see how relying on a written scouting report is better than seeing talents expressed as ratings instead of words. When i see a report like this, I think stats-only using scouting reports is foolish.

How in the world can you glean a player's ability when all you have to go on is this:

SUMMARY: This guy will always be minor-league filler. Not much of a repertoire now, and shows no aptitude to learn.

STUFF: Above-average stuff for a kid of his age, tops out at around 90-92. Fastball isn't too straight, and he changes speeds nicely. Needs to trust his catcher a little bit more.

MOVEMENT: Throws dead straight. Unless he can change that, he's nothing more than fodder.

CONTROL: Projects to have average control.

PERSONALITY/MAKEUP: A student of the game, Duley will bust his tail to become better at his position.

Conflicting enough for you? In summary, this guy's "fastball isn't too straight" and he "throws dead straight". Huh?

Then he "shows no aptitude to learn" and is "a student of the game". Double huh? This report is far from an aberration.

The league's premier home run hitter (467 HR at age 29, 64 & 55 HR the past two seasons while no other guy had a season with more than 43) "doesn't have a clue what he's doing when he's up" and is "an offensive force that teams must pitch around or game-plan against."

Another guy is "an excellent, if not an elite, offensive player, who you can count on to have a solid season every year. .240/.260/.370 isn't out of the realm of possibility." Wow, what an ELITE prediction. How could those numbers translate to an elite offensive player? BTW, this past year he was .335/.359/.559

Perhaps most befuddling is this guy:

CONTACT: Outstanding bat control and plate discipline. Plus-plus contact.

EYE: Really needs to develop some discipline at the plate. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing when he's up.

OMG, what the heck is that!!!!!!

His ratings on a 2-8 scale are CONTACT 7 and EYE 3. The ratings tell me he'll hit for average but doesn't take walks. His scouting report tells me he has "outstanding plate discipline" but "really needs to develop some discipline at the plate."

As it turns out, he smoked his league in batting average by hitting .345/.370/.487 while the second place guy hit just .312.

His stats confirm my suspicion with regards to his ratings. I don't know what the hell to think of this guy if I went on just his written scouting report. I'm still trying to figure out how the league's top hitter can "have no clue what he's doing when he's up."

I rely almost entirely on stats (AI Eval 25/45/20/10), but a real-life GM can see what a fastball looks like, see how well a guy can run, see how hard a guy hits balls to the gap, etc. To me, that's what the ratings are - being able to see what a guy appears to do well or not well. In the end, it's about what a guy does, not what it appears he will do. That's why I use stats -- but NOT stats-only.

14 versions in, I guess I'm wondering if these written scouting reports will ever be useful and not just eye candy. Until then, the only way to play properly is to use ratings-based scouting reports.

After all, how in the world can you make intelligent decisions based on these written scouting reports?

[Honorable_Pawn]

It works like this

Rating: 1 blah blah blah blurb_1
Rating: 2 blah blah blah blurb_2
Rating: 3 blah blah blah blurb_3
Rating: 4 blah blah blah blurb_4
Rating: 5 blah blah blah blurb_5
Rating: 6 blah blah blah blurb_6
Rating: 7 blah blah blah blurb_7
Rating: 8 blah blah blah blurb_8
Rating: 9 blah blah blah blurb_9
Rating: 10 blah blah blah blurb_10

It really doesn't matter what the text says since you know exactly what the numerical counterpart is. It's not really stats-only if you use written reports as these are direct numerical equivalents.

[greenie25]

After all, how in the world can you make intelligent decisions based on these written scouting reports?

If you don't find them useful, just ignore them. That's what I do. I don't think I've looked at one since my initial "learning-to-play" phase.

[Papa3]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

It's not really stats-only if you use written reports as these are direct numerical equivalents.

I agree with you here but I'm alluding to what some people on here say (and I'm sure everyone knows who I'm talking about) about stats-only.

[DCG12]

So what you're saying is you're trying to bait that person (yes we know who) into responding which based on past history will result in this thread crashing down in a flaming pile of dog poo. Or am I missing something?

[Honorable_Pawn]

Shhh!!!

You have to whisper. You're gonna to wake hiiiiiim up.

[le receveur]

Originally Posted by DCG12

So what you're saying is you're trying to bait that person (yes we know who) into responding which based on past history will result in this thread crashing down in a flaming pile of dog poo. Or am I missing something?

Still 7 days until more real baseball so what else are we supposed to do...


As for OP post . no stat only means looking at the stats and make up your mind from that.

[Winnipeg59]

A solution would be to somehow enable turning off/hiding the "Scouting Reports" so that all you have to actually view would be stats if you turned everything (scouting and ratings of all kinds) off.

I wonder if the report visibility could be linked to using Scouts?
Or even a separate check box in game setup to display the reports.

[le receveur]

Originally Posted by Winnipeg59

A solution would be to somehow enable turning off/hiding the "Scouting Reports" so that all you have to actually view would be stats if you turned everything (scouting and ratings of all kinds) off.

I wonder if the report visibility could be linked to using Scouts?
Or even a separate check box in game setup to display the reports.

Curious. When do you see these reports? I never see them since I stay on the stat page

[Trebro]

For stats only, you would need feeder leagues, no? Otherwise, there would be no stats to look at? And what about historical rookies?

I dunno if I will ever play as a single team again (building a world is most fun I have ever had with OOTP, makes me wonder if I would dislike FHM and the boxing sim because don't you have to run a team/fighter?), but if I did I might want to try a historical stats only.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by le receveur

Curious. When do you see these reports? I never see them since I stay on the stat page

That makes sense. I can see using the Profile, but those reports are only on the Scouting Reports page, right? So what other reason is there to go to that page?

[Questdog]

If playing stats only, you can play with scouts ON and set scouting accuracy to LOW. That way the written reports are near meaningless. The problem with this, however, is that the fielding ratings, speed ratings, etc. will also be inaccurate (though not as inaccurate as the other batting and pitching ratings).

The best way to play is with scouting off and just don't look at the reports. If you can't play this way because you cannot trust yourself not to peek, then you absolutely MUST play this way and work on your character flaws.....

[Papa3]

What got me started was having a trade proposed to me less than a week after the season ended involving a couple guys I never heard of. I wasn't sure I had a recent ratings update on the players offered so I requested a couple reports. The written report showed up in my mailbox so, bored as I am, I thought I'd start complaining about it here. I don't read these reports but I recall seeing some other crazy ones in the past so I spent two minutes gathering a couple examples for this.

I just don't understand why the wording in these reports is redundant when comparing separate ratings. i.e. Why is plate discipline mentioned under "Contact" when it's also mentioned (more accurately) under "Eye"?

I could see the reports being useful if the wording is much more specific to each attribute.

[le receveur]

Originally Posted by Papa3

What got me started was having a trade proposed to me less than a week after the season ended involving a couple guys I never heard of. I wasn't sure I had a recent ratings update on the players offered so I requested a couple reports. The written report showed up in my mailbox so, bored as I am, I thought I'd start complaining about it here. I don't read these reports but I recall seeing some other crazy ones in the past so I spent two minutes gathering a couple examples for this.

I just don't understand why the wording in these reports is redundant when comparing separate ratings. i.e. Why is plate discipline mentioned under "Contact" when it's also mentioned (more accurately) under "Eye"?

I could see the reports being useful if the wording is much more specific to each attribute.

Interesting, and I see your dilemma...But what does it have to do with Stat Only? I think DCG12 was right.

[Papa3]

Originally Posted by le receveur

Interesting, and I see your dilemma...But what does it have to do with Stat Only? I think DCG12 was right.

I was reading some past stuff and became very intrigued by the idea. But when I saw the scouting reports I couldn't for the life of me understand how you could get it to work. Then I thought of what the ratings really meant (to me anyway) and thought I'd share what I came up with so stats only (plus scouting reports) guys might get what they want of the game using the ratings too.

I reread my OP and it does kinda sound like I may be baiting people which I'm not trying to do.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Papa3

I like the general concept of this, but I don't see how relying on a written scouting report is better than seeing talents expressed as ratings instead of words. When i see a report like this, I think stats-only using scouting reports is foolish.

How in the world can you glean a player's ability when all you have to go on is this:

SUMMARY: This guy will always be minor-league filler. Not much of a repertoire now, and shows no aptitude to learn.

STUFF: Above-average stuff for a kid of his age, tops out at around 90-92. Fastball isn't too straight, and he changes speeds nicely. Needs to trust his catcher a little bit more.

MOVEMENT: Throws dead straight. Unless he can change that, he's nothing more than fodder.

CONTROL: Projects to have average control.

PERSONALITY/MAKEUP: A student of the game, Duley will bust his tail to become better at his position.

Conflicting enough for you? In summary, this guy's "fastball isn't too straight" and he "throws dead straight". Huh?

Then he "shows no aptitude to learn" and is "a student of the game". Double huh? This report is far from an aberration.

The league's premier home run hitter (467 HR at age 29, 64 & 55 HR the past two seasons while no other guy had a season with more than 43) "doesn't have a clue what he's doing when he's up" and is "an offensive force that teams must pitch around or game-plan against."

Another guy is "an excellent, if not an elite, offensive player, who you can count on to have a solid season every year. .240/.260/.370 isn't out of the realm of possibility." Wow, what an ELITE prediction. How could those numbers translate to an elite offensive player? BTW, this past year he was .335/.359/.559

Perhaps most befuddling is this guy:

CONTACT: Outstanding bat control and plate discipline. Plus-plus contact.

EYE: Really needs to develop some discipline at the plate. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing when he's up.

OMG, what the heck is that!!!!!!

His ratings on a 2-8 scale are CONTACT 7 and EYE 3. The ratings tell me he'll hit for average but doesn't take walks. His scouting report tells me he has "outstanding plate discipline" but "really needs to develop some discipline at the plate."

As it turns out, he smoked his league in batting average by hitting .345/.370/.487 while the second place guy hit just .312.

His stats confirm my suspicion with regards to his ratings. I don't know what the hell to think of this guy if I went on just his written scouting report. I'm still trying to figure out how the league's top hitter can "have no clue what he's doing when he's up."

I rely almost entirely on stats (AI Eval 25/45/20/10), but a real-life GM can see what a fastball looks like, see how well a guy can run, see how hard a guy hits balls to the gap, etc. To me, that's what the ratings are - being able to see what a guy appears to do well or not well. In the end, it's about what a guy does, not what it appears he will do. That's why I use stats -- but NOT stats-only.

14 versions in, I guess I'm wondering if these written scouting reports will ever be useful and not just eye candy. Until then, the only way to play properly is to use ratings-based scouting reports.

After all, how in the world can you make intelligent decisions based on these written scouting reports?

I've been saying the written reports needed some work done since I've started playing OOTP ('13)

For that very reason I will never turn off individual ratings (I may only use potential sometimes) my version of "stats only" is to hide OVR and set my AI Evaluation to favor stats. Besides that real life scouts use a number rating system. I always have scouts set to very low accuracy.

I can't imagine how frustrating drafting must be by using those written reports especially if you don't use feeders for stats (which is recommended for stats only) I still based my decisions around stats though. I like having scouts on for that second opinion and immersion, I just refuse to use those written reports.

[YanksFan]

Originally Posted by le receveur

But what does it have to do with Stat Only? I think DCG12 was right.

Let's take his trade scenario as an example. Let's say one of the players he was being offered was a young player who doesn't have great AAA and/or limited big league stats. Now with rains potential on you'd have an idea if this were a case of just not big league capable or a player that has yet to reach potential but with stats only the only other info you have is the wacky written reports which as he posted can be very confusing. Sure the added fog of war is the appeal of stats only but having a written report that made more sense would be nice even if it was inaccurate. Inform me consistently in the report whether u think he can play, might can play or just doesn't have it and then the rest is up to me. That's what some of us are looking for.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I can't imagine how frustrating drafting must be by using those written reports especially if you don't use feeders for stats (which is recommended for stats only) I still based my decisions around stats though. I like having scouts on for that second opinion and immersion, I just refuse to use those written reports.

The stats that OOTP generates for the draft eligible players are much more reliable as a guide to quality than stats generated from feeder leagues. Feeder leagues are a cool idea, but hamstrung in OOTP by the fact that these young players' actual ratings have almost 0 correlation to their potential ratings. Thus, drafting based on feeder league stats, especially high schoolers, is about as effective as picking at random.
If you are not willing to put in the effort to evaluate the OOTP generated stats - and this can be a big investment with the quality of opposition curve thrown in - it is perfectly acceptable to turn on potential ratings just for the draft. Peeking in this way is really no big deal, especially with scouting turned on, as by the time the players get MLB ready their ratings will not be the same - many times no where even close.
After the draft and throughout the player's minor league career what you have to gauge the quality of the prospect is his draft position. Just like real life, a first rounder should be stuck with for longer when his stats are not coming around and a low round pick with bad stats can be dropped like a hot potato.

[HerbD]

Originally Posted by Questdog

The stats that OOTP generates for the draft eligible players are much more reliable as a guide to quality than stats generated from feeder leagues. Feeder leagues are a cool idea, but hamstrung in OOTP by the fact that these young players' actual ratings have almost 0 correlation to their potential ratings. Thus, drafting based on feeder league stats, especially high schoolers, is about as effective as picking at random.

This actually makes drafting more realistic in my opinion. It allows for post-feeder league development that lets late round draft picks turn into good major league players and also allows for high draft picks to bust. No sure things just like real life.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by HerbD

This actually makes drafting more realistic in my opinion. It allows for post-feeder league development that lets late round draft picks turn into good major league players and also allows for high draft picks to bust. No sure things just like real life.

This is an illusion....in real life the best players in high school and college turn out to be the best players in MLB.....some are busts and some players that weren't rated quite as high turn out to be better, but even they were good players as amateurs......in real life guys that hit .180 in high school don't make it to the pros....but in OOTP, guys that hit .180 could turn out to be superstars.....this is because the ratings that drive the stats in feeder leagues are basically random.....if you do a draft knowing what the potential ratings actually are (according to your scout), you will end up with a more realistic draft....some busts and some low round surprises.

And when you do a feeder league and draft only with stats, only you are looking at the stats...the AI is looking at the ratings......so your draft is basically random (college players are not quite random), while the AI is picking based on the ratings......