The Annual Settings Thread

[lionbacker]

Originally Posted by djsatu

Is there a way a baseball noob (Someone who doesn't know the players, prospects etc) can play stats only, but with some sort of minimal rating system visible to help as a guideline?

Just play the game and have fun! The game plays pretty good at default settings, you may want to change the overall & future ratings to be displayed on the 20-80 scale. Just because a player is rated say a 75 (or 5 stars), does not guarantee anything! I have found myself getting too caught up in the settings this year and simply not enjoying the game enough!

The beauty is in the randomness, once you are too comfortable maybe start to play with overall and potential ratings off as they show above, or turn down scouting accuracy.

As far as your getting into baseball, fangraphs is a great place to check out stats evaluation. Go to http://www.fangraphs.com/ and highlight the glossary tab on the far right and start reading each little link and you'll discover a lot!

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by djsatu

Is there a way a baseball noob (Someone who doesn't know the players, prospects etc) can play stats only, but with some sort of minimal rating system visible to help as a guideline?

Stats only means no ratings and no stars. I would say wait until you've got some experience and then try it.

[andyhdz]

Originally Posted by djsatu

Is there a way a baseball noob (Someone who doesn't know the players, prospects etc) can play stats only, but with some sort of minimal rating system visible to help as a guideline?

Yes play with potential ratings on but actual ratings off and very low scouting accuracy. It will give you a very rough idea on what scouts think the player should do but again use it as a rough baseline.

[battists]

Originally Posted by NotMuchTime

I agree with OOTP scouting needing a complete overhaul.

This is actually one of the trickiest thing to get "just right."

In some ways, I think OOTP 16 and 17 are the closest they have come to success so far. I think it incorporates a number of key aspects of scouting:

- the fact that different scouts can have different opinions
- the concept of scouting reports similar to the one spanish lefty displayed
- the fact that teams can choose to focus effort on different things

I also think 16/17 did a good job of giving you the concept of scouting without requiring you to get TOO much into the minutiae of managing a scouting department like previous versions did. (Remember when you had a team of scouts and had to assign them specific tasks? It was a neat idea, but ultimately ended up being too time-consuming and took away from the overall experience.)

That said, it's not surprising that it's still not quite where it could be. What other sports sim has gotten scouting right? Madden is in version 25 or whatever with many multiples more attention and it still is a really awful representation of scouting for the NFL draft.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by battists

This is actually one of the trickiest thing to get "just right."

In some ways, I think OOTP 16 and 17 are the closest they have come to success so far. I think it incorporates a number of key aspects of scouting:

- the fact that different scouts can have different opinions
- the concept of scouting reports similar to the one spanish lefty displayed
- the fact that teams can choose to focus effort on different things

I also think 16/17 did a good job of giving you the concept of scouting without requiring you to get TOO much into the minutiae of managing a scouting department like previous versions did. (Remember when you had a team of scouts and had to assign them specific tasks? It was a neat idea, but ultimately ended up being too time-consuming and took away from the overall experience.)

That said, it's not surprising that it's still not quite where it could be. What other sports sim has gotten scouting right? Madden is in version 25 or whatever with many multiples more attention and it still is a really awful representation of scouting for the NFL draft.

I think FM has gotten it down pretty well...especially in the 2016 version. Here is another sport where you are scouting a vast amount of leagues. Here, your scouts actually go out and watch games. How many times they may see a player is a factor in scouting accuracy. Once a player joins your organization, scouts should really be out of it, and coaching staffs should be the principle talent evaluators. I like the idea of deciding how to utilize scouting resources, but I just don't think you should automatically be given player ratings without seeing them ( at least not from your own scouts) BNN can and should provide ratings, but I feel they probably shouldn't be updated/published as often as they are.

[PSUColonel]

If you assign a scout to a team or league or continent, they can also return with short lists.,.in OOTP you could do this with leagues

[PSUColonel]

So in summary a player/team/ league is not scouted (except by OSA) unless

1. Games are being played where they can actually be scouted. 2. You must give the order to execute the scouting report/ search.

[battists]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

So in summary a player/team/ league is not scouted (except by OSA) unless

1. Games are being played where they can actually be scouted. 2. You must give the order to execute the scouting report/ search.

The challenge with this is that we had a similar concept several versions ago and it was universally decried as being annoying to have to manually tell scouts to scout certain people. It ended up being a layer too deep of micromanagement.

I'm not ruling it out (not that I have any say anymore), but how do we find the right balance?

I have to admit I haven't played enough of FM to understand it better.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by battists

The challenge with this is that we had a similar concept several versions ago and it was universally decried as being annoying to have to manually tell scouts to scout certain people. It ended up being a layer too deep of micromanagement.

I'm not ruling it out (not that I have any say anymore), but how do we find the right balance?

I have to admit I haven't played enough of FM to understand it better.

In FM, you can also delegate all or some duties to multiple members of the front office/coaching staff.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by andyhdz

Yes play with potential ratings on but actual ratings off and very low scouting accuracy. It will give you a very rough idea on what scouts think the player should do but again use it as a rough baseline.

Playing with potential ratings on IS NOT STATS ONLY. Stats only means no ratings.

[andyhdz]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Playing with potential ratings on IS NOT STATS ONLY. Stats only means no ratings.

Then he'll be playing a hybrid version. Like driving a Prius.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by andyhdz

Then he'll be playing a hybrid version. Like driving a Prius.

And we all know how THAT sucks.

[Matt Uk]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Once a player joins your organization, scouts should really be out of it, and coaching staffs should be the principle talent evaluators.

I think that's an excellent point.


This could actually tie in with 'stats only'.

What if all players had a scouted potential given at the time of the draft or even just a league level that the scout believes they may achieve. That is 'kept' as a reference point to where they were when they were initially evaluated.

Then at the end of each season you coaching staff (or perhaps the minor league team's coaching staff of wherever the player is playing if he's not in the majors) give an opinion of where they think the player can get to, ie, what level of minors or major league they think they will eventually get to.

So the one line report may say something like

A future hall of famer
Might get a cup of coffee
Career minor leaguer

etc

and those already in the majors comments such as

Solid pro, more to come
Starting to decline
Promising but may just fall short
Time to put his coffee down
All star material

etc

Vague but realistic in the sense it's an opinion of how much more they may improve. It could also perhaps have another one line comment alongside, such as

Needs to work on avoiding strikes
Has huge power
Has excellent control
Fielding is a liability

Again vague enough to not be a full on point score for each aspect of a player but enough info to give an overview of what the player may achieve down the line or will continue to achieve.


So then, with that end of year review and their season and career to date stats you can make a reasoned decision on evaluating the player yourself. Of course the review will only be as good as the coaching staff with a little randomness thrown in.



.

I enjoy playing stats only but I think the above would be a good way of having some kind of idea of a players potential without having the current scouting view.


Also with regards to other team's players BNN could also do an end of season evaluation in the same way, so you can use that to help form an opinion of players not in your organisation, alongside their players stats.

[marc5477]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Stats only... just like it is in real life.

Not this again... Look man, I actually coached sports for a while. I again will tell you that this is NOT how its done in real life until the journeyman/veteran levels in the sport. Before that, tools are used.

Also, as a fellow engineer, you will need to explain to me how removing a variable (like tools) makes decision more "tedious." Removing tools from the picture actually makes decisions EASIER because you have fewer variables to consider for your decision making process. Its not all or nothing.

And as explained previously by many many many times (and has been tested many many many times over the years), stats only effectively handicaps the AI. The AI will be clueless when running their minors and your league will lose tons of good to great players this way and the funny part is, you will never know it and you will actually believe all is ok when it really is not.

>> Stats only does not solve the problem, it simply covers it up. <<

This is not how it is in real life and if you do it this way, the minor leagues become become less effective. Folks like Roy Santana, Halladay and Sabathia would have never made it in a stats only league.

Your 1st year playing in the minors becomes all or nothing (unless you get lucky with tons of long term injuries at your position). Either you are at least average in the minors your 1st year or, odds are, you will never see enough playing time and are never able to prove yourself (unless you create all minor league lineups yourself and have players alternate every game to give them all playing time). Hence, you will lose a lot of great players this way and yes, I verified this many times using historical leagues with recalc turned on. I followed late bloomers and sure enough, most (if not all... i dont recall) ended up not making it in the majors or riding the bench their entire career (Jose Bautista comes to mind, he basically didnt play in the simulation).

I did a lot of testing a couple of years ago and here is what I found to be the most realistic of all settings:

Scouting Accuracy: Very Low
- This is by far the most important, and realistic setting. It creates a very wide variation in ratings between scouts and the OSA (as it is in real life). Results of this, after hundreds of seasons played, created the most realistic results. At this setting, you at least get a glimpse of potential however you will find that it is wrong 95% of the time. Most of the 70 to 80 potential guys end up being average or below average, which is actually how it is in real life. Many dont make it at all but some become stars, and once in a blue moon, a super stars (about 1 every 10 seasons). But at least with this setting on, the AI has a chance to select and keep these guys and not just throw them away if they dont perform right away in R league or Low A.

Player Evaluation AI Setting: Default (40/30/20/10) or (30/30/25/15)
- Yes the developers know what they are doing. With this, you are basically 40% tools and 60% stats. Not bad. If you see a lot of 1 year wonder contracts, use the 2nd setting but beware, you might end up with over paid end of life (declining) players. Both work fine.

Trade Favoribility: Favor Prospects
Trade Difficulty: Hard
Trade Frequency: Low

[The Wolf]

And all of my experience says that all of that is bunk, except for scouting on very low. Have fun with your grudge.

[The Wolf]

And you're not the only person here with college or coaching experience. There are a number of us.

[marc5477]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

And all of my experience says that all of that is bunk, except for scouting on very low. Have fun with your grudge.

Same old song eh? You think its everyone else who holds some sort of grudge. At some point you will need to realize that its just you.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

And you're not the only person here with college or coaching experience. There are a number of us.

Who is "us." Youre pretty much the entire sounding board for your claims. No one else claims its more realistic. Some prefer it which is fine, but you go the extra distance and actually claim things that simply are not true of reality or even the game. I think its funny which is why i never report you. I actually like people like you, because you make things less boring. Kind of like why I liked Dr House.

Do you actual have competitive sports experience of any kind? Were you any good?

[BeanballComin]

Those of you lucky enough to have watched baseball games with Jack Brickhouse as the announcer are well aware of his happy go lucky attitude;
proclaiming many times to 'come on down to the ol' ballpark' to have a relaxing day.
Of course Wrigley was filled with office workers, locals, visitors from around the world, bleacher bums, families, kids ditching a day of school, hawkers, scalpers, screaming babies, drunkards.
Yet, somehow, they all got along, as they were tolerant of each other.
I hope you all remember .. ..

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by marc5477

Same old song eh? You think its everyone else who holds some sort of grudge. At some point you will need to realize that its just you.



Who is "us." Youre pretty much the entire sounding board for your claims. No one else claims its more realistic. Some prefer it which is fine, but you go the extra distance and actually claim things that simply are not true of reality or even the game. I think its funny which is why i never report you. I actually like people like you, because you make things less boring. Kind of like why I liked Dr House.

Do you actual have competitive sports experience of any kind? Were you any good?

Wow, you really don't know anything.

[The Wolf]

I just remembered who this guy is. He's the one that kept trying to play stats only with historical players - an absolute no-no - years ago and kept claiming it didn't work for him when he was just doing it all wrong. Yep, he has a grudge.