Scouting

[redtiger7]

Why is there such a disparency between central scouting and my own scouting staff? It seems that high rated players are always giving a star or two lower ratings by my own staff evaluations, despite having excellent scouting stats.

[Adam B]

Originally Posted by redtiger7

Why is there such a disparency between central scouting and my own scouting staff? It seems that high rated players are always giving a star or two lower ratings by my own staff evaluations, despite having excellent scouting stats.

Central Scouting doesn't always get it right. Nor does your Scout staff. Sometimes it conflicts. Usually trust your scouts though.

[redtiger7]

I understand that. But it seems to happen A LOT! Usually it's the norm rather than the occasional

[Adam B]

Originally Posted by redtiger7

I understand that. But it seems to happen A LOT! Usually it's the norm rather than the occasional

But that's exact how it really does work. Teams always value their own scouts over what someone else tells them. If Central Scouting was always correct, then there would never be a bust in the draft. We'd never see a 3rd rounder who becomes a perennial all-star or an undrafted player who has a huge impact.

Central Scouting gives you a baseline, but trust your own scouts.

[geisterhome]

the thing is tho that your own scouts value your players a half to one star lower. Almost in all instances. why is that?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G955F mit Tapatalk

[redtiger7]

Central Scouting seems to have some pretty awful scouts

[JeffR]

Originally Posted by geisterhome

the thing is tho that your own scouts value your players a half to one star lower. Almost in all instances. why is that?

With real players at the start, most of the errors in the general consensus about the players tend to be in the direction of over-estimating their talent. Once generated players take over, there'll be more equality between over- and under-estimates and you'll see your scouts valuing more players above the generic rating.

I've been thinking that we should maybe add an option to randomize all the errors at the start. It'll make the first few drafts look a little less realistic, but it'll make early scouting a little more unpredictable.

[redtiger7]

Originally Posted by JeffR

Once generated players take over, there'll be more equality between over- and under-estimates and you'll see your scouts valuing more players above the generic rating.

I have never seen that

[MikeMontrealer]

Originally Posted by redtiger7

I have never seen that

I'm in 2033 and while at times my scouts match the consensus or general scouting I've never seen them rate someone higher. And my scouts are all excellent.

[JeffR]

Might be a display problem with the central scouting and/or consensus charts. We'll have a look.

[geisterhome]

Originally Posted by JeffR

With real players at the start, most of the errors in the general consensus about the players tend to be in the direction of over-estimating their talent. Once generated players take over, there'll be more equality between over- and under-estimates and you'll see your scouts valuing more players above the generic rating.

I've been thinking that we should maybe add an option to randomize all the errors at the start. It'll make the first few drafts look a little less realistic, but it'll make early scouting a little more unpredictable.

How does the scouting accuracy of the players in my organization shape up against players from other teams which are scouted to the A level, is it the same or less accurate?

[JeffR]

Effectively the same in most cases unless you had a big skill disparity in your scouts and the players on other teams were scouted by the worst ones. The major difference is that the scouting level will never deteriorate - you don't need to maintain A-level on your own players, where you do on the external ones.