OOTP 21 Scouting Model

[PSUColonel]

Is there any chance of changing this, or this this something which will have to be revisited for next year?

[bertha]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I use very low accuracy settings and i don’t think the scouting is useless. I’m assuming anything other than very low or even low setting in scouting accuracy, it becomes easy.

On very low settings with a player having a very high accuracy level, the reports are still inaccurate compared to 100% accuracy settings.

Ability scouts are more conservative with their ratings vs Tool scouts who are liberal and would tend to give higher ratings which a player might never reach especially if you are playing at a extreme TCR level.

I agree FM is just a different sport when it comes to scouting, teams literally scout the world for unknown players and even use the game’s database itself to find some hidden gems. In baseball, the top prospects are already known to the world. These days there aren’t really any hidden players. Players from the Caribbean are playing in showcase leagues at the age of 14.

Some Japan teams have their own Dominican academies as well.

Overall the written reports are miles better than the previous incarnations, but I would like to definitely see more information maybe even a player comparison or two.


I’d suggest if scouting decay (accuracy dropping a level) stays, it should be limited to players outside of your 40 man roster (or secondary roster)

very nice

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I use very low accuracy settings and i don’t think the scouting is useless.

I think they're completely useless if what you want is for scouting to interject a level of "fog of war" between you and the actual ratings. They do so to some degree for younger players but not even a little bit for older ones.

On very low settings with a player having a very high accuracy level, the reports are still inaccurate compared to 100% accuracy settings.

Not even remotely true for veterans. Anyone who has been in the league for more than 3-4 years will have 100% accurate ratings, to the extent that you will know the very same month exactly when their ratings dip.

I agree FM is just a different sport when it comes to scouting, teams literally scout the world for unknown players and even use the game’s database itself to find some hidden gems. In baseball, the top prospects are already known to the world. These days there aren’t really any hidden players. Players from the Caribbean are playing in showcase leagues at the age of 14.

That's a. not necessarily the case when you're talking about 16 year olds - even those Caribbean kids are pretty well unknown - and b. not at all the issue. FM has ratings which grade a player's individual abilities to run down the field, knock headers into the goal, shoot corners, and do a whole bunch of other things that are not reflected directly in the statistics the leagues around the world keep (although this is beginning to change). In OOTP all of the ratings, with I guess the exception of the mental ones (which are randomized anyway), are based on actual stats.

Overall the written reports are miles better than the previous incarnations, but I would like to definitely see more information maybe even a player comparison or two.

That would be nice. It would be nicer if scouting actually did what it's supposed to do.

[polydamas]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

How it works is actually pretty close to what was described above. Basically the accuracy listed is a combination of both the scouting error plus the age of the report.

Admittedly it is a little gamey, but I view that more as a proxy since you don't directly chat with your scouting director or know how much time they actually spent scouting the player. I like having a quick summary so you don't have to mentally check back on the scouting history, check how many reports have been filed on the player in the past year, count off in your head how long it's been since this report, etc...

But certainly happy to get feedback on the system from anyone. Please do share

Maybe a rebrand?



Very High- Very Recent

High- Recent

Normal- Normal? Typical? Average? Acceptable? Somewhat recent?

Low- Dated

Very Low- Very Dated


Not really sure what normal would become or if you even need to change it. You could even simply leave it out and have its range absorbed by the others.

[ALB123]

What type of information do people glean from the written report that you can't infer from the numeric or even stars overall ratings? If I'm looking at a 4 star SP, I don't need my Scout to tell me he'd make a good middle to top of the rotation starter. If I'm looking at R or R+ level kids and I see 3 Star potential for a 3B, I don't need a written report to tell me that at full maturity he'll either be a starter on an MLB team or play a bench role at worst.

Or am I missing something? I know this is just one example, but I can't tell you how much one of my pitcher's ratings blows my mind. I feel he is well underrated. This guy improved tremendously after lingering in A+ ball. I'm glad I didn't give up on him. He's a 35 rating Pitcher who briefly touched 3 stars one month in his career last season. Then he went right back to 2.5/2.5 - but look at his stats closely. My Scout says he could "fill a setup role with confidence".

1988: 21-3 (ERA ~2.30 & 11 CG)
1989: 17-0 (ERA ~2.50 & 7 CG)
1990: 4-0 (ERA 0.75) All 4 starts are complete games. It's May 1st, 1990. Very early in Season.

How is he only a 2.5 SP with a 35 Rating? Yes, I know the last 3 seasons aren't MLB level, but come on...He's had a lot of no-decisions, but with ERAs he's posting, probably 90% of them aren't his fault. Oh yeah, and before anyone asks, I did not use the Editor to make his stats look better. I don't use the Editor.

The only reason I haven't put him in the Bigs yet is because I have some big name, well paid SPs, although I will be moving him up very soon.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I think they're completely useless if what you want is for scouting to interject a level of "fog of war" between you and the actual ratings. They do so to some degree for younger players but not even a little bit for older ones.

I’m all for fog of war but one could argue that vets shouldn’t be too far off.

Not even remotely true for veterans. Anyone who has been in the league for more than 3-4 years will have 100% accurate ratings, to the extent that you will know the very same month exactly when their ratings dip.

You should also test, with very low accuracy setting, a player with very high scouting accuracy will not be spot on compared to his ratings when changed to 100% accuracy. Experience and scout plays a role here but it’s usually not 100% spot on even if a single rating is off by just 1

That's a. not necessarily the case when you're talking about 16 year olds - even those Caribbean kids are pretty well unknown - and b. not at all the issue. FM has ratings which grade a player's individual abilities to run down the field, knock headers into the goal, shoot corners, and do a whole bunch of other things that are not reflected directly in the statistics the leagues around the world keep (although this is beginning to change). In OOTP all of the ratings, with I guess the exception of the mental ones (which are randomized anyway), are based on actual stats.

Its 2020, scouts aren’t going into rural Caribbean countries finding unknown talent. The best talent is already curated fir them in Dominican leagues before they are signed to MLB teams. Not to mention that some of those players are already signed to LMB teams

That would be nice. It would be nicer if scouting actually did what it's supposed to do.

Replies in bold

[Syd Thrift]

No, you’re not reading what I’m saying. I’m not saying that vets shouldn’t be “too far off”, I’m saying that the moment a vet’s Power or whatever falls, you will know about it with 100% accuracy. The new system means that sometimes for players on other teams it might take an extra month to hear about it. That’s.... fine, I guess, although I’d prefer scouts to stick to their original opinions for longer. However, what’s unchanged, and what breaks scouting, is that there is literally *never* a situation where a scout says “I think Mattingly is losing it” that turns out to be untrue. Literally never. It doesn’t happen and the way the scouting system is set up it can’t happen. If you’re playing with a high TCR setting, it is also *never* the case that a scout says “wow, Dwight Gooden really put his Control together” where *that* turns out to be untrue. Again, it’s literally impossible for this to happen, even on the lowest accuracy setting.

There is no fog of war with scouting when it comes to veterans for that reason, and so it’s useless. Just use the real ratings if you’re not going to play stats only.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

No, you’re not reading what I’m saying. I’m not saying that vets shouldn’t be “too far off”, I’m saying that the moment a vet’s Power or whatever falls, you will know about it with 100% accuracy. The new system means that sometimes for players on other teams it might take an extra month to hear about it. That’s.... fine, I guess, although I’d prefer scouts to stick to their original opinions for longer. However, what’s unchanged, and what breaks scouting, is that there is literally *never* a situation where a scout says “I think Mattingly is losing it” that turns out to be untrue. Literally never. It doesn’t happen and the way the scouting system is set up it can’t happen. If you’re playing with a high TCR setting, it is also *never* the case that a scout says “wow, Dwight Gooden really put his Control together” where *that* turns out to be untrue. Again, it’s literally impossible for this to happen, even on the lowest accuracy setting.

There is no fog of war with scouting when it comes to veterans for that reason, and so it’s useless. Just use the real ratings if you’re not going to play stats only.

Have you used scouting incorporate stats?

[Syd Thrift]

That just has the reports say stuff like “player X could hit .290”.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

That just has the reports say stuff like “player X could hit .290”.

That’s always been in the game. This new setting actually does exactly what you want scouting to do for vets. Scouts (also depending how much weight you give to stats in AI eval) will take stats into consideration when it scouts players. A vet who is underperforming may have his contact rating lower than what it actually is. Vice versa with an over performing player...Adding to the fog.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

That’s always been in the game. This new setting actually does exactly what you want scouting to do for vets. Scouts (also depending how much weight you give to stats in AI eval) will take stats into consideration when it scouts players. A vet who is underperforming may have his contact rating lower than what it actually is. Vice versa with an over performing player...Adding to the fog.

OK, I had that checked from the beginning of my save in XXI because I like stats and... there are still no type 2 errors. If that's what that is supposed to add, it flat out does not.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

OK, I had that checked from the beginning of my save in XXI because I like stats and... there are still no type 2 errors. If that's what that is supposed to add, it flat out does not.

Works for me, but our setup might be completely different.

[Syd Thrift]

Do you have screenshots of the type 2 errors you’ve seen?

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Do you have screenshots of the type 2 errors you’ve seen?

I’ll post over the weekend.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Do you have screenshots of the type 2 errors you’ve seen?

AI EVAL = 100% Current Year for testing purpose.

100% Accuracy

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

AI EVAL = 100% Current Year for testing purpose.

100% Accuracy

Very Low Accuracy, incorporated stats off.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

AI EVAL = 100% Current Year for testing purpose.

100% Accuracy

Very Low Accuracy, Incorporated stats on.

[OmahaReynolds]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

There is no fog of war with scouting when it comes to veterans for that reason, and so it’s useless. Just use the real ratings if you’re not going to play stats only.

I think if you go with a 2-8 scale with low scouting accuracy you should still get some good fog of war. A 5 contact rating can mean a pretty big range of batting averages so if that veteran takes a dip he could still show up as a 5.

I agree with your point. Since scouts gather their opinions from watching players perform, the game should model it that so talent changes aren't reflected in scouting reports until a certain number of at-bats or pitches/inning after the talent change took place.

[jimmysthebestcop]

They were all basically the same ratings or is it just me?

[Syd Thrift]

Yeah, I didn’t see anything in there. There was apparently a rounding error with stars but I sure didn’t see the kind of one-time (or, ideally, extended) sudden jump or dive in CON, POW, or EYE that I’d expect with a type 2 error...