Free Agent Injuries - Scouting

[Pelican]

I'm in the current offseason, evaluating free agents. Joe Musgrove sustained what was reported as a rotator cuff injury on July 31, 2022. The injury prognosis says two months. That can't be right! We know it's 12-18 months. (I suspect the "two months" reference was to take him through the end of the season, which is really misleading.)

I requested an updated scouting report, and my head scout provided one, largely favorable, and no reference to the pending injury. What? Don't we think it might have been just a wee bit significant to note that the player won't pitch in 2023, and perhaps some comment on how the early rehab after surgery is going?

For me, this approaches "bug" status, as a torn rotator cuff clearly merits the 12-18 month out designation. Plus, the scout should anticipate the likely adjustment period during the first year back on the mound. Can we include medical history in scouting reports? Or do I need to send my trainer out to investigate? For free agency purposes, there ought not to be much of a market for Musgrove at this point. Does the AI take into account the injury? At the very least, I would structure any offer to minimize payment for 2023.

Have others experienced this issue with major injuries and scouting?

[Rain King]

There is a tab on the player's Profile that has their entire injury history.

Does it actually say "torn" rotator cuff? Can you screenshot how the injury is listed? Players can have rotator cuff injuries that are not a full tear and require surgery.


I do think injuries and scouting is something where the game is lacking a bit. It isn't really possible to "scout" someone when they are injured in real life. So, it is weird getting an updated scouting report (which in game-terms is just essentially a weighted guess at the player's ratings), but I don't think that is something I would label a bug.

[Pelican]

Here is the screenshot. Definitely torn rotator cuff.
Injury time two months.
And yeah, only found it because I was suspicious of the low number of starts, and consulted the Injury tab you referenced. Otherwise, I might have overlooked the issue.
I need pitching. I was going to make a generous offer to him. Whoops!

[BIG17EASY]

The injury time is actually seven months because the injury happened in July and he's due back in February. That said, seven is still too short. IRL, surgery for a torn rotator cuff is a 9-12 month recovery.

[Pelican]

Agreed on that last point. And wouldn't my scout, who just prepared the updated report in November, have wanted to mention that timing?

Now I'm wrestling with how OOTP might manage the rehab and return to play. Do you have any experience with that? Should I expect Musgrove will show up for Spring Training fully healed?

[Bluenoser]

Also note it doesn't say "injury time", it states "recovery time", which is telling you how long a player has to go until fully recovered, not how long the injury was for.

And yes, he'll be ready for ST in 2 months. Assuming your ST is 5 weeks, that will be sufficient rehab time.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Agreed on that last point. And wouldn't my scout, who just prepared the updated report in November, have wanted to mention that timing?

Now I'm wrestling with how OOTP might manage the rehab and return to play. Do you have any experience with that? Should I expect Musgrove will show up for Spring Training fully healed?

My best guess is it's just a limitation of the responses available for the scout to use. IE we don't get a report on a batter noting that last year was an "off year" statistically for Joe Baseball, I expect him to return to form".

The game expects me to look at Joe's stats, over his career, and how the scout rates his skills now to make my decision. In your case I think the game doesn't have an "injury category" to add to a report so, just expects that you will note the injury when you look at the player's card.

Could they add more "if\then's" to the scouting reports to give a more full picture? Sure, it would be a nice addition.

[Pelican]

Yeah, I probably don't understand it from a programming point of view. It's just that the first, second, and third consideration in paying a free agent a boatload of money over several years would be whether he will be physically able to play baseball or not, and when. Scouting is pointless if it can't somehow include that.

I take the point about researching past injury history through the tab provided. I routinely do that, and note the "red flags" for guys who just can't stay on the field.

One thing I like about contract offers is the ability to allocate a bonus tied to innings pitched, or games played in a season. That would seem fair in dealing with a dude coming back from rotator cuff surgery. But I sometimes wonder if the AI picks up on the bonus provisions, including for MVP or Cy Young or ASG.

There is also the useful ability to insert vesting provisions and team and player options. That can protect the team in future seasons, and/or the player's ability to opt out. Again, I hope that the AI is properly weighing these options in the deal.

[Rain King]

The injury information is freely available to you on the player's profile.

While, yes, it would be nice from an immersion stand-point if the information was included in the Scouting Report as well...you do have all of the injury information you need to make your decisions regarding your boatloads of money.

[BIG17EASY]

If anything, I think the argument could be made that we know a little too much about injuries to players not currently in our own organizations. Yes, major injuries and general timelines are often basically public knowledge thanks to media coverage, but it would probably be more realistic if we only saw a range of time for recovery time because our own training staff has not evaluated the player.

There could be ways to get better info, like asking a team for medicals on a player you might want to trade for. Or in the case of OP, asking the player or agent for medicals so you can judge whether or not he's worth signing. But I don't think having that information freely available for every player in the game is realistic.

[Rain King]

Yeah, it would be interesting to have to negotiate and sign a contract and then have your medical staff do a physical (perhaps injury proneness would be hidden until that exam) at which point you may occasionally find things you have grounds to void the contract on.

This also happens in trade negotiations where clubs will request medical records on players they are discussing.

Fun to think about, but not a top priority I wouldn't think. Really, this could be a piece of what needs to eventually be a reimagining of how training staffs and injury management works within the game.

[Pelican]

In this case IRL I would have asked to have Musgrove examined by an orthopedic surgeon of my choice, at my expense of course. And my doc of course would have needed access to the surgical records.

As it happens, Musgrove has signed with the expansion Charlotte Stingers, outbidding their fellow expansion team, the Buffalo Wings. We’re at at the start of Spring Training 2023, and he still comes up in red font, but only a few weeks from ready.

[PSUColonel]

This is my major scouting pet peeve lol:

Is there a reason the overall & potential needs to be in "real time"? I mean it changes all the time whether or not a player is even scouted. It happens when you change a players' position, or other players either come into or leave the league, or if you change scouts. I get that it needs to be done this way somewhat for the AI, but does it need to be this way for the human player? I know you can turn them off, but I don't feel that's accomplishing anything either, as I like them, but I just wish they were NOT always in real time.

Shouldn't it take a scouting trip to change these? They don't change (unless you actually scout them) on the scouting area of players' profiles, so why do we need to have them in real-time on the main player profile page. Is there a possible way to just not make this visible, and only display the scouted ratings from the last report?

It's just very frustrating to see that your scout last rated a player 35/35 overall in the scouting tab, but then go to the main profile screen to see a 30/30. I realize that 30/30 is the real rating, but why shouldn't I have to re-scout the player to figure this out? It just feels like none of it (the scouting system) matters. I realize the AI likely needs to be on top of things at all times, but the human doesn't, and shouldn't.

Like I said, it is easy enough to turn overall & potential ratings off, but I still feel they serve a good purpose and would really like to use them provided they are not constantly displayed in real-time to the human player.

[Pelican]

It sounds like you are getting into the “fog of war” discussion. The idea that TMI and peeping under the hood, so to speak, is not realistic, as compared to the sometimes fragmentary and inconsistent information a GM must sift through, in evaluating a player. One thing I’ve learned is that even the ratings are just a snapshot, an estimate in a way, subject to change, as you say. I don’t have a lot of long sims to understand how they change over time; but even within a year I see changes, and performances that are seemingly contrary to what scouting and ratings would suggest. Is that TCR? Whatever, it’s enough “fog of war’ and surprises and unpredictability for me.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Pelican

It sounds like you are getting into the “fog of war” discussion. The idea that TMI and peeping under the hood, so to speak, is not realistic, as compared to the sometimes fragmentary and inconsistent information a GM must sift through, in evaluating a player. One thing I’ve learned is that even the ratings are just a snapshot, an estimate in a way, subject to change, as you say. I don’t have a lot of long sims to understand how they change over time; but even within a year I see changes, and performances that are seemingly contrary to what scouting and ratings would suggest. Is that TCR? Whatever, it’s enough “fog of war’ and surprises and unpredictability for me.

Yes, I am simply looking for consistency, and I also don't want to see underneath the hood. Like I said, this makes sense for the AI perhaps..but why as humans are we being subject to the actual numbers? It just seems sloppy and not well put together to me. I can't understand why this would be a design decision?? (which clearly it is)

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This is my major scouting pet peeve lol:

Is there a reason the overall & potential needs to be in "real time"? I mean it changes all the time whether or not a player is even scouted. It happens when you change a players' position, or other players either come into or leave the league, or if you change scouts. I get that it needs to be done this way somewhat for the AI, but does it need to be this way for the human player? I know you can turn them off, but I don't feel that's accomplishing anything either, as I like them, but I just wish they were NOT always in real time.

Shouldn't it take a scouting trip to change these? They don't change (unless you actually scout them) on the scouting area of players' profiles, so why do we need to have them in real-time on the main player profile page. Is there a possible way to just not make this visible, and only display the scouted ratings from the last report?

It's just very frustrating to see that your scout last rated a player 35/35 overall in the scouting tab, but then go to the main profile screen to see a 30/30. I realize that 30/30 is the real rating, but why shouldn't I have to re-scout the player to figure this out? It just feels like none of it (the scouting system) matters. I realize the AI likely needs to be on top of things at all times, but the human doesn't, and shouldn't.

Like I said, it is easy enough to turn overall & potential ratings off, but I still feel they serve a good purpose and would really like to use them provided they are not constantly displayed in real-time to the human player.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but the ratings don't necessarily update if you haven't scouted a player.

I saw a player waived in a league the other day and reached out to another GM (who used to have the player) to ask them if there was anything I was missing or the player was underperforming their ratings (I think it was a reliever who was like 60/55/65 attributes). He told me I must not have a recent scout since the player had fallen off a cliff a couple months before, and sure enough after I sent my Scout on a scouting task he came back and told me the player was junk.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but the ratings don't necessarily update if you haven't scouted a player.

I saw a player waived in a league the other day and reached out to another GM (who used to have the player) to ask them if there was anything I was missing or the player was underperforming their ratings (I think it was a reliever who was like 60/55/65 attributes). He told me I must not have a recent scout since the player had fallen off a cliff a couple months before, and sure enough after I sent my Scout on a scouting task he came back and told me the player was junk.

Well, they don't in the scouting tab area of players' profiles (which is good) but on the front page, they seem to change in real time, even if the scouted position, and the players' actual position listed are the same. I know this happens sometimes when you say change a player from SS to 2B for example. the SS overall grade might be a 50 while the 2B rating might be a 55. In the scouting profile, the scouted position is/was at 2B, so it's listed as a 50...which is fine...but shouldn't I need to re-scout the player to determine how my scout would rate him at SS? If this isn't bad enough, at times the positions will match, yet the overall grade has changed in real-time likely due to factors inn the league such as other players on the grading curve have either moved into or out of the league. I myself have relative ratings off, and I also don't like the overall grades comparing players' to others of the same position. I have it setup so players are scouted independently of position comparison or relativity.

The problem I see, is that when you sort overall or overall potential ratings anywhere in the game, it uses the real-time driven ratings, and not the true scout grades. The fact it does this ALWAYS gives you the answer to what your scout thinks. Consequently, there is little incentive for you to re-scout players because you are looking (most likely) at the answer right there on the player profile page. To me, this is just not really realistic, and it takes a little of the scouting strategy away. (and believe me OOTP needs as much of this type of strategy as it can possibly muster mister)

Secondly it just doesn't feel right. (at least to me). It feels sloppy, and as though the system isn't functioning as well as it should. As I have said, I see the reason for it (the AI needs this to stay competitive) but I just don't see any reason the human should. I think the issue the development team might be having is the sorting part of the rating. I am not sure the game can keep track of that many different scouting ratings at many different scouted dates, and by how many different scouts.

So basically I am sure they could hide the real-time rating from the profile page, but then it wouldn't be possible to search or filter by overall & overall potential ratings. I could be wrong, but after years of testing the scouting model, this is my impression.

One thing that could help is perhaps if the developers gave us a smaller scouting scale for overall ratings and potential. I know the stars exist which are a 10 point scale...but I gotta tell you I just hate stars. I think it could help if they gave us a 2-8 scale for overall and potential. This way you wont't get the 35 in the report, with the displayed rating of 30. I think 2-8 would help cut down on this quite a bit...plus it would also add a bit more fog of war. So you wouldn't need to turn the feature off, as I know many people do because they feel the overall ratings are a bit screwy.