Scouting Inaccuracy in Inaugural draft?

[MidnightPyro]

I don't mind a degree of inaccuracy in the inaugural draft, but I think someone clubbed my scouting director with a tire iron before the draft, because most of it was waaay off. Maybe there's a better way to do an inaugural draft, but I think I'm going to play with scouting off in my fictional leagues (at least for awhile, anyway).

[MidnightPyro]

Not to deviate from the subject too much, but I think the other thing that really annoys me about innaugural drafts is how your team market size is based on the quality of players you initially draft. Because I went after some older players, my market size was 'Astronomical'. I edited it down a bit, but still...

[deadringer]

Originally Posted by Erik W.

I actually love the scouting inaccuracies. Because the scouting system sucked 2006-v8 (sorry, Markus) I left them off, but anytime I started a fictional league with an inaugural draft I was guaranteed an immediate dynasty because my drafting was so superior to the AI.

Now that scouting no longer sucks (yay Markus!) and I leave it on, it's a much more even playing field. "Oh, you know that 5-gold-star 22 year old 5-tool CF you drafted? Yeah, missed the mark on that one. He's a'ight."

What scares me is, is the AI using the same scouting system as human players? If it is then things are not only not on a level playing field but the AI is now handicapped even further, especially if you have the AI weights set to favor ratings.

Scouting inaccuracies definitely make things interesting but what I'm seeing is that the OSA is more accurate than poorly paid scouts often.

[ScottPoseSnag]

I think I'm somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of opinion. I like the new scouting system, especially the ability to prioritize your areas of focus, but I have found that sometimes the inaccuracies are flabbergasting, and not just in the initial inaugural draft. Perhaps a patch will find a nice middle ground.

The one thing that does bother me is that the computer seems to "see through" the scouting inequities. In my current test league, a guy who's real ratings clearly made him the best hitter in the draft was rated by my scout (highest possible ratings, 10million scouting budget, 41% amateur scouting) as a 4.5 star player. Not such a bad thing right? I'd agree. Scouts sometimes are a bit off on players. So far, so good......

The computer then drafted the stud #1 overall, right where he should go. BUT I switched to a human manager for that team to see how they had him rated, their scout I think was above average across the board, but their budget was tiny, 1,000,000 for scouting, and they had him rated as a 3 star player. yet they took him first overall. THAT ticked me off. the AI saw right through their own crappy scouting and picked the best player available. I wonder if this has been seen by anyone else.

[sayhey]

I found this thread the most relevant to my own feelings regarding OOTP 9. Long time player who has loved every version of the game and lost many happy hours to it. Give Markus a world of credit for creating a remarkable, immersive text sim game, which is no easy feat.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o> </o>
Perhaps that's why the fall is so hard for me with this latest release, all related to scouting. I've always played with scouting on and never imagined doing without. Also I always did fictional leagues with inaugural drafts. Much of the fun for me came from stitching together a cohesive team from imperfect data but one which I could minimize the risk in the data by "quick" scouting using multiple scouts. Admittedly in OOTP 8 it got a little too easy, so I was looking for OOTP 9 improve the AI and make it more challenging for me to find the edge.<o></o>
<o> </o>
Instead it's now a game (at least the way I play) in which it's all luck and no strategy in the inaugural draft. I really became suspicious when my top rated pitcher, which I drafted with my second pick, immediately went 0-10 for the season with an ERA of 5.23. I'm a Giants fan and all by I wasn't really looking to recreate Barry Zito with this game.<o></o>
<o> </o>
Sure enough, I turned off scouting per the suggestions in this thread and my "all blue" pitcher was in reality "all yellow". My Scouting Director has a high rating for Major League scouting, I doubled the scouting budget immediately after the draft, had him rescout the guy, with the same bad scouting result.<o></o>
<o> </o>
At least before I could get second and third opinions when I knew one guy was off. Now I'm totally dependent on one schlep, with way-off results (or cheating for the computer as mentioned?) with no alternatives. Where's the strategy in that?<o></o>
<o> </o>
Micromanaging scouts before wasn't particularly fun but their usefulness (multiple, "on-the-spot" updated opinions) was.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

The players in the initial draft have no real experience so there's not much for the scouts to base their ratings on other than the fuzzy ratings they get.

Which is completely incorrect except with perhaps rookie players and rookie scouts. Most players and scouts enter the initial draft already experienced. It should be reflected in the scouts league knowledge.

[Tullius]

As of now it seems as though the Inaugural draft would be a complete crap shoot and basically based entirely on luck. I like to use scouts in the inaugural draft (Due to some variability in ratings, the scouts preferences in players, and so on), but it seems that using scouts for the inaugural draft in the current system would be pretty much impossible.

Sorry, i disagree. Your approach is false. When you were right every first round pick in the MLB would be a superstar and inducted in the HoF.

The fact is (esp. for the inaugural draft) that you will have almost no realiable hard facts and even when a player has been scouted the scout will have seen only some games games (or innings) of a player so that reports have to be inaccurate by a wide margin. That`s life.

The challenge is to deal with these limits.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by bababui

Which is completely incorrect except with perhaps rookie players and rookie scouts. Most players and scouts enter the initial draft already experienced. It should be reflected in the scouts league knowledge.

Really? And I'm sure you have a history of all the inaugural drafts conducted throughout MLB history that would back that up?

Not to be too hard on the newbs, but an awful lot of this sounds like "this game is harder than it used to be and therefore it sux". No offense.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Tullius

Sorry, i disagree. Your approach is false. When you were right every first round pick in the MLB would be a superstar and inducted in the HoF.

The fact is (esp. for the inaugural draft) that you will have almost no realiable hard facts and even when a player has been scouted the scout will have seen only some games games (or innings) of a player so that reports have to be inaccurate by a wide margin. That`s life.

The challenge is to deal with these limits.

Even if the AI is seeing through these scouting errors? I can see your points, but if the computer run teams are "cheating", then it would make me want to turn scouts off.

Originally Posted by ScottPoseSnag

The one thing that does bother me is that the computer seems to "see through" the scouting inequities. In my current test league, a guy who's real ratings clearly made him the best hitter in the draft was rated by my scout (highest possible ratings, 10million scouting budget, 41% amateur scouting) as a 4.5 star player. Not such a bad thing right? I'd agree. Scouts sometimes are a bit off on players. So far, so good......

The computer then drafted the stud #1 overall, right where he should go. BUT I switched to a human manager for that team to see how they had him rated, their scout I think was above average across the board, but their budget was tiny, 1,000,000 for scouting, and they had him rated as a 3 star player. yet they took him first overall. THAT ticked me off. the AI saw right through their own crappy scouting and picked the best player available. I wonder if this has been seen by anyone else.

[Tullius]

Even if the AI is seeing through these scouting errors? I can see your points, but if the computer run teams are "cheating", then it would make me want to turn scouts off.

OK, when this true then the AI has an advantage und this would be "cheating". But even in this case i will use scouts (my personal opinion).

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Really? And I'm sure you have a history of all the inaugural drafts conducted throughout MLB history that would back that up?

Not to be too hard on the newbs, but an awful lot of this sounds like "this game is harder than it used to be and therefore it sux". No offense.

It isnt a real inaugural draft. Players have histories with the teams. (Most) scouts have years of experience. I dont mind the game being hard, but the logic behind 'the scouts dont know the players' logic is faulty.

[abirkin]

The problem with the scouting system is straightforward. There should be inaccuracy based on future projection of prospects and any other player but their current ability should be pretty much spot on. Any scout can rate a hitters current power but the difficulty is projecting how that power will develop.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by abirkin

The problem with the scouting system is straightforward. There should be inaccuracy based on future projection of prospects and any other player but their current ability should be pretty much spot on. Any scout can rate a hitters current power but the difficulty is projecting how that power will develop.

I agree with alot of this post. Thats what I have been trying to say but couldnt really get it out. A players current ratings should be pretty solid. A scout would see what a player is doing, and can scout that. Potential ratings are where there should be a wide fluctuation between scouts. Everyone knows who the best players are, but who will be the best players next year? Only a good scout has an idea.

[lahoward]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Really? And I'm sure you have a history of all the inaugural drafts conducted throughout MLB history that would back that up?

Not to be too hard on the newbs, but an awful lot of this sounds like "this game is harder than it used to be and therefore it sux". No offense.

so these guys have to be newbs because they have problems with the new scouting process. love the maturity level in here.

[deadringer]

Originally Posted by abirkin

The problem with the scouting system is straightforward. There should be inaccuracy based on future projection of prospects and any other player but their current ability should be pretty much spot on. Any scout can rate a hitters current power but the difficulty is projecting how that power will develop.

Wow, that's exactly what I've been thinking right there.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by lahoward

so these guys have to be newbs because they have problems with the new scouting process. love the maturity level in here.

No, that's not what I said. However, they're new *and* they have issues with the scouting process not being able to do things it wasn't made to do.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by bababui

It isnt a real inaugural draft. Players have histories with the teams. (Most) scouts have years of experience. I dont mind the game being hard, but the logic behind 'the scouts dont know the players' logic is faulty.

There's a simple fix for this: sim a few years and then conduct your inaugural draft. If you just open a league and do it that way, you're telling the AI that there is *no* history. I understand the points being made here, but I think you all are asking for the game to do something it actually probably shouldn't be doing. If you are in this instance doing the equivalent of starting the National Association in 1871 (which didn't kick in with an inaugural draft either), you have a "scouting department" that might know a bit about the guys in Boston because they were members of the original Reds but next to nothing about the farmboys who made up the Keokuk and Middletown teams. It's entirely realistic for the scouts to have way-off ratings with those people.

I'll go back to my original point: if you want the scouts to be accurate in scouting "veterans" (who, at the beginning of leagues are not vets, just older ballplayers), sim a few years, kick everybody out to a common draft pool, and then after the draft delete the history if you don't want to see that stuff. It might take an extra few minutes to sim, but a. not that long, and b. if you don't want to do this at all you can use one of the quickstarts.

[RonCo]

OOTP scouts appear far too accurate.

While trying to understand the OOTP development engine, I routinely test the make-up of Hall of Fame--meaning I run a bunch of years, then examine what round of draft the Hall of Fame members come from. I then compare this to the MLB. I have always tended to get way more first-round picks in my OOTP HoF (~60%) than I should (~ 30%). I've figured this is because I have less error due to the fact that I play with no scouts almost all the time. I decided to run a long league with scouts enabled and compare the results.

What I get makes me scratch my head:

1) No statistically significant difference exists in a HoF with scouts and one without. So scouts find great players at the same rate as No Scouts. Mike Piazza (to quote the ususal suspect) in OOTP is a result of the development engine, not a scouting miss. Personally, I think this is not good.
2) Exceptional players in OOTP continue to come from the first round far too often, regardless of whether scouts are used or not.
3) Markus has consistenly suggested he sees talent changes as mixed with the actual process of physical development. I wonder if "Scouts Off" is really "Scouts off."

Data:

MLB - Only 19 players have been inducted in the MLB HoF that came through the draft, so that sample size is a little small. Some error could exist in it.
OOTPv7 No Scouts - Not 100% certain which league this came from, but I routinely run 60-80 seasons at least. I had 52 players in thie HoF
OOTPv9 No Scouts - Sum of two separate 60-year leagues, 114 Players in HoF
OOTPv9 Scouts - 150 year league, 262 players in HoF

I admit I've been intrigued with the idea of scouts in OOTP since the first day I found the program, and I waited this release with interest since I had some idea of what was coming. But at present I'm still not getting a good vibe from them, and I'm figuring the feature will once again remain turned off during my personal gaming experience. Still more work to do, though.

[Charley575]

Just to weigh in, I think the inaugural draft situation stinks. I can appreciate the desire to have imperfect scouting where there is little history as reference, but this is too much. It's like the ratings are coming out of a random number generator. See, I wouldn't mind if a scout's ratings where "slightly inflated" or "slightly deflated", so as to indicate that said scout had some idea, but was a little optimistic or pessimistic (sp?), or whatever. But not this. This is just random numbers. Also, if it is true that the AI is not similarly handicapped by this "feature", then this is a mortal sin.

Also, let's not confuse "Inaugural Drafts" with "Amateur Drafts". RonCo, your point is well taken, but I believe you are discussing the results of "Amateur Drafts" in OOTP and MLB, not inaugurals. Not to single you out, because there are many others in this thread whose arguements I felt were more appropriate for amateur draft discussions, but yours is the most recent example.

Personally, all I want to do with an Inuagural Draft is get things started. I like to build a foundation of a team following my preferred philosophy that I can build upon later. I like to use scouts because I like the additional challenge that comes with REASONABLE scouting inaccuracies. This is not reasonable.

Oh, yeah. I still hate the fact that player contracts are assigned after the draft and team financials are rigged to match these initial fianancial realities.
Thank you.
....and I'm spent.

[Mittal]

Originally Posted by Charley575

Just to weigh in, I think the inaugural draft situation stinks. I can appreciate the desire to have imperfect scouting where there is little history as reference, but this is too much. It's like the ratings are coming out of a random number generator. See, I wouldn't mind if a scout's ratings where "slightly inflated" or "slightly deflated", so as to indicate that said scout had some idea, but was a little optimistic or pessimistic (sp?), or whatever. But not this. This is just random numbers. Also, if it is true that the AI is not similarly handicapped by this "feature", then this is a mortal sin.

Also, let's not confuse "Inaugural Drafts" with "Amateur Drafts". RonCo, your point is well taken, but I believe you are discussing the results of "Amateur Drafts" in OOTP and MLB, not inaugurals. Not to single you out, because there are many others in this thread whose arguements I felt were more appropriate for amateur draft discussions, but yours is the most recent example.

Personally, all I want to do with an Inuagural Draft is get things started. I like to build a foundation of a team following my preferred philosophy that I can build upon later. I like to use scouts because I like the additional challenge that comes with REASONABLE scouting inaccuracies. This is not reasonable.

Oh, yeah. I still hate the fact that player contracts are assigned after the draft and team financials are rigged to match these initial fianancial realities.
Thank you.
....and I'm spent.

This post pretty much sums the entire issue up. I truly hope this issue will at least be considered and looked at when making patches in the future.

Also Syd Thrift, I don't understand your little new players stunt. Just because someone just recently registered on the forums makes their opinion less valid or something? Why not discuss the issue at hand rather than making completely irrelevant statements. Also, the point here is not that the scouting system should do things it was not made to do, I do not know what the scouting system was made to do. The point is there are certain people that believe the scouting system should be made to do something else, and those people are posting valid arguments as to why.