No good pitchers in Draft

[Lukas Berger]

What this is, is that of now scouts that are neutral or lean toward favoring ability will tend to be more pessimistic about pitchers than those that favor tools.

If you switch to a scout that favors tools, you'll probably see more of the kind of spread you're looking for.

To some extent that's intended, but it does seem that they're a leaning a little too far in the 'no one's good' direction for now. Tweaking this so that they're a little less pessimistic, is already on our list of things to look at for the future.

[Ile]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

What this is, is that of now scouts that are neutral or lean toward favoring ability will tend to be more pessimistic about pitchers than those that favor tools.

If you switch to a scout that favors tools, you'll probably see more of the kind of spread you're looking for.

To some extent that's intended, but it does seem that they're a leaning a little too far in the 'no one's good' direction for now. Tweaking this so that they're a little less pessimistic, is already on our list of things to look at for the future.

Okay, just to make sure I make myself clear I'll post 2 more screenshots. Maybe I'm being too messy with all my edits.

2037: 100% Accuracy. Filter, SPs, >= 3* Potential, Age < 23



2037: Normal [OSA], Same filter

[Ile]

About scouts that favor tools then, this is from my latest try to start a new save, currently at year 2028.

My scout is Legendary/Legendary/Outstanding/Outstanding, with Highly Favor Tools and a 24M$ budget allocated at 5/20/55/20 Majors/Minors/Amateur/International

This is what he thinks of that save's Starting Pitching talent. Again, filter is Age < 23, Starting Pitchers, Potential Rating >= 3. Notice the stuff potentials!

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Ile

This is what he thinks of that save's Starting Pitching talent. Again, filter is Age < 23, Starting Pitchers, Potential Rating >= 3. Notice the stuff potentials!

Thanks for the additional info. We'll definitely take a closer look here and make some tweaks to get the scouts seeing the players as better.

[Cluboris]

Originally Posted by Ile

About scouts that favor tools then, this is from my latest try to start a new save, currently at year 2028.

My scout is Legendary/Legendary/Outstanding/Outstanding, with Highly Favor Tools and a 24M$ budget allocated at 5/20/55/20 Majors/Minors/Amateur/International

This is what he thinks of that save's Starting Pitching talent. Again, filter is Age < 23, Starting Pitchers, Potential Rating >= 3. Notice the stuff potentials!

My testing was with the same type of scout. Highly favored tools, I forget what the scout ratings were exactly but they were all blue.

[Ile]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Thanks for the additional info. We'll definitely take a closer look here and make some tweaks to get the scouts seeing the players as better.

Thank you!

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by coopsssi

I noticed the same thing, but for me it’s down to his the scouts rate stuff and individual pitches. The draft themselves are fine but no matter the scout see most as max 60 stuff and each individual pitch potential being only like 70 max. Makes it really hard to select any pitcher knowing that and doesn’t seem to really fix itself till they are in AAA or MLB

I hate to tell you, but this is how it really works…this is great realism!!

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Thanks for the additional info. We'll definitely take a closer look here and make some tweaks to get the scouts seeing the players as better.

I hope not at the cost of realism…like You indicated Lucas…he may need different scouts. Please don’t make this artificially gamey so some people feel better about drafts.

This was done at one point years ago (at Markus’ request) and it was awful.

[BarneyRubble]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I hope not at the cost of realism…like You indicated Lucas…he may need different scouts. Please don’t make this artificially gamey so some people feel better about drafts.

This was done at one point years ago (at Markus’ request) and it was awful.

^^This^^ x1000

[PSUColonel]

It's supposed to be a crapshoot....that's what the MLB draft is!! Please do NOT change this to appease those who aren't necessarily interested in hardcore realism...there are other baseball "games" for that....this is a "simulator".

[MathBandit]

Agree 100%. Similar to the other thread where people seemed surprised that there weren't multiple can't-miss prospects in every draft whose median result is turning into an MLB All-Star.

[Cluboris]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It's supposed to be a crapshoot....that's what the MLB draft is!! Please do NOT change this to appease those who aren't necessarily interested in hardcore realism...there are other baseball "games" for that....this is a "simulator".

I'd respectfully disagree on this point. I want a scout with a legendary rating to not show every prospect as having 30-45 stuff, 2 1/2 star potential ability. Of course, he should get some guys wrong either way, but it shouldn't be showing a 19 year old kid throwing 99-101 with plus fastball and 2 other pitches that may develop with 30-40 overall potential. I would say that would be the opposite of a realistic assessment from a scout that favors tools heavily.

If you want to make it harder on yourself to find those kinds of guys until later on in their development, that should be what the "low" rating is for when it comes to scouting accuracy.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Cluboris

I'd respectfully disagree on this point. I want a scout with a legendary rating to not show every prospect as having 30-45 stuff, 2 1/2 star potential ability. Of course, he should get some guys wrong either way, but it shouldn't be showing a 19 year old kid throwing 99-101 with plus fastball and 2 other pitches that may develop with 30-40 overall potential. I would say that would be the opposite of a realistic assessment from a scout that favors tools heavily.

If you want to make it harder on yourself to find those kinds of guys until later on in their development, that should be what the "low" rating is for when it comes to scouting accuracy.

If your scout is instead rating that guy a 60+ on 20-80, then he's telling you the average result for that 19-year old in the draft is to be better than Carlos Correa. As in, just as likely he exceeds that as there is that he ends up being worse than that.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Cluboris

I'd respectfully disagree on this point. I want a scout with a legendary rating to not show every prospect as having 30-45 stuff, 2 1/2 star potential ability. Of course, he should get some guys wrong either way, but it shouldn't be showing a 19 year old kid throwing 99-101 with plus fastball and 2 other pitches that may develop with 30-40 overall potential. I would say that would be the opposite of a realistic assessment from a scout that favors tools heavily.

If you want to make it harder on yourself to find those kinds of guys until later on in their development, that should be what the "low" rating is for when it comes to scouting accuracy.

I can see your point here, but at most, a scout would likely never grade a pitcher higher than a 55 overall. It's just the way scouts' operate. They don't usually (if ever) hand out grades above 65....and I would say a 65 is reserved for elite prospects....not the kind you will find in any draft year to year.

[andyhdz]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It's supposed to be a crapshoot....that's what the MLB draft is!! Please do NOT change this to appease those who aren't necessarily interested in hardcore realism...there are other baseball "games" for that....this is a "simulator".

I want to clarify something with you. The batter ratings are not low, so is that the way it's supposed to be? High batter prospect ratings and low pitcher prospect ratings? If not then it should be either all prospects are "blurred" until they are developed or all are "normalized" to what we see for all players.

[Ile]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I can see your point here, but at most, a scout would likely never grade a pitcher higher than a 55 overall. It's just the way scouts' operate. They don't usually (if ever) hand out grades above 65....and I would say a 65 is reserved for elite prospects....not the kind you will find in any draft year to year.

That's fair, and I was honestly not aware of the change you mention. But isn't this also true for batters then? Looking at fangraphs top 100 for instance, only Rutschmann is listed at 70. Highest SP is Rodriguez at 65.

In my latest save (summer 2028), highest SP is rated at 60 (which I absolutely concede is much more realistic then). However, my scout has 10 batters at 80, 3 at 75, 11 at 70 before we get down to 65.

That creates an illusion of a bug (which it also was, to begin with).


I don't mind going back to earlier versions and staying there to be honest, I was just convinced it was a bug due to the earlier stuff rating bug and no visible changes after the patch.

Edit: Or having batter's reports work the same as pitchers. But the way it is now is pretty confusing.
Edit2: I don't know why I suggested going back to earlier versions, I can just adjust to this now that I know! However, I do think batter reports should also be toned down then. As it is now, it feels pretty confusing

[Cluboris]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

If your scout is instead rating that guy a 60+ on 20-80, then he's telling you the average result for that 19-year old in the draft is to be better than Carlos Correa. As in, just as likely he exceeds that as there is that he ends up being worse than that.

You make a great point, and I am not arguing that. As others have mentioned, batters seem to be rated much higher than pitchers, and it appears to be a "stuff" issue. If everyone is a 50 prospect at that age, shouldn't batters be as well?

For me personally, I don't want to play in such a hyper-realistic way. I do like to pour over the draft and choose guys who I think will pan out, but I don't want every pitcher in the draft to be rated the same. I want the first-rounders to stand out a little more. For the pure realism folks maybe that doesn't work, and I understand that.

I don't want 100 superstar pitchers in every draft. That's not my point. I guess I am just being selfish and liked the way it worked in the last few versions, where if I hired an amazing scout, some guys would be rated as having that chance of blossoming later on. Some drafts have none of those guys, and I get that those kinds of players are generational. But if you sim years into the future or just create a bunch of guys from scratch, none of them ever are scouted (initially) as having stuff that may one day turn that pitcher into Nolan Ryan, or even a capable closer. That, to me, feels off.

[PSUColonel]

I hate to say it, but if I know Markus, he's going to come in and say "split the difference" LOL

[KBLover]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I hate to tell you, but this is how it really works…this is great realism!!

Yeah - I mean 60 is solidly above average for the ML level.

So protecting to that is not bad at all.

Means he's got potentially 10 K/9 type stuff.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by KBLover

Yeah - I mean 60 is solidly above average for the ML level.

So protecting to that is not bad at all.

Means he's got potentially 10 K/9 type stuff.

Yea if someone really wants to see how the ratings are then they need to look at that screen with not only 100% accuracy on but relative ratings off.

Better yet, go more advanced and look into the editor...