Why would the AI release this player?

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Instead of guessing ratings, I wonder if scouting should be based on how likely the scouts think a player is to reach his potential.

Well, ideally you would have both. You want an idea of what a guy's ceiling could be as well as how likely they are to reach it. I think in scouting terms they tend to use the terms "low risk and high risk" to describe this.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

in playing around, it seems to me that your top prospect lists are pretty accurate also...really considering abandoning scouting all together and just going without it. Until the system is reformed anyway.

Your top prospect really seem to be your actual top prospects...especially when your scout thinks the players are much worse than OSA does. It becomes obvious OS is right because the prospect is listed as one of the top guys in your organization.

that's due to high accuracy... if you do high or 100% accurate i'd use more stats to cloud the information given (which would only help with overall... the individual ratings will stil be obvious who is good or not, regardless of an overall that gets adjusted due to stats). those ratings become so concrete with that level of accuracy (guessing about high, but 100% for sure this is true). the osa and scout will look exactly the same as you get closer to 100% accurate. the prospect lists will be more accurate as you mentioned. this certainly isn't life-like, but that isn't necessarily important - more of a preference/opinion to have it in the game, too.

if you max out your scouting budget, i'd wager there's very few inaccuracies @ high accuracy... you will have amazing drafts! LoL it will be easy to find 'real' talent without using stats in any way. the inaccuracy is important to keep at normal or below or else it is too easy to see the talent. you'll never be fooled (TCR and lack of development isn't being fooled, those things happen at a certain rate, regardless... what you won't have is the 20/80 guy parading as a 80/80 stud, if accuracy is too high.)

the 2-8 scale will help a bit... small reso makes it less precise due to rounding. i don't use a scale so small, so i am not 100% familiar with how it affects what you will see.

the osa is wrong more often than my socut, but my socut is quite often wrong about my prospects in my MiL system... as it should be. think about some hotshot prospect that was the next "big thing" ... like cameron maybin before he actually played in the MLB...

he didn't fail or not develop, the scouts and perceptions were wrong. he wasnt that good.. just okay. his potential didn't drop, that's hubris to think that's what's happening. scouts are more often wrong than right if you keep track in baseball. if anything normal is too accurate, too, but it's a video game and they like to have the humans win for repeat sales.

osa and your scout run through the same math to figure out what you see, but that's where the correlations likely end. i'd guess that they are calculated independently of each other (even if it uses the same exact code)...

you're better off looking at them as either better at predicting or worse at predicting and going with the 'better' one unless stats and other things lead you to believe they are off too (lots of time needed). when they differ from each other (osa and scout) it's purely random in nature. 2 coin flips that turned up differently. one does not cause the other in any way

so, by only lookign at osa and your scout's ratings, you cannot tell anything from that about accuracy of either's view of the ratings... you'll need time to know. if you spend a lot more than baseline values and have a good scout, your scout is very likely WAY better than the OSA. it's wise to go with him until proven otherwise by results. as you increase accuracy setting, this effect becomes minimized.. the osa might be nearly as good at "high" - i'm not sure.

---different replies

the suggestion for '18 a few posts back is basically how it works now, if you think about it... the current year isn't used or is reduced until it becomes more viable over time.... it is changing over time already.

but, by making the changes yourself at specific times, you will control how it alots that "current" year when the data isn't there.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by NoOne

that's due to high accuracy... if you do high or 100% accurate i'd use more stats to cloud the information given (which would only help with overall... the individual ratings will stil be obvious who is good or not, regardless of an overall that gets adjusted due to stats). those ratings become so concrete with that level of accuracy (guessing about high, but 100% for sure this is true). the osa and scout will look exactly the same as you get closer to 100% accurate. the prospect lists will be more accurate as you mentioned. this certainly isn't life-like, but that isn't necessarily important - more of a preference/opinion to have it in the game, too.

if you max out your scouting budget, i'd wager there's very few inaccuracies @ high accuracy... you will have amazing drafts! LoL it will be easy to find 'real' talent without using stats in any way. the inaccuracy is important to keep at normal or below or else it is too easy to see the talent. you'll never be fooled (TCR and lack of development isn't being fooled, those things happen at a certain rate, regardless... what you won't have is the 20/80 guy parading as a 80/80 stud, if accuracy is too high.)

the 2-8 scale will help a bit... small reso makes it less precise due to rounding. i don't use a scale so small, so i am not 100% familiar with how it affects what you will see.

the osa is wrong more often than my socut, but my socut is quite often wrong about my prospects in my MiL system... as it should be. think about some hotshot prospect that was the next "big thing" ... like cameron maybin before he actually played in the MLB...

he didn't fail or not develop, the scouts and perceptions were wrong. he wasnt that good.. just okay. his potential didn't drop, that's hubris to think that's what's happening. scouts are more often wrong than right if you keep track in baseball. if anything normal is too accurate, too, but it's a video game and they like to have the humans win for repeat sales.

osa and your scout run through the same math to figure out what you see, but that's where the correlations likely end. i'd guess that they are calculated independently of each other (even if it uses the same exact code)...

you're better off looking at them as either better at predicting or worse at predicting and going with the 'better' one unless stats and other things lead you to believe they are off too (lots of time needed). when they differ from each other (osa and scout) it's purely random in nature. 2 coin flips that turned up differently. one does not cause the other in any way

so, by only lookign at osa and your scout's ratings, you cannot tell anything from that about accuracy of either's view of the ratings... you'll need time to know. if you spend a lot more than baseline values and have a good scout, your scout is very likely WAY better than the OSA. it's wise to go with him until proven otherwise by results. as you increase accuracy setting, this effect becomes minimized.. the osa might be nearly as good at "high" - i'm not sure.

---different replies

the suggestion for '18 a few posts back is basically how it works now, if you think about it... the current year isn't used or is reduced until it becomes more viable over time.... it is changing over time already.

but, by making the changes yourself at specific times, you will control how it alots that "current" year when the data isn't there.

The problem however is the draft. It does NOT matter what accuracy I use, or how much money I pump into scouting, or what scouts I might hire. The stats generated by OOTP, are based on potential ability. If I just take the players available for the draft, and sort them from best to worst using WAR, I am still guaranteed to get the best players...regardless of what my scout, or OSA says. This was supposedly adjusted some over the summer, but I am not seeing any big difference, and I think it's still an issue.

So while I realize this thread is more of an AI thread, I still believe the scouting model is one of OOTP's biggest issues...as it allows for huge predictability...which in turn gives the human, a massive advantage over the AI. So I am probably going a bit off topic here....but I feel like this point is being largely ignored by a lot of people. and I think, it's a very big one.

[PSUColonel]

In fact, I am so confident in what I am saying... I decided to show you below that you can now essentially ignore amateur scouting since, the game has (what I consider to be) a built in predictor of high potential players. These players may never reach their full potential, but they are in fact, the players with the highest ceiling in the drafts, and now we all know who they are without spending a cent on scouting them.

[torpidbeaver]

A somewhat similar question borne from my fictional game:

I checked the waiver wire, and was surprised to see one of my favorite former players sitting in the waiver hopper. I checked, and he's the NL All-Star team's #1 vote-receiving reliever. Worse, their best reliever is waiting under the hanging sword of an undiagnosed injury - so they could be down to 1 experienced reliever and 1 rookie.

It looks like the Cubs have a day-to-day injury to their regular 2B, and rather than not call up a backup to play behind their (regular) backup 2B or send down their rookie reliever (who has been sent down previously, so the option's already been activated), they waived a really good reliever.

Anyway, it caught my eye. Thought I'd share it.

[torpidbeaver]

Strange, the website didn't like the last screengrab. Here's the log page: