Your Scouting Philosophy

[josephyw]

Now that I'm starting to get a handle on the mechanics of scouting, I'm interested in your overall scouting philosophy. 1) Where do you tend to assign scouts? For how long? 2) Do you have multiple scouts covering the same leagues? 3) Do you ever send scouts regionally as opposed to scouting specific leagues? 4) How soon do you pull the plug on an assignment when it doesn't seem like it's bearing fruit? 5) What are your tips for finding those "diamonds in the rough"? 6) Aside from preparing for the draft, do you spend much time scouting ability? 7) Any other tips?

Answering my own questions (with a caveat that my current scouting situation is terrible, hence my curiosity about yours!):

1. I tend to look at the list of unscouted top prospects in the main page of the NHL Entry Draft section, sort by potential, and concentrate scouts where I see the highest concentrations of top-end talent. I do a lot of 16 week assignments to start and then do shorter spurts once I start honing in on certain prospects/leagues/regions toward the end of the season.
2. I have a lot of overlap in my scouting assignments (I have a flood of scouts in Western Canada/the WHL), but I'm not sure how much that is helping, as I'm also getting a lot of overlap in the prospects being scouted, and there isn't much variation in their ratings. I'm probably going to retool this and really spread things out.
3. I was sending scouts to certain regions to get their region bonuses, as distinguished by the bright green from the drop-down menu (hence flood of scouts in Western Canda right now), but I find that doing this for North American regions hasn't been too helpful and has a really low signal-to-noise ratio. Sending scouts regionally to Central Europe/Nordic Europe/former USSR regions has been a bit more helpful.
4. Apparently, after 10 weeks, judging by my sudden musings about draft philosophy, but I'm sure that's too late. Based on how I monitored the scouting, I'd say that 4 weeks in was about enough to see if I was getting the kinds of players I was actually interested in.
5. No idea! I'm still finding the balance between casting a wide net in terms of where I scout for how long without flooding my scouting reports with scrubs.
6. So far, I have one scout grinding away in the NHL, to prepare for free agency, and one scout grinding away in the KHL, just in case there's somebody I could snag some rights to.
7. I don't have any tips! I have a one star ability rating when it comes to scouting, though I hope I have the potential to be a very good player in this league. Wait, actually--perhaps if you are going to send multiple scouts to the same league, you could split up their assignments based on position so that they aren't evaluating overlapping players! AH, WHY DID I JUST THINK OF THAT!?

[Empty]

1. I start out doing 12 week assignments in all regions, except for ROW and after that I branch into leagues with shorter trip length. I also always sent scouts in 4,8 or 12 week trips.
2. I tend not to have scouts in the same region/league unless they're scouting different positions.
3. When I'm scouting regions, if a certain scout has a bonus in said region, then I send him there. Has anyone else noticed that nobody has a bonus in Quebec?
4. I usually never pull the plug on an assignment.
5. No real tips as I'm not quite sure yet but the AI often passes up on lots of European players which are decent.
6. I usually always have one or two scouts in either the NHL, AHL or KHL scouting abilities.
7. Don't draft too many KHL players as I notice that not many of them decide to leave.

[Guzzernaut]

I always have 2 scouts for every region. Yes, it's best if they specialize in that region, but if you can't find one for a certain region, just hire the best scout available. I've only ever seen ONE scout that specializes on Quebec and I've never seen any for Atlantic Canada. The first assignment I give them is for their region, bases on NHL draft eligibility, based on potential, with a minimum of 3 or 3.5 up to 4. I do that for about 12 weeks. Once that is done, I do it all again, except change the potential range to minimum 4 and the default maximum (8 I think it is), and change the time to 16 weeks. This way, your scouting of the good players won't degrade before the draft. Also, quite often I will get emails from the scouts saying they haven't found any players of interest, in that case I might reassign them to redo some of the lower players (even outside their region) just to keep that fresh. That or just send them to the AHL (don't click NHL draft eligibility) and scout for min 3.5 or 4 star potential. This way if I want to trade for prospects I might have a better idea of what a guy is worth. that being said, I generally have 2 or three extra scouts just scouting the AHL for potential anyway through the whole season, and same for the NHL based on ability.


Now, there is one thing to note with this. Every single year, without fail, I get scouts that were in the Canadian regions telling me that there is no players of interest for 4+ star potential. And yet, come draft day, there is a player from the WHL or QMJHL listed at the top of the draft with 4.5 or 5 stars and I only have B level scouting on him. There could be other reasons for this, like he could have been injured a lot so they didn't get to see him play. (If they don't play, you can't scout them).


Generally though, I tend to draft well. The most important thing is to give yourself lots of time to scout the 3.5+ players. You should never have a player on your roster lower than 3.5*'s ability(unless maybe you have a LOT of injuries), so you don't need them with less than 3.5*s potential.


My best success story was in my second season as GM of the Oilers, I ended up scouting a guy that played in a league in England. I saw him pretty high on the draft list on draft day as he was 4*'s, and I had A level scouting on him. I didn't pick him the first couple rounds because I had other needs I was trying to fill through the draft. But after 3 or 4 rounds, he was still there. I guess none of the AI teams scouted him and didn't know how good he was. Finally, in the final round (I had something like the fourth last pick because I lost in the Western Conference final that year), he was still there so I decided to give him a chance. Now, I don't sign players until they are 20, so I had to wait a couple years, and then when I do sign them, unless they are Connor Mcdavid type players, they go straight to my AHL team. And after winning 2 cups in 7 years with the Oilers I decided to leave and try my skills with an expansion team. So I never had him on my team, but I went back a few years later and looked at his stats, and he had I think 3 years with Edmonton where he was a 40 point player, which is great for a 7th round pick. I think he would have done even better if I had stayed with the team because it was run very poorly after I left (partly because they didn't hire anyone to replace me or the "head coach" for the the first year!!!)


Anyway, sorry for the long post, but I hope that helps.

[josephyw]

Originally Posted by Guzzernaut

The first assignment I give them is for their region, bases on NHL draft eligibility, based on potential, with a minimum of 3 or 3.5 up to 4. I do that for about 12 weeks.

Interesting! I guess the 2-star potential players so rarely ever blossom into anything that you shouldn't really waste time on them? I figured that scouting might unlock some deep sleepers, but it sounds like it's not worth the scout's time.

[Guzzernaut]

Originally Posted by josephyw

Interesting! I guess the 2-star potential players so rarely ever blossom into anything that you shouldn't really waste time on them? I figured that scouting might unlock some deep sleepers, but it sounds like it's not worth the scout's time.

As far as I know, potential isn't SUPPOSSED to change, so if you know for sure (A rating) that he's got 2 potential, why bother. That being said, I did trade for one player that had 2 ability and 4.5 potential. However, he wasn't getting any time with my AHL team so I called him up and put him in games against weaker NHL opponents. At this point I was finishing seasons with only 10-15 losses so I figured he wasn't gonna hurt me to badly. But after a few weeks of playing in and out of the line-up, his POTENTIAL dropped (to 3 if I remember correctly). So I sent him back down. Then, when the offseason hit, it jumped but up to 4.5. But because his 2 star ABILITY, he was always outclassed in his league which hurt his development. I left the team for an expansion team so I don't know what level he eventually reached.


And further to that, during that same expansion draft I got two goalies with 3 star ability and potential. I got the pre-season email telling me that my Best Prospect was the one goalie. Which I found weird cause I had a couple guys with higher potential than him, and while they had the same stars, the other goalie seemed to have better stats. And sure enough, the OTHER goalie had a monster year and we actually made the playoffs in year one. But then on July 1, the goalie listed as my top prospect, jumped to 4.5 potential. And then HE had a monster year and led me back to the playoffs. And he was only 25. I was gonna win a cup with an expansion team within 5 years cause of that guy, then at the start of year 3......career ending injury.

[josephyw]

Originally Posted by Guzzernaut

As far as I know, potential isn't SUPPOSSED to change, so if you know for sure (A rating) that he's got 2 potential, why bother.

Sorry, now I'm so confused! If I'm scouting 3+ star ability from the outset, as you suggested, how would I ever achieve an A rating on a 2 potential player?

Your advice was pretty helpful otherwise and helped salvage a scouting trainwreck.

[Guzzernaut]

Originally Posted by josephyw

Sorry, now I'm so confused! If I'm scouting 3+ star ability from the outset, as you suggested, how would I ever achieve an A rating on a 2 potential player?

Your advice was pretty helpful otherwise and helped salvage a scouting trainwreck.

Firstly, 3+star on POTENTIAL, not ability. Second, I guess you wouldn't really KNOW about a 2 star rating player, it was just an example. But I have a feeling that 99.9% of players that have a 2 star rating with E level scouting, at best could end up being 3 to 3.5 star players. But if you want to hire some extra scouts and scout the lower skill levels, you could always do that too. I just find it tedious assigning those scouting assignments, which is to bad considering scouting and finding hidden gems is one of the things I looked forward to the most from this game.

[Guzzernaut]

Further to my last post, there is one thing I am unsure about. I wonder, if I tell a scout to scout players with 4+ potential, and after multiple assignments, he comes back telling me that he has found no interesting players, does that mean he has officially fully scouted all the players with a TRUE 4+ rating.


To put it another way, because he is part of the AI, is he programmed to know all of the true 4+ players and shows me who they are by giving me A+ scouting? Or, does he scout everyone whose listed as 4+stars, and just tells me if those players actually are 4+, or better or worse. If there was a player with 1 star with E level scouting, but was truly 4 stars, would he find him, or do I need a scout whose looking at 1 star players to uncover that.


Not sure if that makes sense.

[josephyw]

Yeah, that makes sense. It would be super helpful to know the ins and outs of the mechanics of what's happening, so we can utilize it properly, but the guesswork can be part of the fun, I guess. I'm actually in the middle of the draft now!

[flyers139]

Originally Posted by Guzzernaut

Further to my last post, there is one thing I am unsure about. I wonder, if I tell a scout to scout players with 4+ potential, and after multiple assignments, he comes back telling me that he has found no interesting players, does that mean he has officially fully scouted all the players with a TRUE 4+ rating.


To put it another way, because he is part of the AI, is he programmed to know all of the true 4+ players and shows me who they are by giving me A+ scouting? Or, does he scout everyone whose listed as 4+stars, and just tells me if those players actually are 4+, or better or worse. If there was a player with 1 star with E level scouting, but was truly 4 stars, would he find him, or do I need a scout whose looking at 1 star players to uncover that.


Not sure if that makes sense.

I think I understand what you're getting at. Despite what a player's true skills and abilities are rated, there is variability on how a scout assesses that. So, say a scout goes out an finds a 4D player. Player gets scouted a little more and you ultimately find out he's a 3.5A prospect. Your scout was off by a little bit. This is the inherent risk of scouting.

I don't believe that if you were scouting for a 4 star prospect (just an example) that you would uncover a hidden gem that's currently rated a 1E with a true value of 4A. That would, to me, defeat the purpose of scouting because if you're setting search criteria and getting results outside those parameters, then what good are your directions to your scouts? Furthermore, why even scout the player further? Who cares if you can get a more thorough scouting report if you ultimately know that regardless of the 1E, this guy is guaranteed to have a 4 star potential?

This is why my strategy is to pick areas that I heavily scout like Nordic Europe, for example. When the season starts I'll put my scouts searching for the potential ratings for all draft eligible players for 16 weeks. With 3 scouts, I can get a good feel for most of the guys that are available. I'll shortlist some to take a further look at....after that first 16 weeks, THEN I start setting stricter scouting criteria to filter out the crap (am I really ever going to entertain drafting a 2.5-3b player?). This usually takes me up to a month before the draft.

Good ideas in this thread, though. I am entering the 2021-22 season with the Wild in one franchise and am currently at the draft. Probably my worst scouting year so far, but hopefully I can improve. My best haul was a Swedish center playing in the SHL. I scouted him at 4.5a/4.5a and he evidently wasn't even on anyone else's draft board. That's where scouting becomes really rewarding.

[josephyw]

Originally Posted by flyers139

This is why my strategy is to pick areas that I heavily scout like Nordic Europe, for example. When the season starts I'll put my scouts searching for the potential ratings for all draft eligible players for 16 weeks. With 3 scouts, I can get a good feel for most of the guys that are available. I'll shortlist some to take a further look at....after that first 16 weeks, THEN I start setting stricter scouting criteria to filter out the crap (am I really ever going to entertain drafting a 2.5-3b player?). This usually takes me up to a month before the draft.

This makes a lot of sense and helps refine some of what's been talked about in this thread. Thanks!

[Guzzernaut]

That's a pretty good idea. Get most available players to at least a C rating if you can then pick and choose from there.


I have another question for you guys. How much do you pay attention to what the scouts say on the page where it tells you their +ves, -ves, player comparisons, etc??? The number one thing I look for is if it says they are a "big game performer" or "thrive under pressure". To me that means playoff success. Honestly, if I see better comments from scouts on a guy who is 3.5 stars compared to a 4 star guy, I'll go with the 3.5 stars

[ike121212]

I just let the AI handle it, then complain about the results. It's too tedious. I wish they'd apply some lessons from OOTP on this, as they've gone through several models to get to the current state.

[DaximusPrimus]

I send all my scouts to their best areas in all major regions of the game; WHL, OHL, QMJHL, USA, Nordic, Europe and Former USSR for 16 weeks each scouting for Quality and Potential only. This give me a very good base of some of the better players out there for the upcoming draft. Then I send my best scouts to focus in on each position again doing just Quality and Potential. I send the rest of my scouts out to focus on Quantity and Potential in the same way usually for about 8 weeks. After that I have a look around and narrow down my draft list and give some basic rankings usually my top 10-30 depending on how ambitious I feel. This is where I will focus in on some players that aren't at A level scouting yet with quick scouting trips.
I tend to draft pretty good with this model especially outside of round 3.