Made it through one season with scouting on

[lynchjm24]

.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

That happens in real life all the time... players get assigned a certain talent by scouts, and in the end they were dead-wrong. So, the engine works as it should IMO.

No kidding scouts are wrong in real life. If this is your argument that everything is fine then how can you accept any critique of the model.

Scouting seems to work much better everywhere in the game but in the draft.

Edit:
Ok I went through the draft and compared OSA to my scout to the actuals.

This is a silly conclusion but here is how to play: You throw out your outliers.

I'm not sure why I'd hire a scout to disregard him on the players he likes the best but that is how to successfully draft.

I guess saying that is 'broken' is strong, but it's not exactly 'fun'.

The players my scout is most wrong about are the ones that I drafted. So to draft successfully I need to ignore the players with the highest talents per my scout as those are the players he is most likely wrong about, especially true when the talents are off the board >20.

If there is a good player left later in the draft it's because you have scouted them incorrectly - that is why the rest of the league passed...

Not sure what the solution is to this - but it's pretty annoying.

[SkyDog]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Where can I find them?

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...25-post13.html

[PAtricapillus]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

No kidding scouts are wrong in real life. If this is your argument that everything is fine then how can you accept any critique of the model.

Scouting seems to work much better everywhere in the game but in the draft.

Edit:
Ok I went through the draft and compared OSA to my scout to the actuals.

This is a silly conclusion but here is how to play: You throw out your outliers.


Not sure what the solution is to this - but it's pretty annoying.

This will be addressed in patch#2, and I do agree with your sentiments lynchjm24. If you pay top dollar for the best scout available, you should expect that he will maintain his track record for spotting and evaluating talent, otherwise it is just a crap shot and it diminishes the scouting aspect of the game.

I don't expect an exemplary success rate at nailing ratings, but he should be in the ballpark for most prospects. A few misses is fine, but to completely botch a 1st round pick's talent potential should not happen with frequency for a highly regarded scout.

[cody8200]

Maybe you guys would like playing the way I do. No scouting, everything on a 1-10 scale. That way, you always have a good feel for a player but never one that's exactly right. An 8 could be an 80 or an 89. Works for me, might for for someone else.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by PAtricapillus

A few misses is fine, but to completely botch a 1st round pick's talent potential should not happen with frequency for a highly regarded scout.

I could give you a very long list of first-round picks in real life that turned out to be... crap

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I could give you a very long list of first-round picks in real life that turned out to be... crap

I think there is a difference between a first round draft pick who didn't live up to the high ratings that, almost to a man, all scouts gave him, and a first round draft pick that gets tremendously high ratings by some and low ratings by others. There's a valid reason that high round picks go that early, and low rounders go that late, and that's because in general there is consistency among the scouts' ratings. It's possible to find a 'diamond in the rough', but it's unlikely that a bunch of scouts would love a player's projected ability (a first round pick), and another scout would say completely the opposite.

[PAtricapillus]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I could give you a very long list of first-round picks in real life that turned out to be... crap

Of course, we're assuming that there are various grades of scout performance. You hire a poorly regarded scout, you will not be as likely to hit it big in the draft, but you might get lucky. You hire a well-respected scout and you'll likely reap a better group of prospects in the draft. That is how it should be.

I did say I don't expect exemplary results, but the best scouts should be in the ballpark for potential ratings more so than lower quality scouts.

And scouts are going to be more accurate with more seasoned draftees, like college seniors, as opposed to the high-risk/high-reward High School blue chippers.

The process of development and maturation plays a great role in whether or not a prospect meets his ratings potential, so the issue isn't solely with the scout's inability to provide accurate forecasts of a young player's ceiling. Injuries also factor into it...

Ideally, I want the A+ scout to provide close to accurate ratings predictions most of the time, not all of the time, that is why he gets paid the big bucks. And the more mature the prospect, the greater the likelihood that the scout is on target.

Look at Abe Alvarez, the Red Sox #1 pick a few years ago. The scouting report was a college senior, crafty, soft tossing lefty who is closer to meeting his ceiling and closer to being mature enough to pitch in the majors, just don't expect anything more than a young Jamie Moyer.

The scout would have had it about right, yet the GM made the pick and the pick never met expectations. Is that the scout's fault or the GM's? So the fact that not all 1st rounders amount to much in the majors is not just a product of the scout's failure to accurately describe the player's make up.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I could give you a very long list of first-round picks in real life that turned out to be... crap

Absolutely. This isn't the issue with the draft though. The issue is that if I select the players my scout likes the most they are all crap. This is because he's misscouted these players and they are the outliers on which he's too high.

I'm fine with the scouts blowing first round picks. It just isn't all that much fun to know that every guy i'm picking is crap because I have no identified that if they look like 5 star prospects... they aren't - the scout is just off on them.

I'd be better off taking his 4th or 5th recommendation - it's much more likely that is an accurate scouting report I'm looking at.