Another example of scouting bugs..attn. Markus

[PSUColonel]

I realize how many times I've posted these examples, but they just prove how bugged and flawed scouting in this game is. Markus, please why can't/won't you fix these issues. This one made me laugh:




Here are others:

Can someone explain this


My suggestion: Dump the overall ratings(stars & 20-80), Dump the numbered ratings for each individual skill, and go strictly with more detailed and enhanced written reports. The variances between the three of these for the same player on the same day obviously mean this current system is totally broken. I didn't mind it when we HAD to request reports about players and teams. I'm not saying going back to having a huge saff, but maybe getting rid of the monthly scouting, and turning all reports into written form upon request with one scouting director could be the way to go.


BTW- this player is on waivers, and has never thrown a pitch in his career..but the kicker is his his history says he was discovered in cuba...on 6/20!! The very same day he was put on waivers.


Thinking it might be because he is a "hidden" player, and found through international scouting. Is that possible?

[damientheomen3]

well your suggestion to dump the numbered ratings won't fly so well with online leagues. Like I'm in one players league, and it'll be annoying for people to have to read this scouting report to see how much their player has developed.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

well your suggestion to dump the numbered ratings won't fly so well with online leagues. Like I'm in one players league, and it'll be annoying for people to have to read this scouting report to see how much their player has developed.

That's what stats are for

[satchel]

PSUColonel:

Thank you for shrinking this screen shot, so that the graphic fits within the standard confines of the forum thread!

Why do so many people find such a thing so difficult to manage?

[Malleus Dei]

Just say "no" to scouting.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

That's what stats are for

stats are very flawed. Bottom line is that we need the ratings for stuff like this.

Player Report for #11 Damien 'Hothead' Walec

this is my main guy. as you can see he sucked his first year, but he had good ratings nonetheless. I wouldn't have known how to allocate my upgrade points without ratings. and anyway, how would you know who to pick in the first year player draft's first round? are you just gonna trust the stupid scout's opinion, or are you going to read through 250 scouting reports to see who projects to be the best player? i wouldnt mind losing the stars, but the ratings are needed IMO.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

stats are very flawed. Bottom line is that we need the ratings for stuff like this.

Player Report for #11 Damien 'Hothead' Walec

this is my main guy. as you can see he sucked his first year, but he had good ratings nonetheless. I wouldn't have known how to allocate my upgrade points without ratings. and anyway, how would you know who to pick in the first year player draft's first round? are you just gonna trust the stupid scout's opinion, or are you going to read through 250 scouting reports to see who projects to be the best player? i wouldnt mind losing the stars, but the ratings are needed IMO.

At the end of 2009, his ratings were Stuff: 6; Movement: 6; Control: 4. He was a 22 year old reliever with a 4.21 ERA.
At the end of 2010, his ratings were Stuff: 8; Movement: 7; Control: 6. He was a 23 year old starter with a 2.57 ERA.

8-7-6 is significantly better than 6-6-4. How were the stats very flawed? Were you referring to his Talents, as opposed to his ratings?

You need to understand the Stars for what they are to use them correctly. They are a very generalized shorthand for the quality of the player.

Think about it: There are 10 different ratings (0.5 stars to 5.0 stars). If you take the Stars at face value, you're basically saying that the quality of every ballplayer in 139 years of baseball can be boiled down to 10 different types of player.

Over those 139 years, there are over 17,000 players, and 127,000 seasons of data (i.e. each season a player could theoretically exhibit a different talent level). That means there could be an nearly 13,000 seasons where a player is rated 1.5 stars.

Is it even reasonable to expect that "1.5 Stars" would adequately describe the vast amount of different seasons within those 13,000?

On guy may have hit 25 HR. Another may have walked 80 times. Another guy may have stolen 40 bases. Another guy may have pitched to a 4.75 ERA. Another guy may have had 30 saves. Another guy may have contributed to nothing but defense.

Being that it's really a rhetorical question, why would you rely on the Star ratings for anything more than what they represent? You don't need to get rid of them, just understand that they are incredibly generalized.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

well your suggestion to dump the numbered ratings won't fly so well with online leagues. Like I'm in one players league, and it'll be annoying for people to have to read this scouting report to see how much their player has developed.

If not number ratings, then perhaps dump the text reports. It's become clear the two cannot coexist without OFTEN contradicting one another. Same goes for stars I think. Just stick with the number ratings then.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

If not number ratings, then perhaps dump the text reports. It's become clear the two cannot coexist without OFTEN contradicting one another. Same goes for stars I think. Just stick with the number ratings then.

Its working as designed. Please point me to the real life scouting oracle that uncovers a young players true ability. Its trial and error.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by bababui

Its working as designed. Please point me to the real life scouting oracle that uncovers a young players true ability. Its trial and error.

I don't thin I'd ever see a scout give a player good number grades, and then write in a report about how he has no hope of making it.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don't thin I'd ever see a scout give a player good number grades, and then write in a report about how he has no hope of making it.

When has a team ever had only 1 scout?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by bababui

When has a team ever had only 1 scout?

yes, but the scouting report you're reading is the consensus. It also says it's submitted by the scouting director, which is the same person. The two reports shouldn't contradict each other. I wish he'd just dump one of them...probably the written, since more people rely on the numbers.

[William Foster]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don't thin I'd ever see a scout give a player good number grades, and then write in a report about how he has no hope of making it.

Scouts give players number grades all the time although often only as references for themselves. As far as I know they use the 20-80 scale.

[bosunmate]

I do not want to see stars gone, we lost them one year and Markus brought them back by popular demand. Like MD said turn scouting off if it bothers you so much.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by William Foster

Scouts give players number grades all the time although often only as references for themselves. As far as I know they use the 20-80 scale.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying scouts don't do this: (20-80)

Contact 50/55
Power: 25/25
Strike Zone Judgement 50/55
strike out frequency: 45/50

Summary: overall, a subpar offensive player. If this guy is in your lineup, you should be looking for an upgrade ASAP. Won't be a player in the bigs.

Contact: might be able to be an average hitter someday. Might hit around .270

Power: none whatsoever

eye: will take some walks but other times has poor judgement and swings at pitches outside of the zone.

defense: an average fielder across the board.

speed: will steal a few, but not too many.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by bosunmate

I do not want to see stars gone, we lost them one year and Markus brought them back by popular demand. Like MD said turn scouting off if it bothers you so much.

It's not the scouting that bothers me, it's the fact that the very same reports many times contradict themselves.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It's not the scouting that bothers me, it's the fact that the very same reports many times contradict themselves.

I will say this however. After switching to the 20-80 scale (which I have never done before) it doesn't seem to be as bad. Maybe when you're using 1-5, 2-8, 1-10, the written reports and numbered ones just seem to be off due to hoe general the scales are. Hmmm.

[satchel]

You have to ignore the written reports. They don't jive with the numbers. The written reports are good for mild entertainment value, but shouldn't be used to make any decisions affecting the player. I just accept it as broken—something about Markus's approach, with written reports, just doesn't work, never has, and never will.

[Malleus Dei]

Did I mention just saying "no" to scouting?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by satchel

You have to ignore the written reports. They don't jive with the numbers. The written reports are good for mild entertainment value, but shouldn't be used to make any decisions affecting the player. I just accept it as broken—something about Markus's approach, with written reports, just doesn't work, never has, and never will.

That's why I'm suggesting dumping them...if they serve no value, than perhaps we can use that space for something more useful and practical. Why keep fluff like that around?