Prospect Reports

PSUColonel · 02-02-2011, 12:00 AM

Am I missing something? These ranking don't make any sense to me. Remember these are BA rankings, not my scout's. example: How is the #7 prospect not #1. A lot of these rankings seem way out of order according to the ratings.

damientheomen3 · 02-02-2011, 12:01 AM

While those are BA's rankings, I still believe that those ratings are based on your scouts' evaluation. Not completely sure though. Never seen that before.

PSUColonel · 02-02-2011, 12:03 AM

My scouts ratings differ from those.

Qwerty75 · 02-02-2011, 10:33 AM

The team prospect rankings are based on the true potential ratings unmasked by scouting evaluation. Performance may be factored in as well; I'm not sure there.

Charlie Hough · 02-02-2011, 10:36 AM

The players above him must have better potential ratings. A player's current ability relative to the other players doesn't necessarily mean that he's the best prospect overall. After all, players who have just entered the minors might have far greater potential, but they haven't had time to develop yet.

PSUColonel · 02-02-2011, 11:58 AM

This not true in the case of OSA or my scouts

PSUColonel · 02-02-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

The team prospect rankings are based on the true potential ratings unmasked by scouting evaluation. Performance may be factored in as well; I'm not sure there.

If that's true, isn't that a cheat?

dj_morton · 02-02-2011, 10:43 PM

ding ding ding we have a winner

PSUColonel · 02-03-2011, 12:01 AM

If this is the case, I can't figure out what purpose prospect lists have. But what I really don't understand is that even if they are a cheat, the list seems to go against it's own ratings. Those ratings above are the BA (OSA) ratings, not my scouts, yet some of the better players are further down the list then some of those you would think should be closer to the bottom of the list.

PSUColonel · 02-03-2011, 12:32 AM

I've done some tests...by switching from annual to dynamic reports and back again. It is clear to me that with scouting on, the top prospects list in both team and league reports...is a cheat and a window to what true potential ratings are...therefore lifting the fog of war effect meant to be created through the scouting system. A HUGE flaw in the game. To me this could be a real game breaker.

PSUColonel · 02-03-2011, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

The players above him must have better potential ratings. A player's current ability relative to the other players doesn't necessarily mean that he's the best prospect overall. After all, players who have just entered the minors might have far greater potential, but they haven't had time to develop yet.

Those numbers are potential ratings

MizzouRah · 02-03-2011, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I've done some tests...by switching from annual to dynamic reports and back again. It is clear to me that with scouting on, the top prospects list in both team and league reports...is a cheat and a window to what true potential ratings are...therefore lifting the fog of war effect meant to be created through the scouting system. A HUGE flaw in the game. To me this could be a real game breaker.

Agreed.. if it's indeed true potential ratings.. I'm just wondering why this is just being discovered now?

Until I hear something from a beta tester or Markus, I'm afraid to look at these reports anymore.

PSUColonel · 02-03-2011, 10:16 AM

From what I can see the ratings are based on OSA, but the rankings are based on the true potentials. Why is this? The rankings should go off of what OSA says. This is what originally caught my eye.

PSUColonel · 02-03-2011, 03:48 PM

Does anyone know anything about this?

endgame · 02-03-2011, 04:07 PM

This is an area that bleeds into others, including scouting and html displays, scouting profile reports, etc... and is to be revisited again in this year's discussion. I can only provide minimal details, except to say 1) it is/was purported to work as designed, 2) may have some relevance on AI checkboxes - position or overall, and 3) a continuous examination of all prospect, best players, rankings, etc.. will typically find many of the same players occupying the list, just in different orders as you've pointed out.

FWIW, I've now added a link to this thread to faciliate more discussion when and if we arrive at that point, hoping for a different response. I don't think it's a game-breaker. I do think it needs a re-examination as goes its presentation and the actual effect of the scout quality, OSA reliability, coupling general consensus regardless of vantage point. I do think that nearly every RL report will agree on a basic top 5 or so, but examination of a top 10 or top 20 will, IMHO, likely vary by source.

Bottom line, it's a good observation and it's in queue again this year for another review, if only to get a reasonable explanation reasonably articulated.

udbacker58 · 03-17-2011, 09:10 PM

I believe the BNN reports are working correctly, but the scouts are not accurate enough. If a guy is a top 100 prospect, he should be in any reasonably talented scout's top 150; if the prospect is in the top 20, he should be in the top 50 for any scout. The top (and bottom) prospects are pretty clear and all scouts should have varying reports on them, but they should all be similar.

PSUColonel · 05-19-2011, 11:37 AM

Just bumping this, as I hope it was revisited this year.

Dr. dru · 06-13-2011, 09:29 PM

I hope this got fixed, but based on the newsletters for 12 it doesn't look like it did. However, the top prospects list is definitly based on true potential ratings

.

I did severl tests by making fictional players and adjusting there potentials to see where they fell, and it's definitly based on true ratings and not my scouts ratings.

PSUColonel · 06-14-2011, 02:52 PM

Why won't Markus comment on this? It is a serious flaw in the game!!

Dr. dru · 06-14-2011, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Why won't Markus comment on this? It is a serious flaw in the game!!

I noticed he doesn't really comment on problems unless they are going to be fixed soon. Which probably means this won't be fixed for at least another year maybe more. I hope I'm wrong, because I like to be able to look at the top prospect list, but it sucks that it basically gives you the true values

Basically this allows you to put all of your scouting budget into Major league scouting and amature scouting and none for minor leagues because you have a list of the top 100 minor league prospects.

02-02-2011, 10:33 AM	#4
Qwerty75 All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 817	The team prospect rankings are based on the true potential ratings unmasked by scouting evaluation. Performance may be factored in as well; I'm not sure there. __________________

02-03-2011, 12:01 AM	#9
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	If this is the case, I can't figure out what purpose prospect lists have. But what I really don't understand is that even if they are a cheat, the list seems to go against it's own ratings. Those ratings above are the BA (OSA) ratings, not my scouts, yet some of the better players are further down the list then some of those you would think should be closer to the bottom of the list. Last edited by PSUColonel; 02-03-2011 at 01:27 AM.

02-03-2011, 12:32 AM	#10
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	I've done some tests...by switching from annual to dynamic reports and back again. It is clear to me that with scouting on, the top prospects list in both team and league reports...is a cheat and a window to what true potential ratings are...therefore lifting the fog of war effect meant to be created through the scouting system. A HUGE flaw in the game. To me this could be a real game breaker. Last edited by PSUColonel; 02-03-2011 at 12:33 AM.

02-03-2011, 04:07 PM	#15
endgame Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 16,843	This is an area that bleeds into others, including scouting and html displays, scouting profile reports, etc... and is to be revisited again in this year's discussion. I can only provide minimal details, except to say 1) it is/was purported to work as designed, 2) may have some relevance on AI checkboxes - position or overall, and 3) a continuous examination of all prospect, best players, rankings, etc.. will typically find many of the same players occupying the list, just in different orders as you've pointed out. FWIW, I've now added a link to this thread to faciliate more discussion when and if we arrive at that point, hoping for a different response. I don't think it's a game-breaker. I do think it needs a re-examination as goes its presentation and the actual effect of the scout quality, OSA reliability, coupling general consensus regardless of vantage point. I do think that nearly every RL report will agree on a basic top 5 or so, but examination of a top 10 or top 20 will, IMHO, likely vary by source. Bottom line, it's a good observation and it's in queue again this year for another review, if only to get a reasonable explanation reasonably articulated. __________________ "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________ Last edited by endgame; 02-03-2011 at 04:09 PM.

03-17-2011, 09:10 PM	#16
udbacker58 All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,140	I believe the BNN reports are working correctly, but the scouts are not accurate enough. If a guy is a top 100 prospect, he should be in any reasonably talented scout's top 150; if the prospect is in the top 20, he should be in the top 50 for any scout. The top (and bottom) prospects are pretty clear and all scouts should have varying reports on them, but they should all be similar. __________________ Heartland Baseball League Commissioner Fictional - Stats Only - 30 years of History! HBL HOME PAGE \| HBL REPORTS HOME \| HBL UTILITIES HOME

02-02-2011, 12:00 AM	#1
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	Prospect Reports Am I missing something? These ranking don't make any sense to me. Remember these are BA rankings, not my scout's. example: How is the #7 prospect not #1. A lot of these rankings seem way out of order according to the ratings.

02-02-2011, 12:03 AM	#3
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	My scouts ratings differ from those.

02-02-2011, 10:36 AM	#5
Charlie Hough Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,625	The players above him must have better potential ratings. A player's current ability relative to the other players doesn't necessarily mean that he's the best prospect overall. After all, players who have just entered the minors might have far greater potential, but they haven't had time to develop yet.

02-02-2011, 11:58 AM	#6
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	This not true in the case of OSA or my scouts

02-02-2011, 10:43 PM	#8
dj_morton Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Morehead City, NC/Barksdale AFB, LA Posts: 174	ding ding ding we have a winner

02-03-2011, 10:16 AM	#13
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	From what I can see the ratings are based on OSA, but the rankings are based on the true potentials. Why is this? The rankings should go off of what OSA says. This is what originally caught my eye.

02-03-2011, 03:48 PM	#14
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	Does anyone know anything about this?

05-19-2011, 11:37 AM	#17
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	Just bumping this, as I hope it was revisited this year.

06-13-2011, 09:29 PM	#18
Dr. dru All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 647	I hope this got fixed, but based on the newsletters for 12 it doesn't look like it did. However, the top prospects list is definitly based on true potential ratings . I did severl tests by making fictional players and adjusting there potentials to see where they fell, and it's definitly based on true ratings and not my scouts ratings.

06-14-2011, 02:52 PM	#19
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	Why won't Markus comment on this? It is a serious flaw in the game!!