How should I interpret the value in the Scouting column in the amateur draft pool?
Should I put a lot of weight into it? Is there a certain guidline that most use to determine draft status?
Printable View
How should I interpret the value in the Scouting column in the amateur draft pool?
Should I put a lot of weight into it? Is there a certain guidline that most use to determine draft status?
The scouting score is a combination of a player's current overall and peak.
Players will be roughly drafted in order of their scouting scores
The only weight you should put on scouting value is if you are considering a player as future trade potential, or if you're wondering whether a player might still be available the next round.Quote:
Originally Posted by goodtymes31
Scouting is kind of a good rating if your looking for a balance between peak and overall (ie a player who may not have the highest ceiling, but still has decent potential and should contribute soon).
do the scouting bars on players overall and peak indicate anything on the player overal ability to get better, say if they had a massive growth in high school does that mean there growth will be slower in the pros beacsue they already had their jump, or is it just random
...it depends. It's not random, but there isn't really a straight answer to that question.
A players peak start and potential determine how quickly that player will improve.
i dont know because in an attempt to find my answer i went into the comish mode to see if there was a diffrence of who had above 100 growth speed and for the most part they had under normal, but i dont know if that was just a fluke of the draft i had or if the bars really have no meaning, like why are there sometimes only one or none and other players have 3 or 4 does that mean he is a better prospect and have been tracking him longer etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
There's definitely some hidden, uneditable setting, that determines how a prospect improves/declines. It might be related to the draft predictability setting...I'm not exactly sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
We do some fancy spreadsheets in Outahere on the amateur prospects, and even with aging randomness turned up it's very clear who is likely to peak 10 points higher than their draft overall and on the flip side there's always players with 95 peaks who are almost guaranteed busts.
This is one thing that's really confusing me. What bars are you talking about, exactly?Quote:
if the bars really have no meaning
I can assure you that there isn't.Quote:
There's definitely some hidden, uneditable setting
There is, however, a "restrictor plate" on single season improvement rates. So, if a player starts out too low, with a very high potential, that player is unlikely to hit his draft day peak.
Also, as I repeat ad nausium, a players playing time plays a primary role in their development. If the player isn't playing regularly, or is playing at the "incorrect" level according to his current overall rating, then that player will not see his full development.
There is also a bit of randomness. It doesn't really affect anything, but there's a small chance every season that the player will see slightly less or slightly more development then he "should have".
The only possibility I can think of is the career bar graph of ratings on the Vitals screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I don't get this. No one "in the know" in Outahere disputes the fact that there are some guys who are definite "sleepers" and others who are definite "busts". I do an excel sheet with 15 sims 10 seasons out every year for the draft, with the highest and lowest results thrown out. It's *very* clear who are those sleeper/bust spects I'm talking about. Some examples from our 2021 draft (draft ratings - future ratings):Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
SP Bruce Brame 53/96 - 76.8/76.8
CF Troy Nicholas 65/95 - 78.3/78.3
3B Walt Martin 64/88 - 93.7/99.4
RF Alan Youngs 55/87 - 82.6/94.5
I guess if you wanted to generalize, the players who are late bloomers (late peak start) tend to be the best "sleeper" prospects. On the bust end, there's clearly players who are destined for failure, irregardless of their commish ratings. I don't think any amount of micro managing these players in the minors would've fixed that.
Let me put it another way. I've seen players who've spent 3 years in the minors after the draft with an 80ish peak who were nearly a 100% lock to jump up to a 95-100 peak. Repeated simming proves that. How do you edit stats in commish mode to make that happen? We create international free agents (IFAs) and IFA spects in Outahere. If I knew how to make a player drastically improve his peak in 3 seasons, I'd love to do it, as a reward for those owners who spend more time scouting these players.
Another thing we regularly see is a player who starts out with a low peak, jumps to a high peak for a few seasons, then starts to decline again. These are the type of "sell high" players our good GMs clean up in trades with. Again, maybe it's all something that can be edited in game without any "hidden" modifiers, but so far figuring out how to create a player that starts off low, goes high, then ends up low, is beyond my ability.
Here, read this page: http://www.sportsmogul.com/content/aging.html
that link explains what is supposed to happenQuote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
cfeedback described what actually happens
I have set AAA/AA/A promotion to 100%, so staying at a low level for too long should not be an issue for the computer controlled teams. even with this setting it would be rare for the computer controlled teams to play at too high a level
nonetheless high draft peak players routinely bust, and other players have their peaks go up by as much as 20 (75 to 95)
nothing in your link explains how such a gain from 75 to 95 could possibly happen randomly (ie, all the computer controlled teams have the same settings for promotion to higher leagues)
since actual peaks are quite random, the strategy I have adopted is to only acquire players when they are 3 or 4 years away from peaking, or (more rarely) already have their OPS or ERA nearing the desired superstar level (the value of which differs depending on the current settings of BBM08). I cannot accurately predict which of these players thus acquired will actually become superstars, but at least I have the crop of players around who may be able do this. since rule 5 drafts are not built into BBM (which in real life MLB prevents good players from staying in the minors), there is nothing to prevent me from stocking up on hoards of potential talent only some of which may actually develop. the only downside is that in order for a player to actually play full time there should only be 8 non-pitchers per minor league level. hence hoarded players routinely are playing at the wrong level, usually too low a level
I also avoid players with only one or two years of peak unless years prior to their peak they are already nearing superstar quality
with extreme micromanagement of your own players to always keep them at the right level (by not overstocking on players) it might be possible for the peak draft ratings to be more predictable. has anyone tried this?
btw, the link says the growth to peak or decline from peak can be as high as 5 times (500), but practically speaking 200 to 250 is rare and I have never seen it above 250 for any player. is there a setting you have to change to actually get players with such high change rates?
joelwest
That makes perfect sense. No where have I ever said (or, as far as I can tell, even insinuated) that players can only be at "too low" a level. Players need to be at the correct level in order to maximize development.
You stated that you set promotion to +100%, so you're guaranteeing that most players will not develop to their potential.
Regardless, you're only talking about displayed ratings (and, now that I think about it, cfeedback is as well). There is some randomness intentionally inserted into prospect ratings, above and beyond the normal scouting error. Predicting prospect development is inherently riskey in real life, and this is simulated in the game as well.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, and my (related) question is how to account for this intentionally inserted randomness when creating a player. Sometimes when I create an IFA and test him out, he just doesn't perform like I want--usually a quicker decline than the peak start/end and longevity settings would indicate, or even more troublesome a prospect I *want* to turn out good never makes it. So what do I do in this case? I copy a different player, put the same stats back I had on the first player and usually get a different result as far as his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
That's what I'm talking about as far as a "hidden" value, and I'm no expert at creating players, so maybe there's just something I'm doing wrong that the roster gurus know how to avoid.
...nothing. The game is working as intended.Quote:
So what do I do in this case?
I can understand what you're saying, but consider the impact of getting what you want will have on the rest of us. You're asking for a level of predictability which is intentionally removed from the game, and in my opinion for good reason.
or, maybe HGM will have a better idea? I'm not an expert on editing players either.
I guess that the best "resolution" to this is for you to manually track the players and edit them during the off seasons until the player actually hits the target that you want him at.
Nope...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Fair enough...it's not a big issue, I don't mind it. I was just trying to clarify what I meant about a "hidden" setting that makes some players tend to improve/decline more than their editable stats would indicate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
ok i guess a better way to say it is this i know how the game works, im very good i think untill it gets to fictinal players there i am struggling, i know that develop is based on a hidden catorgory called potential as far as i can see in the future the potential on better players seems lower then 100 which is average, so it is dubt full those players ever live up to there peak. i was hoping if anyone new of a way of determining if a prospect has better then normal potential ie do the bar graphs have any meaning. also does potential change after there drafted or is it always the same as the hidden indicator. if you dont know what potential is go in to comish mode and edit player and you can see what there potential is
CF, if I understand Ohms correctly, your settings (+100% promotion) push prospects too fast, which could certainly affect certain types of players differently than others. Try changing the promotion settings and re-sim.
Don't think I ever said we had +100% promotion? We're still testing it out in 2010 but I think ours are around +40%...we just try to aim for accurate AI promotion, it doesn't matter much because most of our owners set their minors manually but having it accurate is beneficial for those who choose to auto-sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Logan
Even simming manually, and promoting players at the proper time it's clear who's gonna turn out. I'll use a player on my team from Outahere as an example. CF Shawn Leeburn, drafted in 2018 and at the end of 2019 he was 19 years old and 65/81. He's currently a 70/100 in the 2021-2022 off season. I knew to the exact month or so when his peak would jump up and that likely by the time he was 29 years old he'd be a 97 or 98 overall. Repeated sims are able to predict that sort of stuff. I know I'm not the only one who notices that sort of thing, because one of our best GMs tried to trade for this guy after I drafted him (he was the 62nd overall pick, 2nd round).
I'm not complaining at all--this sort of thing is cool. My only dilemma was if you wanted to create a player who was likely to show a big jump over his current ratings, well, that's hard to do. If there's a trick to doing it I haven't figured it out.