Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2015 3:20:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, most of us ignore PJF because he makes statements that aren't correct.     But that's not the worst ever so I figured I'd ignore it since gdm pointed out the inaccuracy.

Instead of researching that gdmetz has only been with one of his teams long enough to even get his budgets to 20, and even then he was 20-0 instead of 20-20, you automatically assume i'm full of ish. This coming from the guy who trolls ppl whenever they don't research things themselves. One of these days you'll give me some credit Michael

I've owned all of my current teams long enough to be at 20 and I've run one of them at that level for a few seasons.  A different team is at 20 this season in HS scouting and there were HS guys I couldn't see.  I don't really have the time or inclination to argue with you, but it seems there's at least one inaccuracy in nearly every post you make.  It doesn't help new users or users with questions when someone makes strong claims that are false.  That's all I'm getting at.  I've run 20 scouting and not seen every player so when someone says you see "literally" every player at that level (and then contradicts that a few posts later!) it adds nothing to helpful discourse which these forums would ideally provide.  It only leads to bickering and nonsense.

Posted by gdmetz on 1/21/2015 5:20:00 PM (view original):
I've owned all of my current teams long enough to be at 20 and I've run one of them at that level for a few seasons.  A different team is at 20 this season in HS scouting and there were HS guys I couldn't see.  I don't really have the time or inclination to argue with you, but it seems there's at least one inaccuracy in nearly every post you make.  It doesn't help new users or users with questions when someone makes strong claims that are false.  That's all I'm getting at.  I've run 20 scouting and not seen every player so when someone says you see "literally" every player at that level (and then contradicts that a few posts later!) it adds nothing to helpful discourse which these forums would ideally provide.  It only leads to bickering and nonsense.

Point out my contradiction. Was it when I said I didn't see the one DH?  The part where I admitted the literally one player I didn't see was by design based on my draft settings configuration and not by my scouting config?  Maybe if I put random words in bold too it'll make me sound more convincing.

If you don't believe me then take the team with the 20 HS and in 5 seasons when you get it to 20-20 let me know what happens

I was trying to add helpful discourse by saying that 20 scouting is really helpful in terms of accuracy and volume but it's completely excessive as it pertains to the quality of player you'll actually get, but you guys just decided to troll me over something I said a year ago.  But hey that's cool, you gotta do what you gotta do

From the FAQ section of the Help menu:

"The amount of money assigned to your scouting departments increases your franchise’s ability to locate and scout talent. The more you spend, the more players you’ll discover and the more accurate your scouting reports will be. However, it doesn’t mean you’ll always see the best players available. Some of these players can slip through the cracks and some will be scouted by other franchises who have spent less money on scouting. But the percentages will always be in your favor."

WIS stated that even with a high scouting budget, you won't see every player. Anecdotally, I've seen people complain after several drafts that they couldn't see top players despite 20 budgets.

Pjfoster, if you did see all of the top 100 prospects in a draft, I think you got extremely lucky. That is not guaranteed to happen.

It didn't happen.   If it did, he's the first person in about 170,000 HBD seasons that did see all the prospects drafted in the top 100.    And easily the first person to check EVERY ONE of his top 100 PROSPECTS to find out where they were drafted.    I don't even know why anyone would do that. 

Is it true that if you set your draft settings to zero for a certain position that position won't appear on the draft board? That is interesting.
I always thought they'd appear on the board, but you just wouldn't pick them.

I've never assumed that, article.  I'm always felt it would simply determine who you drafted, all things being equal.  

It depends on how many prospects you actually see.   If it's less than 500, you will see the positions you have at 0.     If it's more than 500, you might squeeze them off your board.

Ok, to give a little meat to what I said... here are three players I drafted with 20 scouting... I think this gives a pretty good idea of what kind of projections you get with 20 scouting... None of these players had any significant injuries, and all were developed with regular playing time in the minors, were promoted every season, and were given playing time in ST as well...

In my case, I'd describe the projections given by 20 in scouting as 'fairly accurate' given that there aren't any player development issues that stunt player growth. I wouldn't say pinpoint accuracy though. As you'll see below, some of the ratings are dead on, most are pretty close, but you still have some ratings that are 5 or more points off of their projections.

The first number is the players maxed out rating, the second number, in (), is the projected rating when I drafted said player...

1st round pick- Al Pujols-
Overall- 85 (88)
Dur- 92 (92), Health- 69 (70)
Rng- 83 (80), Glv- 79 (83), ArmStr- 59 (61), ArmAcc- 60 (57)
Cont- 95 (100), Pwr- 48 (48), vL- 52 (55), vR- 78 (80), Eye- 84 (76)
Speed- 83 (86), BaseRunning- 69 (76)

2nd round pick- Hugh Moorhouse
Rng- 24 (26), Glv- 33 (35), ArmStr- 81 (81), ArmAcc- 78 (81), PC- 93 (96)
Power- 73 (75)

3rd round pick- Danny White
Overall- 64 (66)
Dur- 79 (79), Health- 97 (97)
Range- 90 (93), Glove- 90 (92), ArmStr- 90 (95), ArmAcc- 84 (89)
Cont- 9 (8), Power- 13 (14), vL- 16 (18), vR- 70 (74), Eye- 73 (72)
Speed- 100 (100), BaseRunning- 75 (79)

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2015 7:09:00 PM (view original):
It didn't happen.   If it did, he's the first person in about 170,000 HBD seasons that did see all the prospects drafted in the top 100.    And easily the first person to check EVERY ONE of his top 100 PROSPECTS to find out where they were drafted.    I don't even know why anyone would do that. 

I reconciled the lists in both directions (spreadsheet to draft, draft to spreadsheet), to see who went where and to see who I didn't have. I did it to analyze the value of 20-20 and in my personal opinion it wasn't worth it. And it only took about 20 minutes so it wasn't like it was some kind of project.  

Mike I'm glad you speak for every single player who has ever played the game, I'm glad you've spent the time and money to play all 170,000 seasons yourself you must be very tired

It is entirely possible that I was very lucky in that particular batch of scouting to see every player.  Others may have not seen every player.  I can only speak for my own experience.  I swear to science that is what I saw and I probably still have my spreadsheet from that season to prove it if anybody is so inclined to compare them yourselves.  Persons who do not go 20-20 should not speak to that experience ie Mike, thank you for speaking on behalf of something you yourself do not do.  Stick to what you know, which is unhelpful informationless one-liners, and trolling

Thank you to whoever posted the user guide definition.  My summary, in my own words, was nearly identical to that.  If you have a problem with my use of "pinpoint" then that's just semantics, it's not a big deal, get over it.  Projections will never be exact

The jist was that a higher volume of attributes (not quite every single one of the 30 but as high of a percentage as it gets) were much more reasonably estimated across a maximum volume of players, even if it's not 100% of players, as I may have happened to be lucky. But it's as close to 100% as it gets.  Regardless, in my personal opinion it was a waste of budget units as it had no impact whatsoever on the quality of players I got with my 1st round or sandwich picks that season relative to the times I have gone 14-14 or 15-15

Does that please the WIS forum police?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2015 6:57:00 AM (view original):
It depends on how many prospects you actually see.   If it's less than 500, you will see the positions you have at 0.     If it's more than 500, you might squeeze them off your board.

This is Mike agreeing with me, by the way.  Landmark moment

I have no idea if I agreed with you.  You ramble on(see your previous post) and, like anyone who says a ton of incorrect things, you might get something right.


I am convinced, without hesitation, that you DID NOT see the first 100 players drafted in any draft.

Here's what really happens:

I used 20m in HS in Coop for 17 out of 18 seasons.   I usually check my top 10 to see where they were picked(top 40) and the top 10 HS players.    Of the top 10 18 y/o players drafted, I'd see between 6-8 with 20m in HS.    Since this occurred time and time again, I'm pretty sure 20m in amateur scouting will show you about 70% of the players.

Now, if I saw all 10, I'd keep going.   I have no idea why you stopped at 100.    Why not see how deep you could actually go?   Why stop at 100?   Why not go to 135?  150?   187?  223?    An even 250?

Anyone who's put 20m in IFA knows they don't see all of them.    Anyone who's put 0 in HS/College knows you still see a handful.    Why would anyone believe, even for a second, that 20/20 would give you every player available?    Makes no sense.