Aspect of new update that is ridiculous. Topic

torrone
Posts: 491 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 4 28 168
Prospect
OK, there is one aspect of this new update that is BS. All you see on IFAs is projected ratings. So, they are saying that you can see what a guy possibly will be, but they have no idea of what he is NOW!!! That is patently ridiculous.
5/28/2015 9:29 AM
mchales_army
Posts: 523 (0)
Prospect
1
Rookie
  • Prospects (until signed) will only display projected ratings instead of both current and projected ratings.  This change was necessary to best accomplish the next item...
  • A new, fuzzier projected rating system will be introduced for high school, college and international scouting.
5/28/2015 9:52 AM
mchales_army
Posts: 523 (0)
Prospect
1
Rookie
Posted by jamesp469 on 5/7/2015 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2015 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Sort of defeats the purpose of using $$$ to scout domestic/IFA if you know their currents.  
I disagree.  MILB is littered with players that looked good coming out of HS/College but just never reached their projected ceilings.  So someone could roll the dice on a 62 college player with a first round pick, and have him top out at 69.
You're trying to compare MLB to HBD on a base level.   That's a mistake.

The purpose is to get owners to invest money in different categories.    By showing the current ratings of undrafted/unsigned prospects, you discourage that.   I'd roll the dice on 62 rated college players to put 10-20m somewhere else.   But, if I'm basing it only on projected ratings, I have to put that money in college scouting so my projections are reasonably accurate.
5/28/2015 9:57 AM
torrone
Posts: 491 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 4 28 168
Prospect
So the idea is to force an owner to spend his money where he doesn't want to? That is artificially constraining. I reiterate that you should definitely know what a player is now and have to speculate, based on whatever formulas you use, on what he will be in the future. To not know what a players ratings currently are is unrealistic. If you want to put more money into scouting to make the projections more accurate, fine. But this is forcing you to. It eliminates one of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me, which was using my own expertise(for what that is worth), knowledge(ditto) and guesswork to figure what a player will be. Now, that aspect is gone and IMO it is to the detriment of the game.
5/28/2015 10:16 AM
mchales_army
Posts: 523 (0)
Prospect
1
Rookie
The people complaining the most seem to be missing the point.

With currents available it absolutely negates the value of ALL scouting.

We are using simulated players with a numerical system. These are hard numbers, which is a tool that doesn't exist in real life.

What is Kershaw's P1 and control rating?

What is Bryce Harper's Eye and PWR rating?

Was McGwire a 95PWR coming out of school?

I mean I was better than most at getting talent deep in the draft, based mostly off currents/age/makeup/health. So it isn't like I am jumping for joy that currents are no longer available, however I do understand the reasoning, and I will adjust and come out the other side still being one of the stronger owners.

I welcome the challenge.

5/28/2015 11:13 AM (edited)
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
So the idea is to force an owner to spend his money where he doesn't want to?

Apparently, you want to pursue IFA's.  So why shouldn't you be "forced" to spend money on your IFA scouting budget?

Your argument makes no sense in that context.  The update closes a loophole in which owners were able to game the system in which they were able to get good IFAs and draftees with low scouting budgets.  Now, you've got to invest more in those categories if you want to play successfully in those markets.  And that takes money away from other categories, forcing you to make more decisions.

Overall, it adds strategy to the game.  Which is a good thing.
5/28/2015 10:33 AM
joshkvt
Posts: 6200 (0)
Hall of Famer
664 99
All Star
If one of the more enjoyable aspects is being able to determine how good players are with no investment in scouting, then yeah, that's gone. A tragedy. Incredibly mean-spiited of WIS to make scouting matter in drafting/signing decisions.

Having to hire coaches is also artificially constraining, let's do away with that and I can teach my own players how to hit and field and pitch!

You can reiterate all you want, but it's ridiculous to state that you should be able to tell how good a player is with no scouts to give you reports. The fact that we could accurately predict how good players would be with low or no scouting was a flaw, not a feature.
5/28/2015 10:40 AM
mchales_army
Posts: 523 (0)
Prospect
1
Rookie
I like how he calls gaming the system "using my expertise & knowledge".

IOW you don't need a scouting staff because this isn't real life and you figured out development patterns?

So then if you must spend money on scouts to actually, you know, scout prospects that is somehow LESS realistic?



5/28/2015 10:43 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
This:


Quote post by MikeT23 on 5/27/2015 12:12:00 PM:
I keep going back to these two guys because I got them with low scouting/current ratings and I feel like I stole them.

Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Marwin Mota   Pick 23 with 4m
Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Randy Gagne  Pick 8 with 0m

Seems like my scouting reports would read like this:

Mota:   Watched a weekend series.  Good eye, nice swing, unpolished behind the plate.   Walked 8 times and never swung at a bad pitch.   Top level HS swing, might be able to sit on the end of a BL bench right now but needs some development.   Should be a respectable BL hitter but not sure we'll find a spot for him in the field.  Has missed a few games to injury.  Would like to see more.

Gagne:  Rained all weekend.  No games.  Saw a bullpen session.   Good arm with two good pitches and two that need some work.   All the locals rave about him.   Have to come back.



Now, would you spend a 1st round pick based on that?    I did because I had hard current numbers to look at.
 
5/28/2015 10:44 AM
hypnotoad
Posts: 2494 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 108 164 222
Veteran
Marge Schott is alive and playing HBD.
5/28/2015 10:50 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

We like our loopholes even if they aren't overly realistic.    And, even though this "low scouting/currents" fix is a bit unrealistic, it's better for the game.    Imagine the uproar if scouting reports were like I just posted instead of numbers?   That would be the most realistic but so cumbersome everyone would hate it.

5/28/2015 10:55 AM
sgmedia
Posts: 680 (0)
All Star
1 43
Prospect
In real life, you'll hear a GM say "We really like this kid we drafted.  Our scouts tell us he's got a great swing and speed, with plus range and arm in the outfield."  When is the last time you heard Billy Beane say "We've measured him out and he is currently playing to a 72 contact, 88 speed, 72 range and 77-66 arm, but we think with some development he can get into the 80's in all of the important categories"?  Yep...current ratings are far more realistic.  Personally, I would love to see a system with IFA and draft prospects where you get a current and projected "range", which is more or less accurate depending on how much you've spent on the appropriate scouts...for example, you'll see a current of "+" and projection of "+++" or something, and it can range from "+++" to "---".  This would be as close to real life as we could get in a game like this, I think.
5/28/2015 12:05 PM
torrone
Posts: 491 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 4 28 168
Prospect
Keeping currents with it tied to the amount you put into scouting would have been a much better idea. Just eliminating it totally was a bad idea, IMO. Projections have been based on the amount you put into IFA/HS/COLL. Why not currents too?
5/28/2015 12:31 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Invest in scouting the players you hope to acquire.    THAT makes perfect sense.   Wanna spend 2m in HS scouting?   Good.   Just don't expect much more than a couple of local papers telling you how great he is.    Spend 20m?   You've got 4 scouts evaluating his every move. 
5/28/2015 12:52 PM
bjschumacher
Posts: 4573 (0)
Hall of Famer
49 2 80 449 171
All Star
What I didn't like about the amateur draft system was that you could even see Gagne with 0m in scouting. Was there any mention that this was going to be modified so you can't see the best players with very low scouting budgets?
5/28/2015 1:20 PM
123 Next ▸
Aspect of new update that is ridiculous. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.