People get all tied up in projections.    Once you draft a guy, his projections do not matter.   Develop him and see where he ends up.   You might be disappointed but it takes 3-4 seasons to know.    You can't draft a guy and say "Damn, my 19m HS scouting said he was an 84, my 18m ADV says he's a 79 and his currents are 30 points from getting there!!!!"    With good coaching and high training, players make huge gains.

I agree with that for a lot of the ratings, but (in the past) I have never seen Durability for pitchers to up more then 5 points or speed for position players more then 1 or 2. (I know the second reference is a little obscure but those are the only two ratings categories that I have found to be very stoic.)

That's correct.   But a 12 DUR pitcher isn't unusable.   He just needs a new role.  If he's good enough, you'll find one. 

With $0 scouting in one of my categories for an upcoming amateur draft, I'm seeing a position player who "projects" to 99 overall. Which is an Overall I simply have never seen.

Mike is just drunk on this. IF not so great players are going in the 1st round, then why is no one drafting accidental studs in the 3rd round?

Are you implying that the talent level is down?   That there are no studs?   Because, if you are, I think you need to re-evaluate who's drunk.  Someone is drafting them somewhere.   It's just not you.

I posted in another thread-- I'm among the owners who are finding "accidental" studs later.  The talent level is the same as it ever was, the order in which the studs are found is less predictable.  It's up to you to decide if you like it or not.

Posted by timb116 on 12/13/2015 2:26:00 AM (view original):
Mike is just drunk on this. IF not so great players are going in the 1st round, then why is no one drafting accidental studs in the 3rd round?

There's really only a handful of true studs in every draft.  Let's say 4 or 5, for the sake of argument.

Under the previous system, they would all go going in the top 10-12 picks.

Under the new system, they're likely going anywhere in the first round.  It's unlikely they'd be dropping to the 3rd round.  But it's probably slightly more likely that you're finding more quality potential ML talent in the 3rd round than you used to.

I still stand by my original point. What is the sense in spending 20 million in HS or College scouting, when you don't get reliable scouting. If I had scouts in real life that were continuously providing bad information on prospects, I would fire them and hire new ones. That's the whole idea of spending budget money on scouting. To get reliable info. This new system does not provide that. Not when a player's ratings are 8 points lower after signing. I might as well not spend the money on scouting and hope for the best.

Posted by pbsilver11 on 12/31/2015 11:47:00 AM (view original):
I still stand by my original point. What is the sense in spending 20 million in HS or College scouting, when you don't get reliable scouting. If I had scouts in real life that were continuously providing bad information on prospects, I would fire them and hire new ones. That's the whole idea of spending budget money on scouting. To get reliable info. This new system does not provide that. Not when a player's ratings are 8 points lower after signing. I might as well not spend the money on scouting and hope for the best.

Because $20m is still better than $10m or $0m.

Unless you were (or still are) spending $20m on advanced scouting (which was foolish for veteran owners before the update in question), you likely saw changes in projections anyways.  Nothing has changed in that aspect.

Go back and look at MLB drafts from 1990-2000.   You'll see far more busts than 10 year careers taken in the first round.   Why should HBD guarantee that the fifth pick in the draft be a HOFer?

In one of my worlds I have 20mil put into HS scouting. The max. I have 0 in col scouting, the lowest. In a recent draft I was able to see the ratings for 172 players. But I found it odd that 33 of these were for col players. But what really tourqued me was after the draft I looked at the top 40-50 players and out of the first 20 HS players drafted there were 6, or 30%, that I did not see. This imo is a bunch of bull ****. So for paying in my max 20 mil I get 33 ****** ratings on college players and don't even see all of the cream of the crop of the HS players that I paid to see. If one pays in the max you should see all of the available players in the area that you budgeted for. If you didn't pay in the max you should see less. It should be simple.

Posted by jibe on 12/31/2015 12:28:00 PM (view original):
In one of my worlds I have 20mil put into HS scouting. The max. I have 0 in col scouting, the lowest. In a recent draft I was able to see the ratings for 172 players. But I found it odd that 33 of these were for col players. But what really tourqued me was after the draft I looked at the top 40-50 players and out of the first 20 HS players drafted there were 6, or 30%, that I did not see. This imo is a bunch of bull ****. So for paying in my max 20 mil I get 33 ****** ratings on college players and don't even see all of the cream of the crop of the HS players that I paid to see. If one pays in the max you should see all of the available players in the area that you budgeted for. If you didn't pay in the max you should see less. It should be simple.

It's quite possible that of the 6 (of the first 20 drafted) HS players that you didn't see, that most (if not all) of them may not have been worthy of being drafted that high.  You don't know the HS scouting budgets of the teams that drafted them.  You might not even know the track record of the owners that drafted them.  They might turn out to be regrettable mistakes on the parts of the owners that drafted them.

It will be a number of seasons before you can truly evaluate how well you did compared to other owners for this particular draft.

Keep in mind, everybody is playing under the same new rules in the amateur draft.  Rather than ***** and moan, figure out how to make the best of it.

Really? You mean when I spend $20 million on scouting, draft a 84 rated pitcher who shows splits at 84/86, then the pitcher signs and is actually a 75 rated pitcher with splits 73/68. That was my fault for not analyzing properly? How do,you analyze with bad information provided? Garbage in, garbage out.

Is that 84 pitcher with 84/86 splits a fully-developed pro now?   I'll answer to save some time.  No, he is not.   So how can you even analyze the information?