Posted by zsap on 4/21/2011 10:05:00 PM (view original):
I don't get what libido will determine. Why is it even on their? Anybody use a psychologist opinion or are those crap?

That was a little more relevant when dilemmas were part of the game.

While I wait for kmason to respond to my points about the actual gameplay of HD, I'd also like to point out that expecting to get a perfect scouting report on any aspect of a player's potential from watching one high school is just as unrealistic as what we have now...

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 10:30:00 PM (view original):
While I wait for kmason to respond to my points about the actual gameplay of HD, I'd also like to point out that expecting to get a perfect scouting report on any aspect of a player's potential from watching one high school is just as unrealistic as what we have now...

How about 15 games? I hope my Assistant Coach can tell me what the prospective Center's rebounding potential is after 15 games. I wasn't truly bothered by it because I know he was high potential from FSS, just not if he was high-high, but it would be truly frustrating to send 15 SVs on an international C and not know if he was low, avg, or high, in reb and blk.

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 10:30:00 PM (view original):
While I wait for kmason to respond to my points about the actual gameplay of HD, I'd also like to point out that expecting to get a perfect scouting report on any aspect of a player's potential from watching one high school is just as unrealistic as what we have now...

Your actual points are irrelevant to my actual point which is it's silly that an assistant college basketball coach goes to watch players play and often reports back with nonsensical information. I don't get why it should cost more for your assistant coach to actually do his job.

I used to actually scout high school basketball and you can get a ton of info in 1 game, let alone 3 or 4. Honestly if you are a college scout and you watch a kid play 3 or 4 times and you can't answer every question the head coach throws at you about the player you are awful at your job. Especially when you're talking about core skills to a position. I remember 1 time scouting an international SG and it taking 11 evals before I was finally told about his shooting. You are telling me it makes sense that it takes 11 times watching a shooting guard to determine how well he shoots? Sometimes you want to do a couple of scouting trips to decide if you want to recruit somebody and it would be great and pretty realistic if it only took a couple of trips to determine that.

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 4/21/2011 10:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 10:30:00 PM (view original):
While I wait for kmason to respond to my points about the actual gameplay of HD, I'd also like to point out that expecting to get a perfect scouting report on any aspect of a player's potential from watching one high school is just as unrealistic as what we have now...

Your actual points are irrelevant to my actual point which is it's silly that an assistant college basketball coach goes to watch players play and often reports back with nonsensical information. I don't get why it should cost more for your assistant coach to actually do his job.

I used to actually scout high school basketball and you can get a ton of info in 1 game, let alone 3 or 4. Honestly if you are a college scout and you watch a kid play 3 or 4 times and you can't answer every question the head coach throws at you about the player you are awful at your job. Especially when you're talking about core skills to a position. I remember 1 time scouting an international SG and it taking 11 evals before I was finally told about his shooting. You are telling me it makes sense that it takes 11 times watching a shooting guard to determine how well he shoots? Sometimes you want to do a couple of scouting trips to decide if you want to recruit somebody and it would be great and pretty realistic if it only took a couple of trips to determine that.

Oh, so that was just a "HD isn't like real life" rant? Sorry for interrupting then, I thought you actually wanted to discuss ways to improve the game, not just blow off steam. Carry on.

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 10:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zsap on 4/21/2011 10:05:00 PM (view original):
I don't get what libido will determine. Why is it even on their? Anybody use a psychologist opinion or are those crap?

That was a little more relevant when dilemmas were part of the game.

The truth is that anton has an iron-clad rule about only recruiting high libido players.

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 4/21/2011 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 1:25:00 PM (view original):
You're taking a gamble on an international's potential anyway since you can't FSS them, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about here.

Huh? That's why he's doing scouting trips to find out his potential. And he's saying it's riduclous that you can't control what you want your assistant coach to look at, telling me how well a SG blocks shots and not telling me how his ball handling or shooting are is silly.

No, he's doing scouting trips to recruit the kid and find out his potential.

If he wants to ensure that he gets all the scouting info he wants, he can spend more money on scout trips. If he doesn't want to spend that kind of money, maybe he should stay away from internationals.

On the rare occasions I go after an international, I still do scout trips in batches of 10 precisely so I can make sure I get all the potential info I need. If you're being cheap and trying to get away with only doing 5 or so, you get no sympathy from me.

If you want to introduce a targeted scouting report that gives you every potential message, I don't think that's a terrible idea. But the cost on it should be huge and it should offer no more recruiting 'points' than doing a single normal scouting trip.

There's a whole lot of things in recruiting that are 'silly'. This is one 'silly' thing that actually has a big impact in terms of the cost/benefit equation in recruiting. Offering an inexpensive way to get all the potential info you want on a player would drastically change the way coaches approach recruiting, and not in my mind for the better.

With all due respect, I'm guessing you're only coaching D1 teams? Because at D2 / D3, it's completely unrealistic to spend thousands of dollars simply to find out one player's potential and get only medium recruiting value. That's not a matter of being "cheap", it's simply not possible. And when a D3 coach can't find out all of a player's relevant potentials within a certain number of trips - maybe 5, maybe a little higher - I don't think that's a good thing, because it dramatically reduces the ability to get good internationals or players more than a couple of hundred miles away. And, as kmasonbx pointed out, it's also completely unrealistic that a competent assistant coach can't figure out that rebounding is an important part of evaluating a center.

The fact that 5 scouting trips is a rounding error to your D1 budget doesn't change the fact that the scouting system is not as useful or realistic as it should be for everybody at D2 / D3.

Posted by antonsirius on 4/22/2011 10:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 4/21/2011 10:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 10:30:00 PM (view original):
While I wait for kmason to respond to my points about the actual gameplay of HD, I'd also like to point out that expecting to get a perfect scouting report on any aspect of a player's potential from watching one high school is just as unrealistic as what we have now...

Your actual points are irrelevant to my actual point which is it's silly that an assistant college basketball coach goes to watch players play and often reports back with nonsensical information. I don't get why it should cost more for your assistant coach to actually do his job.

I used to actually scout high school basketball and you can get a ton of info in 1 game, let alone 3 or 4. Honestly if you are a college scout and you watch a kid play 3 or 4 times and you can't answer every question the head coach throws at you about the player you are awful at your job. Especially when you're talking about core skills to a position. I remember 1 time scouting an international SG and it taking 11 evals before I was finally told about his shooting. You are telling me it makes sense that it takes 11 times watching a shooting guard to determine how well he shoots? Sometimes you want to do a couple of scouting trips to decide if you want to recruit somebody and it would be great and pretty realistic if it only took a couple of trips to determine that.

Oh, so that was just a "HD isn't like real life" rant? Sorry for interrupting then, I thought you actually wanted to discuss ways to improve the game, not just blow off steam. Carry on.

How does it not improve the game if it allows D2/D3 schools to spend there money much more effectively? It also allows lower tier D1 schools to do the same and find some diamonds in the rough without having to potentially do 10 evals just to get all the information they need. There is a big difference between recruiting a big man with 40LP and just normal hi potential and hi/hi. With one he'll only get into the 60s LP with the other he could get into the 90s, it would be nice for teams on a short budget if your assistant coach didn't need to watch a big man play 8 times before something was mentioned about his interior play.

Now try again to come up with a reason as to how this isn't good for the game.

Hey I coach at D1, and 5 scouting trips on an international are $3500.  That is significant, even when you have a $75,000 budget.  If I can't be sure I'll know if a SG has potential in PER/BH or Speed, it is a waste.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 4/22/2011 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 4/21/2011 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 1:25:00 PM (view original):
You're taking a gamble on an international's potential anyway since you can't FSS them, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about here.

Huh? That's why he's doing scouting trips to find out his potential. And he's saying it's riduclous that you can't control what you want your assistant coach to look at, telling me how well a SG blocks shots and not telling me how his ball handling or shooting are is silly.

No, he's doing scouting trips to recruit the kid and find out his potential.

If he wants to ensure that he gets all the scouting info he wants, he can spend more money on scout trips. If he doesn't want to spend that kind of money, maybe he should stay away from internationals.

On the rare occasions I go after an international, I still do scout trips in batches of 10 precisely so I can make sure I get all the potential info I need. If you're being cheap and trying to get away with only doing 5 or so, you get no sympathy from me.

If you want to introduce a targeted scouting report that gives you every potential message, I don't think that's a terrible idea. But the cost on it should be huge and it should offer no more recruiting 'points' than doing a single normal scouting trip.

There's a whole lot of things in recruiting that are 'silly'. This is one 'silly' thing that actually has a big impact in terms of the cost/benefit equation in recruiting. Offering an inexpensive way to get all the potential info you want on a player would drastically change the way coaches approach recruiting, and not in my mind for the better.

With all due respect, I'm guessing you're only coaching D1 teams? Because at D2 / D3, it's completely unrealistic to spend thousands of dollars simply to find out one player's potential and get only medium recruiting value. That's not a matter of being "cheap", it's simply not possible. And when a D3 coach can't find out all of a player's relevant potentials within a certain number of trips - maybe 5, maybe a little higher - I don't think that's a good thing, because it dramatically reduces the ability to get good internationals or players more than a couple of hundred miles away. And, as kmasonbx pointed out, it's also completely unrealistic that a competent assistant coach can't figure out that rebounding is an important part of evaluating a center.

The fact that 5 scouting trips is a rounding error to your D1 budget doesn't change the fact that the scouting system is not as useful or realistic as it should be for everybody at D2 / D3.

Again, there's a cost/benefit ratio that you have navigate at all levels. How you handle that equation changes as you move up the ladder and your budget increases - I don't dispute that.

But at any level, if I'm spending money on SVs, I've already decided I want to sign that player. SVs are a recruiting tool first and a scouting tool second. Getting more specific potential info is a bonus, it's not the main purpose of the SV. The difference between high and high-high may help me decide if I want to battle for that player, should I have competition, but that's about it.

If you're suggesting we should have an option that's basically purely a scouting tool, I suggested something along those lines that I think would keep the game in balance. But it should not be cheap to get the potential messages on core ratings for every player you might have interest in.

If you see that as me being callous to the budgets of DIII and DII coaches, maybe it is. But the entire system is callous to the budgets of DIII and DII coaches.

Posted by kmasonbx on 4/22/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/22/2011 10:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 4/21/2011 10:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/21/2011 10:30:00 PM (view original):
While I wait for kmason to respond to my points about the actual gameplay of HD, I'd also like to point out that expecting to get a perfect scouting report on any aspect of a player's potential from watching one high school is just as unrealistic as what we have now...

Your actual points are irrelevant to my actual point which is it's silly that an assistant college basketball coach goes to watch players play and often reports back with nonsensical information. I don't get why it should cost more for your assistant coach to actually do his job.

I used to actually scout high school basketball and you can get a ton of info in 1 game, let alone 3 or 4. Honestly if you are a college scout and you watch a kid play 3 or 4 times and you can't answer every question the head coach throws at you about the player you are awful at your job. Especially when you're talking about core skills to a position. I remember 1 time scouting an international SG and it taking 11 evals before I was finally told about his shooting. You are telling me it makes sense that it takes 11 times watching a shooting guard to determine how well he shoots? Sometimes you want to do a couple of scouting trips to decide if you want to recruit somebody and it would be great and pretty realistic if it only took a couple of trips to determine that.

Oh, so that was just a "HD isn't like real life" rant? Sorry for interrupting then, I thought you actually wanted to discuss ways to improve the game, not just blow off steam. Carry on.

How does it not improve the game if it allows D2/D3 schools to spend there money much more effectively? It also allows lower tier D1 schools to do the same and find some diamonds in the rough without having to potentially do 10 evals just to get all the information they need. There is a big difference between recruiting a big man with 40LP and just normal hi potential and hi/hi. With one he'll only get into the 60s LP with the other he could get into the 90s, it would be nice for teams on a short budget if your assistant coach didn't need to watch a big man play 8 times before something was mentioned about his interior play.

Now try again to come up with a reason as to how this isn't good for the game.

If you think making it cheap and easy to get potential messages on any player you might have a vague interest in would help teams with small budgets, you're deluding yourself.

SV is a recruiting tool first, scouting tool second? Why would you use SV as a scouting tool first when HV and CV are more cost effective?

There is a high degree of luck involved in the information you get from SV. I sent 1 SV to a PG in D2 and it gave me his def/lp/per/bh are all high-high. I spent 15 SV in D3 on a C and didn't get a single mention of his Reb, and this was done with 10 SV in the first shot (aka, one of your batch of 10), and then 5 in the 2nd go. 

anton, you aren't very good at recruiting and should probably listen more than you talk in this thread

Being able to somehow customize SVs would be an extremely beneficial change to the game. And yes, I agree that you shouldn't be able to find out everything with just one trip. But there should be a way to guarantee you get the info you need without bankrupting yourself. In my opinion, being able to do this would be tremendously helpful for lower-level D1 teams not only when scouting internationals, but also when hunting for players with high-high potential in key areas. I like OR's idea about a pricier SV that gives you exactly the key attributes you want.

Yes, there is some degree of luck involved in finding a high-high player. That's better than the alternative. Could the system be tweaked a bit? Maybe. But if you make it too cheap and easy to find high-highs, don't count on getting any unless you have six open slots and good prestige.