Advanced Scouting vs. Reality Topic

Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
Let's say I have my advanced scouting at 4 and I see a pitcher with projections of 65 st., 71 ct., 67 vL, 75 vR....someone else has advanced scouting at 20 and sees projections of 81 st., 86 ct., 72 vL, 83 vR.

If that pitcher stays on my team, will he be limited to the projections set forth by my crappy advanced scouting team, or could he exceed them to match the projections seen by owners with more accurate projections?
3/19/2011 11:15 AM
shobob
Posts: 3403 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
Scouting doesn't influence development.  Projected ratings are merely a "snapshot" of what a player's ratings could be under ideal conditions.
3/19/2011 11:18 AM
cmthieme
Posts: 28 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 61
Prospect

Said in a different way, every player has a "true" projection that no one sees.  What everyone sees is a variation of that "true" projection, and the level of variance will depend on your scouting budget.  The lower the scouting, the better chance your variance will be greater (i.e. the ratings you see will be further from the "true" projection in either direction).  The higher the scouting, the better chance the variance will be lower (i.e. the ratings you see will be closer to the "true" projection in either direction).  But players will develop based on their "true" projection, and all the other factors that influence development (i..e playing time, coaching, training, injuries, promotions, etc., etc).

Or to answer your questions very succinctly...NO, YES.

3/19/2011 11:30 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 15788 (0)
Hall of Famer
759 1 2 2 145
Prospect
Then my next question...I've used varied ADV scouting across my worlds so far.  How come I've never seen a guy exceed his projections?  Seems with a low ADV budget, you should see it happen once in a while.  Or will the projections simply increase in that situation, even with poor advanced scouting?
3/19/2011 12:04 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
My observations are that lower ADV budgets tend to inflate projections, making players look much better than higher scouting budgets make them look.  One would logically think that the numbers should be skewed either way (better or worse), but it feels like it trends more towards better.
3/19/2011 12:35 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Back when I used ADV as a tool, I found that there were a few ratings that could be under-evaluated.    IIRC, it was learned skills.  Physical skills were always overrated. 
3/19/2011 12:47 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
I've got a few guys who have "maxed out" in a category according to my 0 ADV. When they gain another point, the projected number just goes up a point to match.
3/19/2011 1:17 PM
dwoolery
Posts: 320 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 148
Prospect
Assuming an owner spends more time tracking his own players development than everyone else's, a bias for projections to err on the low side makes sense to me. If your scouts' projections were off on the low side, you would be less inclined to try to acquire that player, if they are off on the high side, you will try harder to acquire the player, therefore ending up with more players likely not to reach their perceived potential.
3/19/2011 1:51 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by dwoolery on 3/19/2011 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Assuming an owner spends more time tracking his own players development than everyone else's, a bias for projections to err on the low side makes sense to me. If your scouts' projections were off on the low side, you would be less inclined to try to acquire that player, if they are off on the high side, you will try harder to acquire the player, therefore ending up with more players likely not to reach their perceived potential.
That wouldn't apply to draft picks and INTLs though, since the projections you're looking at when you acquire them are different from the ones shown by your ADV.
3/19/2011 1:57 PM
dwoolery
Posts: 320 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 148
Prospect
Of course, but I'm making a leap of faith that if your HS scouting is 20 and your ADV is 4 then your expecations are guided by what your HS scouts said. If not, then you have much bigger problems than this thread is inquiring about.

However, if your HS scouting is, say 14, then I would argue you are still likely to choose HS players who are likely to come up short of your HS scouts projections due to the same bias.
3/19/2011 2:15 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
OK. The bit at the beginning about tracking development confused the issue for me - sounded more like you were talking about acquiring players from other organizations.
3/19/2011 2:36 PM
Crump123
Posts: 361 (0)
Hall of Famer
238 132
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 3/19/2011 12:35:00 PM (view original):
My observations are that lower ADV budgets tend to inflate projections, making players look much better than higher scouting budgets make them look.  One would logically think that the numbers should be skewed either way (better or worse), but it feels like it trends more towards better.
WIFS confirmed (in an early dev chat i think), that low ADV will inflate projections. Which i think is wrong as low scouting will, Never, significantly under project someone, which is clearly wrong.
3/19/2011 2:50 PM
dwoolery
Posts: 320 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 148
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 3/19/2011 2:36:00 PM (view original):
OK. The bit at the beginning about tracking development confused the issue for me - sounded more like you were talking about acquiring players from other organizations.
I'm sure I could have worded that better, but I think it applies to trades as well. If you are asking for players in a trade, it's presumably because your ADV scouts prefer that player over another. It seems natural that the tendency would be to trade for players who are more likely to come in under projections, because you aren't likely to ask for those players whom your scouts deem less attractive but whose actual potential is higher.
3/19/2011 2:55 PM
shobob
Posts: 3403 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 370
Prospect
I go with 0 adv scouting, and I notice under-projections happen quite a bit.  What anton says earlier has happened to me (projections maxed out, but they go up when current goes up too)
3/19/2011 2:57 PM
dwoolery
Posts: 320 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 148
Prospect
Posted by Crump123 on 3/19/2011 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/19/2011 12:35:00 PM (view original):
My observations are that lower ADV budgets tend to inflate projections, making players look much better than higher scouting budgets make them look.  One would logically think that the numbers should be skewed either way (better or worse), but it feels like it trends more towards better.
WIFS confirmed (in an early dev chat i think), that low ADV will inflate projections. Which i think is wrong as low scouting will, Never, significantly under project someone, which is clearly wrong.
I'm not necessarily disgareeing with you here, just curious, how would one know if that's the case? If a player has a ceiling of 75 but your scouts project him as a 60, when would you try to acquire him? And even if you made the attempt - thru draft, trade, IFA, wouldn't someone who saw him more accurately, or just as inaccurately on the upside, be likely to use more resources to acquire that player? (And then be likely to be disappointed in the outcome)
3/19/2011 2:59 PM
12 Next ▸
Advanced Scouting vs. Reality Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.