I know this has been discussed Ad Nauseum (if someone mentioned this point already let me know and I'll delete the topic)

But with putting more money into HS, Coll and INT scouting, why didn't they make the ratings not fuzzy at all (so super accurate for $20 mill, still pretty good for $10) but then not show the projected ratings until you draft the guy which would be shown by your advanced scouting? Or show them when they are on the draft board but have the projections based off of advanced scouting.

This way, people wouldn't complain about missing a good player so much. You see a HS guy with a 53 overall, he is probably good. You see a College SR with a 70+ rating, probably a good player. Where it would make the difference would be
1) The guys you don't see in the draft
2) The gems that start off small but then gain 10-12 points a year.

This would still allow the best players to go in the top 10 but would also allow some hidden gems to fall later in the draft.
I feel like this would reflect actual scouting as well. A HS or Coll scout should be able to say how well a player they are scouting is playing and how well they should play against Big League players, but it would be difficult to determine just how much they would grow. Lots of figures would determine that.

No one should care about projected ratings once you draft a player. What are you gonna do? Throw him back?

Trade em away to the next unsuspecting rube.

Alrhough in my experiance, it's a lot easier to get vets for prospects then vice versa.

I'd love to hear how the meeting went that decided the fix for scouting that wasn't all the broken was to remove current ratings and show projected ratings only.

HBD is a baseball / MLB simulation.

In the real world when you scout a player you have no idea how fast they are today, or what kind of power they currently have, or how hard they throw.

But you have a good idea how well they'll do all of these things in 4-5 years.

All agreed? Good. Looks like we can break for lunch early.

You know why it had to be done. To pretend otherwise is to show ignorance.

You decide.

OK, I'll bite. I don't think I know why it "had" to be done. If I did, I've forgotten.

I wasn't a massive fan of the previous system. But now that I've been through the update for several seasons with different teams and budgets, I'm not seeing this as an improvement.

In the old system, 14 seemed be better than 10. And 10 was a little better than 8. Now they all seem the same. Random numbers. And players still don't reach projections in almost all categories, so it's random on one side of the final reality only.

Because we can't' see other teams budgets from past seasons, it's unlikely I'll ever have enough of my own teams to understand the new logic. Which seems like the new logic will always be a guessing game, so budgets won't matter. Which makes this part of HBD a guessing game. And guessing isn't all that fun. I could spend the time calling coin flips.

People were going 2-4m scouting and drafting off currents. One could put 6-8m, split between HC/COL, and see enough players to have a successful draft. IOW, if I see HS player with 52/61/48/42/58 in the batting ratings and 70+ make-up, that was more than enough to warrant drafting. So actuals had to go or the entire system had to be redone.

I've done OK with 16-18m in scouting. I'd have done better with 4m and actuals.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/11/2016 3:50:00 PM (view original):
People were going 2-4m scouting and drafting off currents. One could put 6-8m, split between HC/COL, and see enough players to have a successful draft. IOW, if I see HS player with 52/61/48/42/58 in the batting ratings and 70+ make-up, that was more than enough to warrant drafting. So actuals had to go or the entire system had to be redone.

I've done OK with 16-18m in scouting. I'd have done better with 4m and actuals.

Spot on

FWIW, I preferred the old way. Let me put 10-12m someplace else. And it gave me an advantage over those who looked at projections and said "HOLY HELL, 100 ACROSS THE BOARD!!!!!" when that 22 y/o was 71/68/57/59/63 with a 32 make-up.

This way evens the playing field and forces teams to scout.

Under the old system I had actually started drafting more off of currents than projections without realizing it. I'd rank prospects first on projections, then switch to currents and fine tune. I'd like to think I'd have figured the money savings out sooner than later.

The other problem which has, IMO, been fixed, was that you could see almost the exact order in which the top prospects would go off the board. No one would miss on a top draft pick. If you were out of the top ten, you had no shot at those players, which encouraged tanking. And more owners without protected picks were more likely to go for Type As instead of holding onto say, the #19 or #26.

Posted by hockey1984 on 11/2/2016 5:16:00 PM (view original):
Trade em away to the next unsuspecting rube.

Alrhough in my experiance, it's a lot easier to get vets for prospects then vice versa.

Found this comment a bit confusing. If you can get vets for prospects, then that means that there must be someone out there equally willing to give prospects for vets. Otherwise, you'd have no trading partners.

I think the real problem here is that most us are just leery to trade away prospects. We all fear we're trading the next Bryce Harper, when the truth of the matter is that most of the time we're trading the next Shawn Abner.

I think it's more of a payroll cap, years of control and years of production thing.

If I have a 22 y/o, I know I've got 10 years(3 min, 2 arb, 5 LT) of production. It's hard to move that guy for a 31 y/o who might go FA in a couple of seasons and will certainly begin to decline.

Posted by lvnwrth on 11/12/2016 8:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hockey1984 on 11/2/2016 5:16:00 PM (view original):
Trade em away to the next unsuspecting rube.

Alrhough in my experiance, it's a lot easier to get vets for prospects then vice versa.

Found this comment a bit confusing. If you can get vets for prospects, then that means that there must be someone out there equally willing to give prospects for vets. Otherwise, you'd have no trading partners.

I think the real problem here is that most us are just leery to trade away prospects. We all fear we're trading the next Bryce Harper, when the truth of the matter is that most of the time we're trading the next Shawn Abner.

Yeah. I'm the one trading away the prospects for the vets. That's what I meant with that comment.


I have found, in the past, that it is very easy to trade away a 19-21 year old Starting pitcher with splits that project to low to mid 60's for a 30 year old LF slugger or a 32 year old SP3. Where as, if I have a 27 year old 3B who can hit .300 with 30 HR's or a 32 year old who is a lock for 16 wins with a sub 3 ERA a season, its still like pulling teeth trying to get a prospect I could actually see being a starting player or rotation pitcher.


I preferred the old way to to be honest. I know that there were a lot of IFA's going for $30-$40 million but I could still get a few decent guys for $10 and I could still see them. Now I don't bother. IFA budget is 0. Same with the draft, I found it rewarded looking through the draft. Everyone knew who was going in the first round, but second round I found SP4 and 5 guys. Good closer and bullpen guys and some really really good defensive players. Now, even with $20 million HS I have no idea what I'm getting. And I have COLL at 0 because I can't afford both. So all of those guys go right to the bottom of the pile.

Well, it finally happened. 19th round. 600 something pick overall.

https://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=8302350

better then my guy I picked 16th overall. The thing is, sure it's cool, but I don't feel a sense of outsmarting other owners into getting this guy. If I had him on my board and picked him in the sandwich or second round I would for sure.

Posted by hockey1984 on 11/15/2016 7:46:00 PM (view original):
Well, it finally happened. 19th round. 600 something pick overall.

https://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=8302350

betted then my guy I picked 16th overall. The thing is, sure it's cool, but I don't feel a sense of outsmarting other owners into getting this guy. If I had him on my board and picked him in the sandwich or second round I would for sure.

Did he look like a 19th rd pick before you signed him? Or did he look good even before he signed?