Seeing SS's rated as catchers is very rare, but not at all new new because of the new scouting system. As long as his projected PC rating crosses a certain threshold, he's be projected to be a C. It's just something you have to look out for with all prospects and all positions. The guy who's listed as a CF might really be a LF or 1B. The guy who's listed as a SS might really just be a 2B or 3B. And very rarely, the guy who's listed as a C is really a SS.

Posted by Jtpsops on 3/2/2017 12:26:00 PM (view original):
As far as prospects - I would like to see a tweak to how scouting budgets work. As of now, anything under $15M is near-useless. I would rather that your scouting budget determine the amount of prospects you see, rather than ratings. Then sign scouts the way we sign coaches.

In MLB, if Team A has a $10M scouting budget, they're going to scout less talent than Team B with a $20M scouting budget. But the ratings they get on players they scout will be determined by their scouts, not by their budget. If I only have the budget to scout one player in the world, he may not be a stud, but my assessment of that one player should be pretty damn accurate.

Right now, it's basically that teams scout a similar number of players, but scouting budget determines how much "time" is invested in scouting each player in order to compile accurate ratings. In reality, that would never happen. A team with a limited budget would choose to scout 250 players in more detail, than do a half-*** job scouting 500.

I like your thought here

campbell1972 - I understand your complaint better knowing it's based on 10-15 mil scouting. In my experience, dropping from 16 mil to 14 mil in Internationals (and going back up again) has created very noticeable differences in the quality and quantity of scouting I get. If I had 14 mil in a draft under this system I admit I wouldn't bother to trust any of the projections.
I know Admin doesn't like or want or have to spell "how to play the game" out for us - if everyone does the same thing "wrong" no one has an advantage anyway - but I'm in the camps of owners who pretty much take it as given now that anything below 16 mil is at least partially unreliable; 10 mil is a waste of money; and it's best just to pick your poison and lean on 20 mil at it.

Jtpsops - I like the idea, only one problem. I just ran a draft with 20 mil in High School where I was shown only 191 projected prospects. And I didn't see three of the HS players who went before my #20 pick. Under your system, If I had only 10 million scouting, I'd guess what would happen is that I might see only maybe 60 or 70 players, but with reliable projections. And I could possibly not see any of the top 10 (or even 20) players at all. I don't mind the idea because such a system would really make it more evident to owners that, hey, 10 million is useless... but there sure would be a lot of ******** about it.

There will probably be some ******** regardless, but I'd rather see accurate ratings on fewer prospects. In reality (and yes, I know HBD isn't reality) fuzzy ratings are pointless. If a team was constantly getting awful ratings because they didn't have the budget to spend more time scouting each player, they'd scout fewer players in order to get more accurate projections.

And yes, you're absolutely taking a chance that you may "choose" not to scout the best prospect. Though you could argue that in real life, even teams with limited scouting budgets will know who the best of the best are. But as long as the prospects you don't see aren't always coming off the top of the list, I wouldn't have a problem with it, since I'm the one making the choice to see fewer players.

As for your example, I would say that's just a matter of there being fewer draft-quality HS players than college players, which holds in real life too.

A bunch of us from MG started playing HD a couple of months ago. One thing that I really, really like about their recruiting process is that it's done on a player by player basis. You have options on how to first get awareness of the prospects that are out there (camps, scouting services, etc). When you first see recruits, they are at "level 1" (very high level ratings). You can then pick and choose who you wish to further scout to get more detailed and accurate ratings on, up to "level 4". You only see current ratings, but ratings are color coded (at levels 3 and 4) to see which ones have the potential to increase (red = very low potential for growth, green = very high potential for growth, and three others in between).

Implementing something like this in HBD would be a *****, and would probably create more ******** and moaning that it's worth. But it would make draft scouting much more realistic and interesting, and rewarding to those who are willing to put in the time. You'd have to open up draft scouting right at the beginning of the season (after budgets are set) to make it work. Hell, it would even give you something to do during spring training.

That would work. Some improvement is needed though, IMO, when you have a system where $0M in scouting is pretty much as useful as $12M in scouting. Especially when it takes you 3-4 seasons to get from one end of the spectrum to the other. If you make it a two-tier system where you set a budget (amount of prospects) and sign scouts (quality of ratings), then every budget level has a set value.

If they'd just do the damn regionalized scouting I recommended 10 years ago, all would be good.

Posted by campbell1972 on 3/2/2017 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by damag on 2/28/2017 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Not picking a fight with campbell1972 here, but I'm just tired of hearing complaints about the revised scouting system. I'm just saying this to refute anyone griping about it. From my perspective it works as intended, and is far, far better than the old system.

Fair enough damag. I don't usually get on the forums so I wouldn't know if I was beating a dead horse or not. I really don't have an issue with the budgeting plan for scouting. Makes sense. Whatever they have done to the prospect ratings is out of control. I had an IFA come up with 0s for both pitching splits. I got a high fielding grade SS that was listed as a C. Good for me right? I'll take him but I wanted a C. I had back to back 1st round picks last season. Their projections dropped up to 40 points in key performance areas. 40 points!? My first pick will be a career minor leaguer and the second may not make ML. You don't get them all I understand but I can often expect drops of 20 points in at least two key stats in top prospects whether draft pick or IFA. My budgeting is usually between 10-15 in all scouting categories.

Realistic or not doesn't really matter to me as much as having an idea of how my budgeting will be useful. It changes how I play the game which I don't have much interest in doing. I would have to go heavier on FAs since prospects are unreliable. I was always heavy on IFAs. Our world has become more competitive for them which is great but I am not seeing the point in bidding at all because of the skewed ratings and after effects. The other option is I let my minors slide and lose my higher value contracts maybe I'll get higher and better prospects because I'll have the budget to have more certainty in the numbers and the ability to bid higher. That is what the effects seem to be saying to owners. Polarizing game plans towards FAs or bail for a few seasons. Anyway you look at it the minors will take a beating. Like I said, If they smooth out the bizzare ratings I'd be perfectly happy.

Of course that all depends on how interested Fox is on maintaining WIS in the first place. We'll see...

Unfortunately you completely lost the ability to complain with 10-15 million scouting budgets. I haven't even completed a full season under the new budgets, but even I know it's basically 18M+ or nothing. Spending 3 more million on scouting will not cripple your budget and force you to lose multiple players. Just plan ahead.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2017 1:15:00 PM (view original):
A bunch of us from MG started playing HD a couple of months ago. One thing that I really, really like about their recruiting process is that it's done on a player by player basis. You have options on how to first get awareness of the prospects that are out there (camps, scouting services, etc). When you first see recruits, they are at "level 1" (very high level ratings). You can then pick and choose who you wish to further scout to get more detailed and accurate ratings on, up to "level 4". You only see current ratings, but ratings are color coded (at levels 3 and 4) to see which ones have the potential to increase (red = very low potential for growth, green = very high potential for growth, and three others in between).

Implementing something like this in HBD would be a *****, and would probably create more ******** and moaning that it's worth. But it would make draft scouting much more realistic and interesting, and rewarding to those who are willing to put in the time. You'd have to open up draft scouting right at the beginning of the season (after budgets are set) to make it work. Hell, it would even give you something to do during spring training.

As another guy who started playing HD a few months ago, I love this idea.

Posted by frankum on 3/2/2017 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by campbell1972 on 3/2/2017 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by damag on 2/28/2017 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Not picking a fight with campbell1972 here, but I'm just tired of hearing complaints about the revised scouting system. I'm just saying this to refute anyone griping about it. From my perspective it works as intended, and is far, far better than the old system.

Fair enough damag. I don't usually get on the forums so I wouldn't know if I was beating a dead horse or not. I really don't have an issue with the budgeting plan for scouting. Makes sense. Whatever they have done to the prospect ratings is out of control. I had an IFA come up with 0s for both pitching splits. I got a high fielding grade SS that was listed as a C. Good for me right? I'll take him but I wanted a C. I had back to back 1st round picks last season. Their projections dropped up to 40 points in key performance areas. 40 points!? My first pick will be a career minor leaguer and the second may not make ML. You don't get them all I understand but I can often expect drops of 20 points in at least two key stats in top prospects whether draft pick or IFA. My budgeting is usually between 10-15 in all scouting categories.

Realistic or not doesn't really matter to me as much as having an idea of how my budgeting will be useful. It changes how I play the game which I don't have much interest in doing. I would have to go heavier on FAs since prospects are unreliable. I was always heavy on IFAs. Our world has become more competitive for them which is great but I am not seeing the point in bidding at all because of the skewed ratings and after effects. The other option is I let my minors slide and lose my higher value contracts maybe I'll get higher and better prospects because I'll have the budget to have more certainty in the numbers and the ability to bid higher. That is what the effects seem to be saying to owners. Polarizing game plans towards FAs or bail for a few seasons. Anyway you look at it the minors will take a beating. Like I said, If they smooth out the bizzare ratings I'd be perfectly happy.

Of course that all depends on how interested Fox is on maintaining WIS in the first place. We'll see...

Unfortunately you completely lost the ability to complain with 10-15 million scouting budgets. I haven't even completed a full season under the new budgets, but even I know it's basically 18M+ or nothing. Spending 3 more million on scouting will not cripple your budget and force you to lose multiple players. Just plan ahead.

I've been around for 40 seasons. I can probably count on 1 hand the number of ML FAs that I have signed in that time which should tell you that I have relied almost completely on IFAs and draft picks. I prefer to build from within. With about 40 or 50 pennants in the minors and very minimalist in signing minor league FAs as well you could also say I'm pretty good at planning budgets out and have a pretty good understanding that 10 mil did far better before the changes than it does now. That said, I can complain all I like. The drop off is far worse than it used to be, the prospect numbers are far more skewed than they used to be and the draft projections vs projections once they hit the roster is far more brutal than they used to be. I would just like it to smooth out a bit more.

Posted by damag on 3/2/2017 12:48:00 PM (view original):
campbell1972 - I understand your complaint better knowing it's based on 10-15 mil scouting. In my experience, dropping from 16 mil to 14 mil in Internationals (and going back up again) has created very noticeable differences in the quality and quantity of scouting I get. If I had 14 mil in a draft under this system I admit I wouldn't bother to trust any of the projections.
I know Admin doesn't like or want or have to spell "how to play the game" out for us - if everyone does the same thing "wrong" no one has an advantage anyway - but I'm in the camps of owners who pretty much take it as given now that anything below 16 mil is at least partially unreliable; 10 mil is a waste of money; and it's best just to pick your poison and lean on 20 mil at it.

Jtpsops - I like the idea, only one problem. I just ran a draft with 20 mil in High School where I was shown only 191 projected prospects. And I didn't see three of the HS players who went before my #20 pick. Under your system, If I had only 10 million scouting, I'd guess what would happen is that I might see only maybe 60 or 70 players, but with reliable projections. And I could possibly not see any of the top 10 (or even 20) players at all. I don't mind the idea because such a system would really make it more evident to owners that, hey, 10 million is useless... but there sure would be a lot of ******** about it.

Thanks damag. I have noticed a definite difference in quantity in that range which I expect and don't worry about too much. I agree with Jtpsops in that I am fine with less prospects if they are well scouted. Quality is where I am having an issue. At 10 mil there should be some degree of variation in draft time projections and roster assignment projections but pitching splits dropping from 80-90 down to 40-50 is a bit ridiculous. I would expect that closer to 5mil in the budget. Variations of 20 at 10mil would be acceptable adjustment based on the risk.

Posted by campbell1972 on 3/2/2017 8:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by frankum on 3/2/2017 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by campbell1972 on 3/2/2017 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by damag on 2/28/2017 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Not picking a fight with campbell1972 here, but I'm just tired of hearing complaints about the revised scouting system. I'm just saying this to refute anyone griping about it. From my perspective it works as intended, and is far, far better than the old system.

Fair enough damag. I don't usually get on the forums so I wouldn't know if I was beating a dead horse or not. I really don't have an issue with the budgeting plan for scouting. Makes sense. Whatever they have done to the prospect ratings is out of control. I had an IFA come up with 0s for both pitching splits. I got a high fielding grade SS that was listed as a C. Good for me right? I'll take him but I wanted a C. I had back to back 1st round picks last season. Their projections dropped up to 40 points in key performance areas. 40 points!? My first pick will be a career minor leaguer and the second may not make ML. You don't get them all I understand but I can often expect drops of 20 points in at least two key stats in top prospects whether draft pick or IFA. My budgeting is usually between 10-15 in all scouting categories.

Realistic or not doesn't really matter to me as much as having an idea of how my budgeting will be useful. It changes how I play the game which I don't have much interest in doing. I would have to go heavier on FAs since prospects are unreliable. I was always heavy on IFAs. Our world has become more competitive for them which is great but I am not seeing the point in bidding at all because of the skewed ratings and after effects. The other option is I let my minors slide and lose my higher value contracts maybe I'll get higher and better prospects because I'll have the budget to have more certainty in the numbers and the ability to bid higher. That is what the effects seem to be saying to owners. Polarizing game plans towards FAs or bail for a few seasons. Anyway you look at it the minors will take a beating. Like I said, If they smooth out the bizzare ratings I'd be perfectly happy.

Of course that all depends on how interested Fox is on maintaining WIS in the first place. We'll see...

Unfortunately you completely lost the ability to complain with 10-15 million scouting budgets. I haven't even completed a full season under the new budgets, but even I know it's basically 18M+ or nothing. Spending 3 more million on scouting will not cripple your budget and force you to lose multiple players. Just plan ahead.

I've been around for 40 seasons. I can probably count on 1 hand the number of ML FAs that I have signed in that time which should tell you that I have relied almost completely on IFAs and draft picks. I prefer to build from within. With about 40 or 50 pennants in the minors and very minimalist in signing minor league FAs as well you could also say I'm pretty good at planning budgets out and have a pretty good understanding that 10 mil did far better before the changes than it does now. That said, I can complain all I like. The drop off is far worse than it used to be, the prospect numbers are far more skewed than they used to be and the draft projections vs projections once they hit the roster is far more brutal than they used to be. I would just like it to smooth out a bit more.

I've had ~60 seasons. If you just upped your scouting the projections wouldn't be as fuzzy. So max it out and adjust your budget. You won't get hit with the nastiness as bad.

Sounds simple and good but if you want to go for the pennant you need to have cash in your payroll too unless you are loaded with MLers that can make it happen with 5 seasons or less. It can be done but here is the process. Simply maxing out the scouting for the 4 categories, in my case for example, would be an adjustment of 40mil, 10 mil for each category. With a current payroll of 85mil which is maxed the only way to do that is to cut high valued veteran contracts who were developed through franchise and trades. At that point you either have the young ML superstars to fill the holes or you go with what you got. This is where most people either go for broke going for top picks and IFAs or scrap the scouting altogether and live in the FA market with a high payroll budget. With a lot of patience and dedication the prospect route will work but most people are not that patient. In the second process the minors tend to get drained.

So right now my team is in that threshold where I have that big decision to make. I was in the WS last season and was runner up. Most of my guys are in their 20s and either have big contracts or will be very soon. I have had to drop my prospect and scouting budget because this is happening. That is just the natural process and I understand it. In the meantime the prospects I have been seeing are terribly skewed with what should be considered a mid-range scouting budget. But my concern is not really about me.

What happens is the prospects are not as good for rebuilding unless you have that high 18+ scouting budget so you either HAVE TO duff the minors to go for it all or duff the ML to rebuild. The overall effect is usually guys going for it and then bailing on their franchises with overpaid veterans and a depleted minor league system. This brings me back to my point which is the falloff is too great. The scouting should be better balanced to keep owners from polarizing too soon. Better prospect results in the mid-range would create more stability in the owners which leads to more stability in the worlds and HBD on the whole. Less holes to fill, less time to fill, less mergers, better franchises for replacement owners... The list goes on and on.

Like I said, otherwise I am good.

That's just silly. 20 mill for HS or Coll or IFA (probably not)
20 mill training
20 mill medical
9 mill coaches
6 mill prospect budget.

Gives you 100 mill left for payroll. Need more? Cut medical.