Sounds like what you might want would be the HD style of scouting, where you get current ratings that are color coded to give an indication of potential growth for each rating.

I want to not have a gulf that is clearly not achievable. 17 is extremely high scout budget and we get the same results. The issue isn't the end point it is the beginning. 56 with a projection of 81 is a spread that is never going to be covered.Stamina points are never that high in advancement each season. To say that the scout had no clue to the starting point is bs. All levels of play produce stamina results even to a casual observer in the daily drills. That is clearly a flaw in the game.

If Jimmy can't run 2 laps we all can see that.

Posted by brianplath on 5/29/2017 3:44:00 PM (view original):
DUR for starters and STA for RP used to be busted even at high budgets. One of the recent updates they fixed it. It's not nearly as bad.

It still is bad.

Avoid HS go 20 million into college. With my experiment with my two teams (one with 20 mill HS, one with 20 mill Coll) I am finding that my draft results are a lot more accurate with the collage draft.

They did say older prospects were supposed to show incrementally more accurate projections.

I haven't tracked it, but I want to say the College draft feels more "bankable" based on my "buyer satisfaction." You get players who are more ready to play now, with higher currents. Minor league teams play better, especially in regard to pitching performance.

The downside, when you pick up a 22 yr old prospect whose development is already at 80% compared to an 18 yr old, he's much less likely to gain 20+ points on anything.

5/29/2017 9:02 AM

rmancil

In fact most player durability scores increase very little over their 4 yr key development time frame from their starting point even in cases with extremely high training and coaching budgets.This omission should be fixed. It is very unrealistic to think a strong scout would miss by such a large extent this major hole in a players performance projection. Particularly the starting point. What team at what level fails to run/show stamina/build stamina?Little league teams do that.

This is how these threads usually turn out. OP makes a complaint and assume everyone will say "ditto". When they don't, he becomes frustrated.

14m is 70% of allowable budget. We know 20m is not 100% accurate. Let's say 20m is 90% accurate. 14m would be 63% accurate. 81 x 63% = 51. That's not far off from what you reported.

Anyways, realism is going to be problematic. Look at the 2011 MLB draft. Several 1st rounders haven't even sniffed the big leagues(#2 being one). Most have not been major contributors. So, if your #4 pick doesn't quite cut it, that's kind of realistic.

Coincidentally, last night I was watching the Tigers-Royals game, the announcers were talking about the upcoming MLB draft, and one of 'em said straight out: "This draft isn't like in other sports. Some teams just flat out miss."

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/30/2017 8:53:00 AM (view original):
This is how these threads usually turn out. OP makes a complaint and assume everyone will say "ditto". When they don't, he becomes frustrated.

14m is 70% of allowable budget. We know 20m is not 100% accurate. Let's say 20m is 90% accurate. 14m would be 63% accurate. 81 x 63% = 51. That's not far off from what you reported.

Anyways, realism is going to be problematic. Look at the 2011 MLB draft. Several 1st rounders haven't even sniffed the big leagues(#2 being one). Most have not been major contributors. So, if your #4 pick doesn't quite cut it, that's kind of realistic.

Sounds like a argument for the sake of arguing. Again see Jimmy Run, if he cant run 2 laps its pretty clear that he has poor stamina. The issue is with the starting point which is NEVER seen regardless of the budget or your hypothetical scouting accuracy numbers.

Scouting issues deal with projections not how tall ,how much does he weigh, how fast is he and what is his stamina currently. Projections are the gray area.

This isn't track. There is the grind of playing 162 games in 180 days or throwing near full effort for 90ish pitches.

Anyway, they removed currents because they limited the need for scouting. You're seeing projections. Your poorly paid scout is saying "Yeah, once he fills out, his stamina will be 81." We can assume he sees 56 now but is guessing with diet and training, he'll be much better. Pay your scouts more, they'll do a better job.

Is this turning into the same old debate, "We should see currents not projections", just that it started with different language?

Posted by rmancil on 5/30/2017 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Scouting issues deal with projections not how tall ,how much does he weigh, how fast is he and what is his stamina currently. Projections are the gray area.

As has been stated, there are some areas of this game where people don't want realism, even though they say they do.

In real life, yes, a scout would see 56 as the current stamina. But the problem is, people in HBD could easily use development trends to estimate fairly accurately where that 56 would end up, and thus scouting was almost pointless. If you want it to be like real life, then you'd see that 56 as the current stamina, but he might end up being a bust and max out at 58. Then you'd be whining that he didn't develop enough and you got ripped off. Even good scouts in real life miss on guys.

Sometimes it's frustrating, but the developers in this game have to balance realism with giving people what they paid for. If people spent their $25 on an HBD season and got injuries and draft busts with the frequency that real ML teams do, no one would play.

I think rmancil just wants more accurate projections for DUR/STM. Which I think is sort of saying "I don't want a 1st round bust." Which is running away from realism not towards it.