Posted by damag on 7/17/2017 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Six guys who've never made the bigs were drafted ahead of Mike Trout.

You're missing my point. I'm ok with having a draft bust. It would suck, but at least that's realistic. I would like to see this:

1. All owners would see who has declared for the Amateur draft
2. Your scouting budget should give you a current value (because scouts tell you what type of player this is)
3. Your scouting budget should give you a projected value. The 'fuzziness' is directly correlated to your scouting budget. Like I said, add a "scouting director" on our staffs. Their competencies (like coaches) have an effect on the overall effectiveness of our CS, HS and IFA scouting projections and current values.

Will you get a dud every once in a while. Yes. But, you'll know that there is a draft-able player. Not this, 'player wasn't scouted well enough' crap.

It is what it is. This isn't case of competitive disadvantage. We all play by the same rules. Again, it goes back to whats been discussed before. You take the proper time to analyze what your budget gives you and make the best choices you can. If there are a few players you couldn't see, there's no use worrying about them. Sounds like you did all that.

Maybe it's devised as your scouting dept having a specific plan in place?
They scour the globe in search of certain players and bypass those who don't fit the scheme of that plan. Therefore, you don't see every player.

I would also consider that maybe those that you didn't see could be there due to poor scouting dept/budget. They may be garbage players that your better scouts didn't waste time with. Sounds reasonable to me anyway.

I recently had the number 4 pick in one of my worlds with 20mil in HS scouting and 0 in college.. A quick analysis of the previous years draft told me that the #1 and #2 pick owners had their scouting in college - which meant I was effectively guaranteed the 2nd best HS player on my board and a shot at the #1 guy if the HBD Gods didn't reveal him to the owner with his budget in HS scouting and the pick ahead of me (#3 overall). The top 2 HS players were perfect for my scheme... but especially the top guy on my board. I was so worked up about it, I woke up in the middle of the night to see the results. As it was... I did NOT get my top guy on my HS board but I did get my guaranteed #2 as expected.

That anxiety, uncertainty, not knowing for sure... THAT is a big part of my enjoyment of this game. The more predictable the game becomes, the less I will enjoy it.

Even more to this point is drafting in the 15th pick range. Most owners dump all their scouting into HS or COL.. Not both. So you can eliminate x number of picks ahead of you - add in the hidden players - and now you have a shot at a top 5 player on your board. Drafting 15th and getting a shot at a top 5 guy is exciting. Love the way the game is. Sorry MBurgy !

See that's what I like too. Before, when you could see the currents (but you still didn't see all the players even with 20 mil anything), you could practically predict the top 20 in order, and the only way to get a top 5 was to tank.

The draft is better now, not perfect but better.

I think the projections are way off base in college players. With $20 mil it should be pretty close to see attainable attributes based on history of development. I was under the belief that your older college players should be a little tighter in that area. I drafted a few guys that will not come any closer than 85% of what the projections were. That is a heck of lot when your looking at specific areas like SS fielding attributes and most pitching attributes.

10% reduction. If you see a 99, count on 89.

Mike's right about the 10% but it can swing positive or negative. Used to be a bug that would let you see the actual true ceiling for players if they were under 27 y/o and they were on the 40 man roster. Noticed that the scouted ratings of all my guys drafted using $20M scouting were within 10 points of their true ceiling. Most guys' with negative ratings in some areas were offset by positive ratings in other ratings categories. Though there were a few guys had negative ratings outweigh the positives by a significant amount and vice versa.

One thing I also noticed though is that players typically fall short of their true ceiling in the coach-able ratings by 3-4 points (this was true across all teams for all the leagues I checked). Try to find a hitter or pitcher with splits above 97, or a fielder with glove/accuracy above 97, almost none out there. There must be something everyone is doing wrong in development missing out on those 3-4 points. Meanwhile, training dependent ratings typically get within one point as long as you have $20 training and those might only be off by a few tenths of a point. Because of this I've started figuring at least 4 points lower for coach-able ratings when looking at draft comps and up to 14 as worst case scenario.

I just use 10% so I'm less disappointed. And it helps me with SS/CF rankings. I've found the learned skills are the ones more likely to be higher than projections. Like if you see a 94 range, 88 glove, 62 arm accuracy and 92 arm strength. I assume 3 of those 4 are somewhat accurate because there just aren't many 90/85/60/88 players in this game.