Scouting Accuracy Poll

[wdoupis]

There was a lot of talk about scouting and the variances the last few seasons so I thought I'd create this poll. Please read this explanation below before voting or yelling your opinion so that you are properly informed....

There are 6 levels of scouting accuracy:

Very Low
Low
Normal
High
Very High
100% Accurate

We currently sit at Normal. I have no preference here as I do well with the system I have but I will create this poll and we can decide if we will leave it at normal or go to high.

High may give people a little more faith in their scouts while we still have variance like we want and not all going after the same guys. Perhaps this will help with some of the owners who struggle to identify and develop talent.

We obviously will not go to a lower accuracy level and very high and 100% are not options I want to entertain as it is likely way too extreme.

I know its not the offseason yet but I always run re-scouting during rollover so I wanted this sorted out before that.

If you have other offseason polls please wait for the offseason

[Roggie]

Definitely voting high, and the reasoning is pretty simple:

I'm sick of seeing guys go top 5 where some scouts will have them at like 28 potential. That's not realistic whatsoever. I get that 100% for lesser specs where one scout may think they see something, but high end guys should never be that low for a scout.

[Cnasty]

[wdoupis]

Definitely voting high, and the reasoning is pretty simple:

I'm sick of seeing guys go top 5 where some scouts will have them at like 28 potential. That's not realistic whatsoever. I get that 100% for lesser specs where one scout may think they see something, but high end guys should never be that low for a scout.

Agreed and this has always been my issue. I mean my scout was pretty good and he hated Fernando Cuevas lol. Their should not be such swings amongst top guys

[shel311]

We obviously will not go to a lower accuracy level and very high and 100% are not options I want to entertain as it is likely way too extreme.

Wish you were consistent with this "way too extreme" take for injuries.



I don't know anything about each scout accuracy setting but I'm all for this as something is badly broken either with our league's scouting or just the game with scouting.

[wdoupis]

We obviously will not go to a lower accuracy level and very high and 100% are not options I want to entertain as it is likely way too extreme.

Wish you were consistent with this "way too extreme" take for injuries.

Do you remember when you posted something and I immediately typed something about Lebron and you said... As I typed this post I knew you would say this...

Well, we are even lol

[nick]

leave it normal wtf.

[shel311]

leave it normal wtf.

This is fine

[TheGobOne]

I am voting to stay Normal. Here's my reasons:

1) As annoying as it is, it's actually pretty realistic. How many shitters get taken in the top 30 every year in the MLB. Lots. Also, something, something, Mike Trout.

2) The closer everyone gets to agreeing who is good and who is bad the less reason to even have scouts.

2b)What works for me is to have a scout that suits what I'm going to need in the future. That's why I switched to a good Amateur scout and I'm gonna start pumping money there as my "window" is probably only good for another 1-3 years - though there's an argument for this setup always being right so you can just horde plenty of good young talent - so it's pointless for me to draft for what I need now.

3) One of the things I see happening (and I'm guilty of it too) is, a team that's been good for a long time - or has a great track record at raping people in trades - will reach out about a spec. Even if said spec is in the low 40s - by my scout - an alarm goes off in my head saying "if that guy likes him I should keep him". Like I said, I am guilty of this and was VERY guilty of it in the past.

4) I feel, personally, you should trust your scout over OSA always. Of course you can use OSA as a barometer, but the final decision should be on what your scout sees as he's supposed to be A LOT more accurate than OSA. That's how the manual of the game states it and it frustrates the hell out of me that OSA is almost a guarantee on anyone going top 30. Going to High will make this worse.

5) From personal experience and looking back; leagues with very high or 100% accurate scouting were the least fun for me. Scouting variance makes a league fun. However, only if you're in a league for 10+ years IMO (maybe even 20+). Over time you will be on the end of the "holy shit this 4th round draft pick is an allstar" just as much as everyone else. And also be on the receiving end of "why the hell did I waste my first round pick on this 6th round bum" just as much as everyone else too....OVER TIME.

I will admit the last 5 years of scouting in this game have been somewhat buggered but I think that's more to do with OOTP20 than the scouting setting itself. I could be 100% wrong of course, but those are my reasons for wanting to stick with Normal.

[The_Niddler]

I love corey's response.
I want to say move it to high, but before you do, what settings (numbers) do we have for:

Ratings
Current Year
Last Year
2 Years Ago


I ask because on Normal, guys are recommending you use these numbers/settings:
Ratings (50) = Expectation/perception
Current Year (30) = performance which keeps players who are playing better higher up in the lineup and rotation.
Last Year (15) = a back up measure to reaffirm (or not) ability and performance, but not to an extent where the results will be too screwy. Think of this as a "tie breaker"
2 Years ago (5) = almost nothing. It is only here to throw a bone to players who have had a statistical anomaly one year, or for players who have either progressed or regressed since then.

[plasma1896]

i voted for leave it the same

[Hammerin' Hank]

leave it normal wtf.

I couldn't agree more

[Hammerin' Hank]

Keep it normal, or just do away with scouts and overall ratings altogether

[nick]

i just picked a random MLB yr.. 2012



pretty awful list for a top 5.

You guys act like MLB teams even got it figured out.

[nick]

2011 top 15ish is 50/50..



still a lot of stinkers in the top 5

[nick]

2013

[DRiccio21]

I think our scouting is fine too... I voted normal

I actually think there is a fair argument our scouts are too good

[TheGobOne]

I love corey's response.
I want to say move it to high, but before you do, what settings (numbers) do we have for:

Ratings
Current Year
Last Year
2 Years Ago


I ask because on Normal, guys are recommending you use these numbers/settings:
Ratings (50) = Expectation/perception
Current Year (30) = performance which keeps players who are playing better higher up in the lineup and rotation.
Last Year (15) = a back up measure to reaffirm (or not) ability and performance, but not to an extent where the results will be too screwy. Think of this as a "tie breaker"
2 Years ago (5) = almost nothing. It is only here to throw a bone to players who have had a statistical anomaly one year, or for players who have either progressed or regressed since then.

I think this is for determining current ratings no?

And as a side note I always play on 40/30/20/10 (which is pretty close to this) and I'm happy with it.

[GeorgesGoons]

Would people be willing to try it for 1 year or even a half a year with an option to go back on June 1st or at the end of the year?

[wdoupis]

Would people be willing to try it for 1 year or even a half a year with an option to go back on June 1st or at the end of the year?

If it passes it needs to last at least 2-3 seasons. You can’t tell how accurate/good a scout is from a couple months.

I personally don’t care which way this goes but if it passes it needs to stay a few seasons before going back