May 26th Update - Feedback Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Just did my first draft rankings without currents.   Really weird feeling.  Only 10m in scouting in college and some of the players looks really, really good. 
5/29/2015 5:06 PM
hockey1984
Posts: 2745 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 7 172 62 3 90
Prospect
Haha. Wait for the buyers remorse to set in. I had a case of that pretty bad when I started and had ADV at 20 and HS and Col at 6. Looked at my draft board 'I got 3 great guys'. Looked at their projections after the draft 'I got a pile of carp'.
5/29/2015 6:04 PM
crickett13
Posts: 2396 (0)
Hall of Famer
398 74 25 145
Prospect
Posted by hockey1984 on 5/29/2015 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Haha. Wait for the buyers remorse to set in. I had a case of that pretty bad when I started and had ADV at 20 and HS and Col at 6. Looked at my draft board 'I got 3 great guys'. Looked at their projections after the draft 'I got a pile of carp'.

I'm not sure if you are complaining but isn't that what you would expect with 6/6?

5/29/2015 8:10 PM
hockey1984
Posts: 2745 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 7 172 62 3 90
Prospect
It is. I'm just comparing my experiance. It's a little late to be complaining about busts from 10-15 seasons ago. They have long since retired and will be forever stuck at 27 years old....... Unless they take up a coaching gig.
5/29/2015 8:35 PM
bagwellbuff
Posts: 200 (0)
Hall of Famer
15 1 3 79 54
Prospect
What is stupid about only seeing projected ratings for IFA ... your scouts are in the damn stands watching them play. That's what scouts do. How the hell would you not know their CURRENT abilities?
5/30/2015 6:30 PM
bjschumacher
Posts: 4573 (0)
Hall of Famer
49 2 80 449 171
All Star
That is true, bagwell. Organizations don't care as much what the guy did in high school. What's he going to do by the time he's 25-26 years old? Does he have raw talent that we can coach into shape?
5/30/2015 6:37 PM
joshkvt
Posts: 6200 (0)
Hall of Famer
664 99
All Star
Real scouts see a player competing against high schoolers or college players. A scout cannot state with any certainty how a player would fare CURRENTLY against Clayton Kershaw or Mike Trout. Brian Cashman doesn't care how a prospect hits against St. John's #3 SP, which is what scouts in the damn stands see. He wants to know how a prospect is likely to hit against Max Scherzer or Dellin Betances. A scout cannot give him that information beyond PROJECTING with his best informed guess.

The mantra here that RL scouts provide their teams with 100% accurate data on a player's current ability to play MLB is wrong. For that to be the case, the Current ratings for HS players would have to reflect their ability against HS opponents; such numbers would be accurate, but worthless. There's a reason such a high percentage of top prospects flame out in real life — what the scouts see in the damn stands is often wildly misleading. Which is not quite the same thing as 100% accurate.
5/30/2015 8:09 PM
marshal_law
Posts: 48 (0)
Hall of Famer
43 49
Prospect
That, joshkvt, is the best example of reasoning (MikeT23 has some shining moments as well) I've scanned in this post! Someone probably mentioned it before you and equally as articulate but I was not willing to read every post that's repeating the same rant, complaint or absolutely nothing. Still recouping from the Critical News response fiasco.

This is clearer. Makes sense.

Thanks for dumbing it down for me!
5/31/2015 11:28 AM
mbriese
Posts: 1091 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 75 118
Prospect
Posted by marshal_law on 5/31/2015 11:28:00 AM (view original):
That, joshkvt, is the best example of reasoning (MikeT23 has some shining moments as well) I've scanned in this post! Someone probably mentioned it before you and equally as articulate but I was not willing to read every post that's repeating the same rant, complaint or absolutely nothing. Still recouping from the Critical News response fiasco.

This is clearer. Makes sense.

Thanks for dumbing it down for me!
Agreed. I like that explanation a lot.
5/31/2015 12:40 PM
plague
Posts: 2325 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 177 602 203
Prospect
Overall I like the changes. I will have to play with these changes for a couple of seasons before coming to a final verdict.

Since I rarely make trades I see no reason to raise my advanced scouting above 0.

5/31/2015 2:04 PM
rockindock
Posts: 173 (0)
Hall of Famer
256 8 8 3 465 227 238
Prospect
Posted by mchales_army on 5/28/2015 10:13:00 AM (view original):
So with the poll sitting at about 55/45, I would think they probably will not make that change.

I think they were looking for much larger support to seriously consider making that move.

Well it's 56% to 44% with 133 voters. (74-58) Although that seems close with our small population, it would be a landslide in the US political arena.
5/31/2015 2:19 PM
Extract
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
33 57
Prospect
Posted by mbriese on 5/31/2015 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by marshal_law on 5/31/2015 11:28:00 AM (view original):
That, joshkvt, is the best example of reasoning (MikeT23 has some shining moments as well) I've scanned in this post! Someone probably mentioned it before you and equally as articulate but I was not willing to read every post that's repeating the same rant, complaint or absolutely nothing. Still recouping from the Critical News response fiasco.

This is clearer. Makes sense.

Thanks for dumbing it down for me!
Agreed. I like that explanation a lot.
Totally agree -- what joshkvt said is exactly on the mark. Scouts of amateur players ONLY give projections, not currents. [Isn't that one reason football runs those pre-draft workout circuses? So they have a meaningful basis for comparing players' current physical attributes.] But as soon as someone has pro ball experience, it makes sense to have currents because everybody you're comparing them with is playing with the same circumstances.

FWIW, I'd go a step further than HBD has done. If you put $0 into scouting (HS,C, IFA), you shouldn't see a single prospect. To be simplistic, how about if you put $20M into scouting, you see 100% of the potential prospects (ok, 98%). If you put $0M you get 0% (maybe 2%). In the current system, way down around the 23rd round of drafting, we get guys with no numbers because, we're told, they weren't scouted. Why not make this a lot more relevant by having a much stronger correlation between the size of a scouting budget and the quantity of prospects seen? 
5/31/2015 5:58 PM
bjschumacher
Posts: 4573 (0)
Hall of Famer
49 2 80 449 171
All Star
Extract, I've been trying to make a case for that for a long time. It only makes sense. I hate it when I have 18m in HS scouting, someone else has 6m, and they see a stud prospect that I don't see. That makes no sense to me.
5/31/2015 6:50 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
With $0 in HS, I saw 9 18 y/o players.

The "logic" behind your 18/6 problem is that WifS didn't want to guarantee that the top 3 players didn't go in the top 3 spots every year.   It was an odd way to try to distribute talent a little deeper in the draft but that's what they hoped to accomplish.    Think of it as your 18m scouts taking a look at Stephen Strasburg and saying "Well, he was a fatass when he arrived at SDSU.  He really didn't do much until his Junior year.   I think he's a flop waiting to happen."  Or maybe they scout Josh Hamilton and say "Kid has all the tools.   But there's something about his personality that gives you the impression he's going to waste it."
6/1/2015 8:18 AM
frymaster99
Posts: 455 (0)
All Star
44
Prospect
josh, to play devil's advocate for a moment here. Can't I argue that real life scout can see a player's "current" ratings, and that's why a 50 overall could blow away competition at RL or LowA? The rest of the competition there may have lower ratings so yes the current rating is worthless in regards to the ML level. But if I'm a scout and I see a guy who is age appropriate at his level and blowing away competition, I'm more confident that he'll reach my projections than a guy who is getting the crap knocked out of him and he's three years older than everyone else. 
6/1/2015 10:01 PM
◂ Prev 1...18|19|20|21|22...26 Next ▸
May 26th Update - Feedback Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.