Scouting Reports

[Cipster]

In the 2002 and beyond league I have been spending 100 points on Scouting the entire season which has kept me between #5 and #7 in spending in the league.

Towards the end of the season I dropped from #5 to #7 because other players increased their spending. In the process my player ratings have not changed significantly but the blurbs did.

A young CF in my minors who had B-'s all over the place and D+ defense went from "so-so prospect" to "Franchise player on almost any Club" my emergency closer went from "compete for a job in any relief corps" to "Franchise player".

My "Closer" who thanfully got hurt after posting a 7.38 ERA and an OBA of .306 in 56 inn. is now "one of the better pitchers in the league"

I understand that scouting reports are more innacurate as you go down the ranking but this strikes me as a bit extreme. Especially when the little blurb is so obviously discordant with the player letter grades or the results on the field.

Being #7 in the league puts the team in the upper quartile of the league in Scouting. Why are my rating so out of whack????

[takaplan]

That doesn't seem right. Your true scouting rank is your average rank over the past 162 regular season games, so there shouldn't be any dramatic change. I'll point this out to James...

[Cipster]

Hey Tom. Thanks for the reply. One thing that puzzled me is the fact that the letter grades didn't change but the little blurbs did.

I often find the written player evaluations to be discordant with the letter grades. Some hitters with A contact and decent power get labeled as so so while others with worse stats get higher evaluations. Is this indicative of a player's potential or mere inacuracy by underpaid scouts?

Also what kind of accuracy should we expect from our scouting ranks? I would think that being in the top 1/3 or 1/4th in the league in spending should give fairly good results but I rarely see it, there seems to me a huge drop in accuracy from the top 3 or so teams.