Scouting ?

[bsessler]

Are the overall player ratings actually the current level your player is at.. EXAMPLE: Player X is rated A, B, B- ... Is that what he REALLY is or is that what your scout thinks he is?

Does the more money you spend on a scout reflect the letter ratings? or does it just tell you that the ratings are going to go up or down in the near future?

[takaplan]

The letter grades you see are what your scouts think they are.

If you spend a lot of money on scouting, your players' grades will be more accurate and will not fluctuate too much.

If you do not spend too much money on scouting, your players' grades will not be very accurate and they will change quite often.

[GMoney]

I assume I know the answer to this, but I will ask it just to affirm my beliefs on scouting. Scouting only reflects what your scouts see as far player development. If a guy has gone from a C+ to a B. It is because he is young and improving or an incorrect assessment by your underfunded scouts. Your ranking reflects your scouts abilities more than the actual dollar amount, so if you want to be #1 in scouting and the second highest busget is 29 you should spend 30 as 50 is not going to improve your teams scouting ability. Is this true?

Second, how much can a young rookie be expected to improve If he is ranked C- in say movement at 20 or 21, can he make an improvement to a B, B+, or A. How likely is it, and how much improvement can you expect.


Third, What is the best measures of when to bring a rookie Superstar or Franchise player to the majors? Should he make the jump once he shows success in his minor league stats. Say an 8 and 3 record with a 3.5 ERA, or should he totally be dominant before moving him.

As long as players are young and in Triple A can you expect them to improve? Will some just drift away inexplicably?

Thanks for humoring me.

Regards,
GMoney

(My Sig is old)

[playshogi]

GMoney, I'd love to see these questions answered, by someone who knows the game.

Additionally, can I substitute keeping an eye on statistics for scouting?

[takaplan]

Yes, scouting reflects what your scouts see as development, which may not be accurate.

Correct, scouting goes by rank, so being ranked 1st and spending 30 is just as good as being ranked 1st and spending 50.

If you have a good farm system, a young rookie could improve signifcantly. But it might take a few years, and doesn't happen all the time.

Mostly, young AAA players who have not reached their peak will improve. But if they reach their peak in the minors, they might start to decline.

When to bring up a prospect; that's a matter of opinion. Personally, I keep them down 2 or 3 years.

If you are ranked very highly in scouting, you can rely on it instead of stats. But be careful, because scouting, even if you are ranked highly, might still be inaccurate in some cases.

[shanrocks]

Tom -

You brought up peaking in your last post. I have a question related to that. I'm tracking my players year to year, to determine how much they are improving or diminishing, or if they have peaked yet or not.

So, my question is this - when do the ratings change? Is it a gradual thing over the course of a season? Or is it a specific day of the year that the new ratings are applied? I know an injury can affect a rating, so there certainly are mid-season changes - but what about a player who has been in the minors the whole season?

Thanks!

[TSquare64]

i have been around this game for awhile, and i really think that the pts spend on scouting and farm is base on ranking is not very appropiate, because the standard of each league varies, so i think it should be change in Mogul 2004

[takaplan]

Player development (and the corresponding letter grades on the scouting report) will change gradually over time. There is no exact date where all the grades will change.

Rank makes sense because it gives small markets a chance to make use of the expenses. If we made it that spending 200 pts gives you a rank of #1, and spending 100 pts is a rank of #15, it would be hard for small markets to afford any of the expenses. The fact it is relative to each league is why we use it; the benefit of it being relative to each league is that is adjusts for the league cash flow, so if a lot of teams are making money, chances are you will have to spend more to get the same rank. But if a lot of teams are losing money, then chances are you can spend less. That's why the rank system works, instead of saying " The more you spend, the better" and having New York spend 400 pts and get all the best prospects.

[TSquare64]

well..that;s a good point.....

[playshogi]

Thank you for those answers. Unfortunately, using average rank is not an intuitive thing to conclude. Most people think you need to outbid a guy to get ranked 1st or whatever rank desired. In my league 2 players spend 300 on farm. 3rd for awhile was 170 until somebody bumped it up to 180. Now why do that? That's why I think average rank for 162 games is more relevant than current rank, though both should be presented.
If you've been #1 for a long time and suddenly 2 new players jump into the league and drop you to #3, you don't immediately have to bump up your spending because your 162 game average will still be #1 for a long time to come.
Having both current rank and 162 game average rank might help stem the inflation in farm, scouting and medical, because it would enlighten people that they don't have to outbid the next guy to move up in the ranks.