2011 idea: Allow scouts to give us a guess of peak years

[Electricbassguy]

We can't tell exactly, but I think the scouts should be able to give us a guess of when a player will peak, and how long the peak will be, even if this is somewhat off.

[Jeffy25]

can scouts even guess this in real life? I doubt that in real life any scouts can offer real guesses, educated guesses on how well someone's body might age is about all.

I like the idea of more detailed scouting info though.

[Lex Logan]

Actually, Baseball Between the Numbers discusses career profiles. Bottom line was that players with multiple skills aged better than more limited players. Not sure this would be enough for estimating peak years.

[rwperu34]

I disagree with this sentiment, and in fact believe the exact opposite. The peak score we see should be how the player projects in his age 27 season regardless of what age his actual peak is.

It's bad enough when a player peaks early and you know to sell (or stop trying to develop) a guy who is a 78/78 at age 23. For me, one of the most annoying parts of the game, is when you see a 27 year old 78/95. I realize some players peak in their 30s, but nobody, and I mean nobody, knows who those players are going to be beforehand.

[200tang]

Actually, Baseball Between the Numbers discusses career profiles. Bottom line was that players with multiple skills aged better than more limited players. Not sure this would be enough for estimating peak years.

It's true you can tell by body types and career numbers, but realistically nobody can predict when a player is going to peak. All we know is the vast majority is 26-29, besides that I doubt anyone can predict a peak.

[BenFink]

What would work better is an estimate of peak vitals. Like if his power will be in the 70s or 90s.
The peak number itself is not that useful, and seemingly buggy. A guy with a 90 peak can have a peak OPS of 775 and a guy with the same position can have a 90 peak with 950 OPS.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

We can't tell exactly, but I think the scouts should be able to give us a guess of when a player will peak, and how long the peak will be, even if this is somewhat off.


It has already been suggested,with some for & some against --- the major problem is THREE FOLD-

1° you would have to assess EVERY coach & manager from 1890 on & assign him a VALUE for his various skills

2° the same as above BUT for fictional coaches (ie Whitey Herzog aint gonna be around for 2010) &

3° how do these guys actually affect performance ??

All this demands 100's,if not 1000's of hours of work for a POSSIBLE improvement in gamesmanship (if not more bugs :eek::eek:)

I think we should look at simpler systems eg Splitting Scouting in MLB/Minor levels,Farm also split into R/A/AA/AAA spending etc --- thus a team which is rebuild would spend heavily on R/A level whereas a team in "win now" mode on AA/AAA & obtain the benefits/disadvantages of their necessary STRATEGY INVOLVED.


Also you are assessing from a PERSONAL view (ie you & your team's scouting & YOUR intelligence) whereas if implemented it would affect all teams' & thus affect AI.

This in itself would,in all likelyhood,WORSEN the game's stability as it would add in another +/- parameter & lead to "worse" trades BETWEEN AI teams'.

Again I strongly feel that to improve AI (& total game strategy) the WHOLE scouting system has to be re written to consider how scouting WORKS IRL --- ie Major League Scouting (where variations are minimal from 1 team to another thus A to F should have a MAX variance of +/- 1 to +/- 4),Minor Scouting (where variation is wider on assessing players thus +/- 1 to +/- 6 MAX) & Ammy Draft (where info is the least.......... +/- 2 to +/- 12)

This would force both the player & AI to choose WHERE he would SCOUT & also how --- a rebuild team would invest heavily in the Ammy/minors whereas a "playoff" in the Majors & so on...

[BenFink]

This would force both the player & AI to choose WHERE he would SCOUT & also how --- a rebuild team would invest heavily in the Ammy/minors whereas a "playoff" in the Majors & so on...

You lost me

[FRENCHREDSOX]

You lost me

;)

[Jeffy25]

What would work better is an estimate of peak vitals. Like if his power will be in the 70s or 90s.
The peak number itself is not that useful, and seemingly buggy. A guy with a 90 peak can have a peak OPS of 775 and a guy with the same position can have a 90 peak with 950 OPS.

that would be cool, a break down of peak per rating. such as contact 65/90, power 58/75, etc. but i would almost rather not see a peak at all. I generally turn it off when i play the game.

[BenFink]

The only problem is, if there is no peak the draft is nearly impossible.
For example - generally the draftees with the best vitals, after about the top 15, have peaks in the mids 70s.

[Jeffy25]

The only problem is, if there is no peak the draft is nearly impossible.
For example - generally the draftees with the best vitals, after about the top 15, have peaks in the mids 70s.

I don't really look at their peak ratings when drafting. I usually like to turn it off, so i draft based on health, current ratings, and team needs. and draft predictability all the way down. makes it much more fun.

[NeoExelor]

I agree, without commish you're basically shooting into the dark, real MLB teams atleast have some idea of what their player could be....

[Jellio]

In my current save I turn peak on when drafting, but otherwise have peak off.

[xiaoliang]

yea!great!:D

I agree, without commish you're basically shooting into the dark, real MLB teams atleast have some idea of what their player could be....Skin Care (http://www.botani.com.hk/skin_dehydrated.php)PVC Hose (http://www.hosepvc.com/pvc-hose.html)Wholesale Picture Frames (http://www.taihingjewelry.com/wholesale-picture-frames.html)Frontline Cat (http://fleafreesmart.com/contact_us.php)Wire Harness (http://www.terminals-blocks.com/intranet-wire-harnesses.php)

[filihok]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dose-reality-prospect-watchers


* 10% of top 10 hitting prospects bust.
* 31% of top 10 pitching prospects bust.
* 21% of top 11-25 hitting prospects bust.
* 32% of top 11-25 pitching prospects bust.
* 35% of top 26-50 hitting prospects bust.
* 33% of top 26-50 pitching prospects bust.
* 45% of top 51-75 hitting prospects bust.
* 39% of top 51-75 pitching prospects bust.
* 43% of top 76-100 hitting prospects bust.
* 43% of top 76-100 pitching prospects bust.
* 59% of ‘B grade’ hitting prospects bust.
* 52% of ‘B grade’ pitching prospects bust.
* 83% of ‘C grade’ hitting prospects bust.
* Around 75% of all ‘C grade’ pitching prospects bust.