Expanded Stats

[christoph]

Instead of paying for scouts, I find it better to read stats (i.e. RBI, ERA, etc.) when making personal decisions. What would be valuable to me in this regard are the kind of stats that you get on the back of bubble gum cards. For example, I would like to know what team that 8-1 free agent reliever was with when he posted that record. Judging the quality of players depends on the team they were with previously -- an 8-1 record is one thing with the Yankees, quite another with the Expos. I think understanding who a free agent played for is essential for giving his real stats (not those grade things, but his actual performance) context for those of us who do our own scouting.

[baseballforlife]

That doesn't always work!!! Last time i used Todd Helton. i have the best scouting in the league, which is i think 100 % accurate, he's A in contact, but he still just hit .297 and B+in power, but he hits Over 40 Hrs. The next year, he hit .380 and a 50 HRs and he's still in A contact and B+ power, and i was still first in scouting, isn't it weird.

[christoph]

This is exactly what I mean. I find the scouting reports are not as reliable as the performance stats. Goods stats reading is much more beneficial than spending scarce points on scouting. Hence, the need for more in-depth stats for players. These should be listed for every season a given player has played and the team he played for (preferably with a link to see how that team finished the season complete with team stats). I find it prudent to do my own scouting and spend the savings on my farm club.

[TGG]

Bandwidth, an file size. That would end up taking alot of space. I agree that would be a neat thing to have, but I stress just neat to have.

I have had 30 + HR's 100+ RBI guys batting 6th in my line up, an they are terrible players, but those stats look like they are the next comming of Babe Ruth.
The same goes with my pitchers, who can have ERA's under 4 an have 15 wins, but really are not all the great either.

Having good scouting is part of the game, an with good scouting most times you can find out all you need to know.


Like I said, I do like the idea, but it would just be frosting on a already very sweet cake.

:)

[Slugger222]

I saw a post from Clay elsewhere where he said that the very thing you are talking about is a priority.

Tweaking the report for the player to include prior years stats, and the teams played for is something I think that they are working on.

[iccky]

There are some stats that are mising from the report that I really could use, like quality starts for pitchers and production for batters. Ironically, you can get those for your players by look at the leader board, so obviouslly the game is keeping track of them, but you can't get them by looking at the player report. It would be great if this could be fixed

[iccky]

Scouting is especially useful when you're dealing with prospects, I find AAA stats are only an iffy guide to how they'll do in the show, and you can only see one year of AAA stats anyways.

[christoph]

Good point. But then, again, the scouts' ratings for AAA prospects are not always reliable either. My logic is thus: good scouting costs at least thirty points. I feel this is better invested in ensuring my spending on the farm team is in the top three, thus ensuring the quality of the players I receive in the draft. This strategy takes more effort -- part of the fun I think -- but it allows small market teams (I play Montreal) to maximize their potential without overspending.

Besides this, a pitcher who is 8-1 with a sub-3.00 ERA in AAA deserves a call-up regardless of his letter grades. I have plucked some FA bargains using this strategy.

Even though my team has had terrible month and is now one game below .500, it is very youthful and will develop in time. And I still have an outside chance at a wildcard spot even though my payroll is only 177 points.

[Slugger222]

I'd be kind of interested to know how the balance of "Scouting" and "Farm System" effects the minor league rookies that appear for your team - if at all.

After all, the players are drafted on the basis of what your scouts think of their talent, right?

For example, if you are #1 in Farm System, but #30 in Scouting, wouldn't that reduce the quality of minor leagures brought into your system, in some cases? Your scouts may think that they are AAA studs, and you would draft accordingly.......

Just a thought.

Or maybe I'm over thinking things
:)

[christoph]

Though scouting SHOULD affect drafting it does not. The quality of your draft depends on your annual average spending on your farm team and on your team's season record. Hence, having high ranked scouts and a poor season record will result in really good prospects. I actually think that scouting ought to reflect the players you draft and your farm budget how they develop. This would be more realistic, I think. As it goes, it is a nice loop-hole to exploit if you manage a small market team. I do my own scouting and have used the savings to keep my team ranked 2nd in farm team expenses WHILE having a budget that turns a modest profit.

[christoph]

Correction: having high ranked FARM expenses (not scouting as written in my previous note) and a poor season record equals good draft picks.

I spend zero on my scouts. I think that unless you are in the hunt for a lot of players to fill out your roster, you ought to cancel all scouting expenses. If you are not planning on changing your roster why spend money on scouts? Spending money on scouts does not really make sense after the trading dealine and until the end of the playoffs, at any rate. But that's just my opinion. :D