Scouting strategy for 19

[TheWarmWind]

Quote: Originally Posted by jcar0725

Does anyone use "automatic" scouting? Right now I changed it to automatic scouting, and I hired 4 expensive scouts. I was hoping they would handle it adequately.

Jay a few days away from the draft after my first season using it.

I had a few reasons why I switched. One was I noticed how much time it was taking up. Another was I felt it gave me an unfair advantage over the CPU. The last reason is because I didn't feel very immersed micro-managing my scouts.

It's ok. It's not what I hoped for but it's satisfactory.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Operation Sports mobile app

[jcar0725]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheWarmWind

Jay a few days away from the draft after my first season using it. I had a few reasons why I switched. One was I noticed how much time it was taking up. Another was I felt it gave me an unfair advantage over the CPU. The last reason is because I didn't feel very immersed micro-managing my scouts. It's ok. It's not what I hoped for but it's satisfactory. Sent from my Pixel 3 using Operation Sports mobile app

It just takes up too much time for me, I guess realistically I'm managing the team plus playing the games, I think someone else would be scouting in my front office .

I do plan on doing the drafting though.

[garry1221]

Quote: Originally Posted by jcar0725

It just takes up too much time for me, I guess realistically I'm managing the team plus playing the games, I think someone else would be scouting in my front office . I do plan on doing the drafting though.

After years of manually scouting, since I first started playing the show, I'm now fully happy auto scouting. Manually, I scouted LESS prospects in the same time. Not to mention the complete crapshoot after the 2nd round, 3rd round if you're REALLY lucky. And yes, like WW mentioned, the tedious, time consuming micromanaging was another factor.

Most expensive don't always equate to best. My personal opinion. Efficiency and Position ratings are most important, unless you want the 1st round bust factor. If you can find a West scout with high discovery though, depending on other ratings, he might be your best bet. Typically West region has the smallest pool in general, so maximizing what you find is best.

I will try to hire scouts with higher Position than Pitcher ratings, if possible. Its easier to manually view and guesstimate whether a pitcher will be good, great, or suck, so why make it easier at the expense of less accuracy when scouting fielders? This is also another reason I tend to wait til 3rd or 4th round to start drafting pitchers. Unless there's a can't miss/probably be gone before my next pick pitcher, I'll draft positions first.

[jcar0725]

Quote: Originally Posted by garry1221

After years of manually scouting, since I first started playing the show, I'm now fully happy auto scouting. Manually, I scouted LESS prospects in the same time. Not to mention the complete crapshoot after the 2nd round, 3rd round if you're REALLY lucky. And yes, like WW mentioned, the tedious, time consuming micromanaging was another factor. Most expensive don't always equate to best. My personal opinion. Efficiency and Position ratings are most important, unless you want the 1st round bust factor. If you can find a West scout with high discovery though, depending on other ratings, he might be your best bet. Typically West region has the smallest pool in general, so maximizing what you find is best. I will try to hire scouts with higher Position than Pitcher ratings, if possible. Its easier to manually view and guesstimate whether a pitcher will be good, great, or suck, so why make it easier at the expense of less accuracy when scouting fielders? This is also another reason I tend to wait til 3rd or 4th round to start drafting pitchers. Unless there's a can't miss/probably be gone before my next pick pitcher, I'll draft positions first.

Awesome thank you.

[moTIGS]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

When you say "current" rating always stays the same - does that mean the rating will be accurate after the player is drafted or does the accuracy depend on the scout?

The “current” ratings are consistent regardless of the scout and do not change when a player is fully scouted. For every prospect, the current ratings are an accurate representation of how talented the player is right now.

I just ran a quick test to confirm. From the start of the season with the best available scouts, those ratings were identical to the same players discovered by the worst available scouts.

Injury risk also does not change.

The only thing scouting does change is potential. Scouts can tell you what a player’s potential peak will be.

But as the person you quoted mentioned, those prospects with low current ratings and high potential are risky because actual progression depends on performance in the minors. So a guy with 99 potential but 40s across the board for other attributes is probably gonna suck forever unless you play all his minor league games and rake. It’s just too hard to have a guy like that be successful enough to progress.

You can stash those guys in A for several seasons and have them pick up a couple of points across the board every year. If you draft an 18-year-old you aren’t counting on making the majors for a decade, he could be a late-blooming star. Not a lot of people play seasons in franchise mode quickly enough for these guy to be particularly useful, though.

I’m always annoyed when blue chippers have those low attributes. I don’t expect every top pick to pan out (it would be worse if they did), but I also hate seeing teams draft 24-year-old players who need six seasons in the minors before they’re even borderline MLB talent.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by moTIGS

The “current” ratings are consistent regardless of the scout and do not change when a player is fully scouted. For every prospect, the current ratings are an accurate representation of how talented the player is right now. I just ran a quick test to confirm. From the start of the season with the best available scouts, those ratings were identical to the same players discovered by the worst available scouts. Injury risk also does not change. The only thing scouting does change is potential. Scouts can tell you what a player’s potential peak will be. But as the person you quoted mentioned, those prospects with low current ratings and high potential are risky because actual progression depends on performance in the minors. So a guy with 99 potential but 40s across the board for other attributes is probably gonna suck forever unless you play all his minor league games and rake. It’s just too hard to have a guy like that be successful enough to progress. You can stash those guys in A for several seasons and have them pick up a couple of points across the board every year. If you draft an 18-year-old you aren’t counting on making the majors for a decade, he could be a late-blooming star. Not a lot of people play seasons in franchise mode quickly enough for these guy to be particularly useful, though. I’m always annoyed when blue chippers have those low attributes. I don’t expect every top pick to pan out (it would be worse if they did), but I also hate seeing teams draft 24-year-old players who need six seasons in the minors before they’re even borderline MLB talent.

Thanks. Sometimes the high potential/low attributes can be useful trade chips. I restrict myself to not trading a player who is below 50 durability because the cpu teams will make the trade and it isn't fair. Do you know whether durability changes with scouting or does it remain the same?

I'm going to adjust my scouting strategy now to discovery first and then scouting based upon current attributes.

[StateoftheFranchise]

Also training is useless you can assign something but it really doesn't change much at all

[jcar0725]

Quote: Originally Posted by StateoftheFranchise

Also training is useless you can assign something but it really doesn't change much at all

Is that correct? I thought it gave them a slight boost in that area, if they had the ability to increase their attributes.