Broken Bat - Help: Scout Comment

Forum >> Help >> Scout Comment

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#15701	03/06/2015 10:17:08 am
atc7278 Joined: 02/11/2015 Posts: 10 Inactive	I know sometimes the initial values on different skills can be overstated, and then get adjusted as the player becomes more familiar to your team, but does the same occur with the scout comment/overall potential? I took a 16 year old pitcher last week whose initial skill set make him looks attractive, but his potential is only 11, with "above average" potential from the scout. Is there any hope that he's really a 12/Good lurking as a 11/Abv Avg? Or did he just develop early and is going to tease me for the next few seasons as his training lags behind others?

#15702	03/06/2015 10:45:30 am
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5197 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Potential bars are rounded down. An 11 could represent SI anywhere from 88 to 95. 12 is 96 to 103. 13 is 104 to 111. I have seen guys come up short (ie., a 12 plateauing at 90 SI). I have never seen a player overshoot the range (ie., a 12 reaching 104). So I believe the answer to: Is there any hope that he's really a 12/Good lurking as a 11/Abv Avg? sadly, is no. He could be a top-end 11, especially if he has a lot of positive scouting. Best case scenario he's finishes as good as a low-end 12. The verbal comments are a bit grain-of-salt. I've seen 13 potential players described as having "above average potential". Seems to be some overlap in the ranges the statements cover. Keeps you on your toes.

#15705	03/06/2015 12:56:45 pm
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	You know, it would make some sense if the "Above Average, good, very good potentials" pegged players as either high, low or middle for their potential. So, for example, an above average potential scouting report for a 13 potential player would have him top out in that bottom third of the SI range for 13s.

#15720	03/06/2015 3:27:56 pm
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5197 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	That was a pet theory of mine, but I've seen no correlation with my own lads. Extremely small size acknowledged.

#15729	03/06/2015 5:18:20 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9588 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Again, super small sample size, but I've noticed that my players with lower SI but higher scout recommendations also seem to be the players who have the points in the "right" place. So maybe the verbal "very good potential", etc. I a more accurate rating of the players true value (e.g. a 12 SI pitcher with really low fielding skills is better than a lot of 13 SI pitchers).

#15739	03/06/2015 7:48:40 pm
atc7278 Joined: 02/11/2015 Posts: 10 Inactive	Thanks for all the comments - I'll keep him around until I find something better, but won't sweat it when the time comes to say goodbye (since I simply know I'll be swimming in 14pot guys soon )

#15740	03/06/2015 8:25:01 pm
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5197 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Two things to consider: - ROI. A 17 year old is going to be in you minor league system for 6 seasons, that is a big investment, - with position players, skills are more heterogenous. You can hide a bad arm. You can hide hide bad speed. You can hide bad fielding. - skills with pitchers are more homogenous. You can't hide a bad curveball. You can't do much now . But when transactions open, you should. Look for a 12 or 13. This guy isn't good ROI Edit: autocorrect can ..... Updated Friday, March 6 2015 @ 8:26:23 pm PST