BuzzerBeater Forums

Not sure if there's a suggestions thread ( I couldn't locate one ), so I'm posting this here. If it needs to be moved elsewhere, just let me know and I'll gladly do it.
----------
I've been deeply frustrated with some particular issues about the scouting system for a while now, particularly two facets of it:

1) Not knowing player heights

I assume the reason that this information isn't available to us is to prevent cross-referencing of players within leagues, and subsequently the prevention of draft monopolization by teams that would collaborate and exploit this information if it were available. However, since player height is far more important in training than the listed position of a player, I think not having this information is a big reason why I have been frustrated with my draft picks over the years. I would much rather know what the height of a player is than his supposed position. I realize the abilities of players play a role in their listed positions, but if for example I draft a guy listed as a power forward instead of a guy listed as a shooting guard because I'm training big men, only to find out the PF I drafted is 6'1", and the SG was 6'9" ... I tend to get a bit angry at all the money I wasted scouting over the course of a season. Especially when height is something I should be able to read in a media guide or get a good sense of just by looking at a guy.

2) Not being able to tell my scouts what I'm looking for

As much as it would be nice to tell my scouts to look for specific traits in players, or more importantly to stop scouting a player they have discovered is a 1 star player with 2 star potential, I do realize being able to be this picky would take some of the guesswork and simulated randomness out of drafting players thus making it less realistic. That being said, I grow increasingly frustrated with my scouts spending a great deal of time scouting the types of players I have no use for on my team in lieu of players whose games and size I have a much higher demand for. I really don't want to pay scouts a couple hundred thousand dollars to tell me all about the great point guards in the draft when all I care about is getting one trainable big man.
-------------------------
Suggestions:

1) Potential is not something we should have a great deal of insight into. This should be at least semi-hidden from us and revealed as we train players and learn their limitations. Perhaps potential should even be on a skill by skill basis. Some guys just can't play defense no matter how much you try to teach them, but they can excel in other areas (for example).

2) Height should not only be something we know without even scouting a player, but we should be able to set our scouts to look at players within certain height ranges. Said ranges could be as big or small as you see fit.

3) Add scouts to the staff list. The higher level your scout is, the more accurate the info he gives you regarding scouted players will be. With the tweaking that has been done to the economy of late, and possibly a simple increase elsewhere, paying a 4th salary wouldn't be unreasonable.

4) Assuming that this isn't already the case, make the box scores shown for scouted players random from team to team or take them out altogether. Assuming that the game shown for a scouted player appears the same for each team that's scouted him, this is what makes cross referencing players possible. Besides, it's a pretty worthless bit of information if you really think about it. It tells you nothing about the type of offense/defense he played in, what type of team they played against, etc. Just because my point guard scored 43 points in 28 mins last night, doesn't mean I should expect him to do that consistently. Box scores tell me nothing.


I'm loving a lot of the improvements the staff has made in the game over the past few seasons. Keep up the good work, and I hope my two cents is helpful.

Ice-T

but if for example I draft a guy listed as a power forward instead of a guy listed as a shooting guard because I'm training big men, only to find out the PF I drafted is 6'1", and the SG was 6'9" ... I tend to get a bit angry at all the money I wasted scouting over the course of a season

if you scout a 6.5" player without guardskills you wasted your money too, if you thing there is an market for such guys - you could also sell your small powerforward andd buy a player who is matching your wishes.

The reason whythis wouldn't be implemented, you already called here ->

I assume the reason that this information isn't available to us is to prevent cross-referencing of players within leagues

And you could d that, with just height pretty good, with "just" position i would say it is nearly impossible because they are only 5 different positions.

As much as it would be nice to tell my scouts to look for specific traits in players, or more importantly to stop scouting a player they have discovered is a 1 star player with 2 star potential

that will change the whole system, because a scouting point would become a lot more worth.

1) Potential is not something we should have a great deal of insight into. This should be at least semi-hidden from us and revealed as we train players and learn their limitations. Perhaps potential should even be on a skill by skill basis. Some guys just can't play defense no matter how much you try to teach them, but they can excel in other areas (for example).

Trtaining is difficult and pretty hard to look through even today, so i don't like that.

for point 4 i expect it is already the case today, i discussed my information about the draft with a guy in the league and we both scouted a player twice which has a high probability that it was the same both he have other boxscore.

Assuming that the game shown for a scouted player appears the same for each team that's scouted him, this is what makes cross referencing players possible

It is my understanding that this isnt the case. If we both scout the same player twice, we will get different box scores for that player.

Last edited by Heathcoat at 4/5/2009 5:01:32 PM

if you scout a 6.5" player without guardskills you wasted your money too, if you thing there is an market for such guys - you could also sell your small powerforward andd buy a player who is matching your wishes.

True enough, but the point of my putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into scouting is to avoid having to go to the transfer list and drop even more money to find a player that suits my needs. I do see the merit in getting a taller player listed as a guard to train as a big man ... that was my point. I'd rather know that I chose the guy tall enough to train than picking the guy that's supposedly a PF only to find out he's 6'1". Show me a high school team with a 6'1" PF, and I'll show you a player with little hope of even playing at a junior college, much less getting paid to do it.

If there needs to be some vagueness as to the size of players to avoid cross referencing, make their size a range that has a tolerance of a few inches. Teams lie about their players' sizes in media guides anyway. If I want to gamble on a guy listed as a PF at 6'6" knowing that he may really only be 6'4", then that's an educated decision. I'd much prefer that instead of closing my eyes and throwing money at random players.

It is my understanding that this isnt the case. If we both scout the same player twice, we will get different box scores for that player.

On one hand, I'm glad to hear this to be the case and it removes the fears I had that box scores could be used for cross referencing ... on the other, I'd like to know why it costs me money (scouting points) to get box scores. It just seems like an unnecessary expense.

Thanks so much for the input and keep it coming!

I think with the draft being so easy to exploit, an abstract version of the draft like we have is needed. I have seen the draft proccess picked apart in several threads and it all comes back to preserving the integrity of the draft. Unfortunately realism takes a big hit in this case. The suggestions you make are realistic expectations like you should know the height of the players, and you shouldnt have to pay for box scores that you can get in the high school paper, etc. Unfortunately again these realistic changes would open the door for coersion and exploitation of the draft, it is my belief this is precisely why your suggestions arent allready in place.

I find it best to look at the draft as an abstraction of reality to create a realistic outcome, even if not in a realistic way. You shouldnt get too clear of a picture of what you are getting in the draft. As is the case in real life what looks good at the draft can be a complete bust when it comes down to the real thing. Teams get burned in the NBA all of the time when it comes to draft investment. We are dealing with computer players whos actual skills are a constant and not flowing up and down based on the mood of a human player. Hard info here, but not so much in real life. Somehow there must be the chance to get burned in the draft, as well as lucky, just like real life.

Just my opinion

Believe me, I understand the need for some randomness to the draft for the sakes of both integrity and some emulation of real life. I think I was pretty clear in my suggestions of how to maintain (if not better) that. There are so many things I like about this game, and I just assumed the draft/scouting was a work in progress since some changes were previously made. I've kept my mouth shut about it until this point because I didn't have any suggestions about how to fix some of the problems while staying away from some concerns that had prevented the types of changes I'd like to see.

Why can't something like height ranges work? Make it so the height you see for a prospect isn't necessarily what others see. It could be off by as much as 2-3 inches in either direction from the player's true height (e.g. a 6'5" player could show up as 6'3" to one owner and 6'7" to another). This would still leave some guesswork in the equation without making it blind luck. I realize at the high and low ends (e.g. 7'3" and 5'11"), there would be less realistic wiggle room on the ranges. Just make a hard cap for what the absolute high and low could be and leave an owner to wonder if a guy is really 7'3" or 7'0". How many extremely tall/short players are there in a given draft anyway? I hardly call it coercion if it's regarding one player. My league had a 5/5 guard that people were talking about in the league forums last season. Would it have been any more certain to them that they were talking about the same guy if someone saw him as 6'5" and someone else say him as 6'8"? It could be just as likely there is another nice prospect out there.

Say, for example, height became the first thing scouted followed by skill and potential. The heights aren't the same for each owner, and even if they are close, unless they both have skill and potential scouted how do they even know they might be talking about the same player? If they have skill and potential scouted and even have the same height, what are they gaining from talking to one another?

I just find it ridiculous that if I'm looking for someone to attempt to train as a big man, I end up with Mugsy Bogues walking into my front office with some sort of pedigree papers dubbing him the "Power Forward" or "Center" I thought I was drafting. It's like I scouted him without ever looking at him.
------------------
I've got players with increasing salaries (we all do), and season 10 isn't that far off. I find it absurd that only two of my players are American (one was a team original, the other is a backup I bought) thanks to my not being able to rely on the draft for squat. As much as I like having a multitude of international representation on my team, it's going to be idiotic to maintain it once the international salary penalty kicks in. To me, it just makes a lot of sense to revisit the scouting and drafting system. As it stands right now, it's far too much money to invest for too few returns. I'm not saying that even if I have an early pick every year I should have a sure thing (I'm a Cleveland Browns fan ... nuff said). I just don't think i should have to pay scouts to tell me I've got the next Shaq coming into camp only to find out he's Spud Webb with nice inside D and rebounding.

I think I was pretty clear in my suggestions of how to maintain (if not better) that.

I did not see your initial post address integrity when it came to height. You did say your scouts should focus on a height range. It sounded like you just want to know the heigth because in real life we would. Having said that your suggestion for a height range in scouting results was a good one, but as with all major changes the question is does the benefit warrant the BB's time in comparison to other issues. I am guessing your answer is yes.

I'm not saying that even if I have an early pick every year I should have a sure thing (I'm a Cleveland Browns fan ... nuff said). I just don't think i should have to pay scouts to tell me I've got the next Shaq coming into camp only to find out he's Spud Webb with nice inside D and rebounding.

Lol, love the Browns reference. The beauty is that you dont have to pay, as I am sure you know. You could instead save every penny of scouting money and just buy a trainee off the TL. You will know exactly everything about him before you spend a dime. I have only 1 player from the USA on my squad as well, so I feel your pain there. I am not saying you are wrong, or that my opinion is any kind of consensus. I just think in order to change the draft to be more realistic it would take some big changes, minor tweaks dont seem enough (I consider your suggestion major, but I am not a programmer). At least it is abstract and frustrating equally for all of us alike, and therefore balanced, if not realistic.

Right on man. Thx for the dialogue.

". Show me a high school team with a 6'1" PF, and I'll show you a player with little hope of even playing at a junior college, much less getting paid to do it.

googel for jeff gibbs, on paper he is 1.88 and plays as PF and C, german television takes his hight with a foot rule which wasn't straigth and get 1.84 so i believe my tip is more accurat when i say he is 1.80^^

His stats ain't superior in the first german division for years, you could say that this is only a third class league, but they are also some players with nba experienced who ain't that succesfull(actually the most popular one are Dan Dickau and Casey jacobson).

http://statistik.basketball-bundesliga.de/bbl/stats/playe...

I looked this season for small sized players with strong inside Skills, and i have to say that pretty less player match my requirements, so heigth isn't totally random and mostly it fits to the position. When scouting the german draft for great talents, you have more problem with SF sized players(~2.00m), who have a skillset just as guard or centers. With week players maybe the range is bigger, so i expect a random system like that:

size 1.75, OD Skill: 15% average(6), 10% respectable(7)
size 2.20, OD Skill: 2% average(6), 1% respectale(7)

So must solid starting centers are big and most guards are small.