BLB midseason coverage: Your Take

[Pat]

Contraction could make sense if we have two owners exit at the same time and we have trouble filling. Then we can start a conversation about what that means.

I think the bigger topic that Pat mentioned is scouts.

I love having scouts. But maybe there's something to what Pat is saying here. When is the last time we, as a league, actually liked scouts. We love having them. But do we love how it works in the game?

I like that we have differing opinions but the difference is extreme. Comparing to real world, when have teams across the MLB disagreed with the top 100. No one ever says, "How is that guy there?"

But we say that because our scouts tell us it isn't right. And that's silly. One scout sees a Hall of Famer and another sees AAA fodder. That's really extreme.

I don't think something like removing scouts ever passes. And I'm actually still on the fence (I'd likely say no) but it's worth discussing if it should be around.

With contraction, I just think it's a good conversation to have beforehand. The reasons for leaving are endless. For instance, what if during the season Ryan stepped down, I had some real life issues and I knew I wasn't going to be able to commit to the BLB. Would it be better to say, contract the Clowns and Pilots, instead of trying to find two new GMs? It's just an idea. For every replacement that has been a hit, there has been a miss.

As for scouts, I agree, I don't think it will ever pass. But going forward, for me personally, and this is my recommendation for all other GMs, I think putting money into scouting is almost a complete waste. OSA just seems like the much safer bet.

[Delandis]

With contraction, I just think it's a good conversation to have beforehand. The reasons for leaving are endless. For instance, what if during the season Ryan stepped down, I had some real life issues and I knew I wasn't going to be able to commit to the BLB. Would it be better to say, contract the Clowns and Pilots, instead of trying to find two new GMs? It's just an idea. For every replacement that has been a hit, there has been a miss.

As for scouts, I agree, I don't think it will ever pass. But going forward, for me personally, and this is my recommendation for all other GMs, I think putting money into scouting is almost a complete waste. OSA just seems like the much safer bet.

I have not found this to be true.


Every recent draft that I put money into scouting and listened to my scout's recommendations, I've had success finding players who are not on OSA's radar. I'd advise against this, especially for rebuilding teams.

[Andrew]

I agree that scouts could be implemented better but I still prefer having them vs not having them.

l think it's stupid that we allocate such a large portion of our budgets to scouting/player development. Especially since they can't be changed during the season.

[Sharkn20]

With contraction, I just think it's a good conversation to have beforehand. The reasons for leaving are endless. For instance, what if during the season Ryan stepped down, I had some real life issues and I knew I wasn't going to be able to commit to the BLB. Would it be better to say, contract the Clowns and Pilots, instead of trying to find two new GMs? It's just an idea. For every replacement that has been a hit, there has been a miss.

As for scouts, I agree, I don't think it will ever pass. But going forward, for me personally, and this is my recommendation for all other GMs, I think putting money into scouting is almost a complete waste. OSA just seems like the much safer bet.

I am not agree with the Scouts bit... I trust mine and things are going as planned so far. Finding great talent at the bottom of the 1st Round and even late rounders who have a role in the BLB. Johnny Smith, and Tom Riechers are UFA. Barnard and Jed Davies are 3rd Round picks. Tom Driggs you all know. Leiden is a 6th Round pick... Mixing Scout's opinion with stats and Ratings movement, they are the keys of our prospect development...

Just my 2 cents as Pat is a far more experienced manager than me :)

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[funclown]

What's wrong with the BLB?: There are issues and can they be fixed?
-I held off as long as I could in this Seattle stint to not trade draft picks but it's nearly impossible it seems to do prospect trades. I think this is a result of the scouting issues with the game. It's so hard to find the same opinion on a prospect with another team, that OSA feels similar about and then to determine fair value. It's so much easier to just go draft pick. I wish prospects were traded more in this league but it really seems draft picks are basically trade currency. Because of that, I would actually entertain the idea of turning scouts off until OOTP makes scouting great again. I spent over $10M on just the draft this year, with a LEGENDARY amateur scout and a sim after the rookies were entered he soured on about 90% of my draft picks. Not one improved. That seems like a flaw to me.

I said this earlier in the season, but I really do think prospect trading becomes alot harder now. Even if your scout says "could be a hall of famer" if he's not in the top 100 good luck getting fair value. Its ok for scouts to have varying opinions + plus OSA, but lets be real on this. Whether prospects miss in the big show is irrevelant MOST scouts in the MLB have close to the same opinion of a prospect not "He's a god" versus "Poor hitter, should shoot himself".

[Carlos]

I said this earlier in the season, but I really do think prospect trading becomes alot harder now. Even if your scout says "could be a hall of famer" if he's not in the top 100 good luck getting fair value. Its ok for scouts to have varying opinions + plus OSA, but lets be real on this. Whether prospects miss in the big show is irrevelant MOST scouts in the MLB have close to the same opinion of a prospect not "He's a god" versus "Poor hitter, should shoot himself".

That's the issue I have.

I agree with Andrew, I rather have scouts too. But, man, OOTP is not doing itself any justice with the wide variance in opinion. I'm okay if one scout says: "he's a 4th outfielder." And another says, "No, this guy is a starter." That's cool.

But, "This guy has a high ceiling. He's going to win a lot of awards when it's all said and done!" Versus another scout saying, "Probably not a major league player."

Like how? Imagine a scout said Kris Bryant was probably not a major league baseball player.

I'm also okay if the scout's opinion's are that wide apart if we are talking about unknowns. But when first round pick types are being questioned with such variance, there's a problem.

It's just how it is with OOTP, I guess.

[Andrew]

I think part of the problem with the varying opinions is the "favor tools/favor ability" implementation. I think if all scouts were neutral we'd see more consistency. I also think there's a setting to increase scouting accuracy which would improve consistency. Not sure what setting we use now.

Lastly, it sounds like with OOTP 17 scouts will matter less in future drafts. According to the information Matt posted during the draft we're going to see many potential hall of famers in the draft but development will be more volatile.

[Carlos]

I think part of the problem with the varying opinions is the "favor tools/favor ability" implementation. I think if all scouts were neutral we'd see more consistency. I also think there's a setting to increase scouting accuracy which would improve consistency. Not sure what setting we use now.

Lastly, it sounds like with OOTP 17 scouts will matter less in future drafts. According to the information Matt posted during the draft we're going to see many potential hall of famers in the draft but development will be more volatile.

Very good points.

[liquidcrash]

I'm kind of late to this, so excuse the interruption on the topic we've switched to.


Bold predictions: What's ahead in the second half and playoffs?

I don't know how bold it is, but I think we'll hang on to the wildcard spot. It feels like all 4 of the Wildcard spots might come out of the Stout this season - that's the way it stacks up right now. We've got a chance to win the division, but it just hasn't come together yet for us. We haven't quite pitched or hit well at the same time for more than one sim at a time.

First-half surprises, disappointments: What players and teams have defied expectations?

Biggest disappointment on my team is CJ Turnbow. I don't know what happened here. He's gone from being a 3.9 and 3.7 WAR player in years 1 and 2 to being below replacement level this year. A seemingly promising young hitter who is pretty much unplayable if I had a better option at 1B. I don't get it. He raked in Spring Training, but this season has been a disaster.

Israel Morales was similarly terrible, but I at least could blame it on age, even if his downturn was really dramatic. He's gone now though.

I'm not sure I've had a positive surprise from any individual player. Carroll has pitched like an elite pitcher this season, but I've expected him to do that for 2+ years now. He's there now.

Midseason awards: Who would take home hardware if the season ended today?

On my team, I think the contenders would be:

Yonke for Stout Slugger. He's the IL leader in WAR (for hitters), but I don't know that he'd get votes over Frederick. If he keeps hitting like he has since the trade, Yonke has an outside chance here.

Mitchell or Carroll for Pale Ale. They are 1-2 in Pitcher WAR in the IL (we have the top 3 overall players in WAR in the IL). They've both been fantastic this season, but it's going to be awfully difficult for anyone to ever beat Pat Evans for this.

Tom Roseboom or Dave Koehler for New Brew. I haven't looked at how this stacks up right now, but they've both been good for me. Roseboom has hit better as the season has gone on, leads the IL in stolen bases and has been ok in center field. Koehler has fallen off in July, but is still having a good rookie year.

Breakout stars: You need to be familiar with these names.

Roseboom. I think he has a chance to be really good.

[Delandis]

I'm not sure what we are looking for from the scouts' perspectives. Are we becoming a league where we want more transparency?

As I see it, there absolutely should be a wide variance of opinions on non-established players. Are we looking for every scout to have the same opinion on non-established players? If so, then yes we should turn off scouting.

In this league, it is very rare that there are questionable picks on the 15-20 players of our drafts. That tells me that there isn't that much of an issue of scouting variance when it comes to top end prospects. Furthermore, the Top Prospects list is prepared by OSA, which the manually explicitly states is "understaffed" and rather unreliable.

Here's a quick and dirty list of the Top 10 Batters Under 27 sorted by WAR and their draft position that I look at from time to time.

D. Owens 1st pick
D. Webber 9th pick
D. Seibert 23rd pick
F. Fredrick 38th pick
Tom Lewis 94th pick
J. Rowles 61st pick
I. Schneider 63rd pick
Z. Compton 6th pick
J. Skolfield 43rd pick
T. Pelloni 15th pick

Now that is only four guys picked in the 1st round. Maybe I'm confused but, isn't that what we want to happen?

[Delandis]

Tom Roseboom or Dave Koehler for New Brew.

Ignore hitters. Vote Dominguez or Carrasco.

[funclown]

Lastly, it sounds like with OOTP 17 scouts will matter less in future drafts. According to the information Matt posted during the draft we're going to see many potential hall of famers in the draft but development will be more volatile.

I hope over time it finds a balance. Right now we seem to have a good amount non top 100 players who should be top 100. I've checked out other teams also and say to myself "ok why is he not up there?"

I'd vote for scouting rating settings change. Just a bit better please to close the gap with OSA. Or is it OSA thats way out of whack. I don't know.

Please understand, this doesn't mean I think every prospect should hit. I still fully expect misses. Its more about being able to come up with fair trade value then anything else.

[funclown]

I'm not sure what we are looking for from the scouts' perspectives. Are we becoming a league where we want more transparency?

As I see it, there absolutely should be a wide variance of opinions on non-established players. Are we looking for every scout to have the same opinion on non-established players? If so, then yes we should turn off scouting.

In this league, it is very rare that there are questionable picks on the 15-20 players of our drafts. That tells me that there isn't that much of an issue of scouting variance when it comes to top end prospects. Furthermore, the Top Prospects list is prepared by OSA, which the manually explicitly states is "understaffed" and rather unreliable.

Here's a quick and dirty list of the Top 10 Batters Under 27 sorted by WAR and their draft position that I look at from time to time.

D. Owens 1st pick
D. Webber 9th pick
D. Seibert 23rd pick
F. Fredrick 38th pick
Tom Lewis 94th pick
J. Rowles 61st pick
I. Schneider 63rd pick
Z. Compton 6th pick
J. Skolfield 43rd pick
T. Pelloni 15th pick

Now that is only four guys picked in the 1st round. Maybe I'm confused but, isn't that what we want to happen?

I think were just looking for scouts to be more aligned on they're views. The players there....Its find if kids pop into the top 100 out of the blue. Looking at that list I doubt any owner had insight on a few of them hitting. It was blind luck no matter what that GM says. Its more about agreement so when you sit down and try to make a trade your more on the same page. In the real world scouts generally have alot of the same reports. (again with smaller varation)

[umd]

I think were just looking for scouts to be more aligned on they're views. The players there....Its find if kids pop into the top 100 out of the blue. Looking at that list I doubt any owner had insight on a few of them hitting. It was blind luck no matter what that GM says. Its more about agreement so when you sit down and try to make a trade your more on the same page. In the real world scouts generally have alot of the same reports. (again with smaller varation)

You need to look at the other side of the scouting coin. GMs who have confidence in taking non OSA risks could be rewarded in trades.

[funclown]

You need to look at the other side of the scouting coin. GMs who have confidence in taking non OSA risks could be rewarded in trades.

Agree. I just see a possible future where owners are gonna disagree on a prospects value is all based not the scouts take, but the "oh he's not even a top 100" As Pat stated draft picks are more the currency today and think its gonna get even worse.

Trust me, I hope I'm wrong.