rookie scouting

by **showstopper496** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 9:27 am

i really want good rookie scouting, they should tell you what potinetial he has and etc

by **TRUball** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:01 am

same, I want more detailed rookie scouting.

PS: I like your sig (Y)

by **YoUnGzEE** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 1:43 pm

i hope they have college and high school stats

and they could have little notes for certain players like "?player? won college player of the year award in season 20??-20??", "?player? lead his team to final four" etc

by **Vins15** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 2:09 pm

not just stats injury description like wut's the major injury that bothers him when he is in highschool/college

by **Metsis** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 4:00 pm

You should be able to allocate resources into scouting. So you could get wrong information or extremely accurate.

And some notes about former success of a player would be most welcome. And also about the playing style of a player. At the moment the strengths and weaknesses system covers players skills, but there should also be a line for playing style. Like "shoot first forward", "point forward", "defensive center", "pass first point guard", "long bomber guard", "slashing guard", "play making guard", "scoring center" etc.

This would be a really great help... This could do more in the lines of evaluating if he's a good match with your team. If your team is already filled with scorers, well you don't want another shoot first player in your team do you? There are just so many shots taken in the game.

As we all know, that the player ratings are not attached to the dstats and this line could tell something about the dstats... And how he plays on the court with the AI controlling.

Could be something to add to the upcoming wishlist already... Could be. What do you people think?

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 4:25 pm

I'd also like to see more detailed scouting reports. "Is a natural shooting guard, but can also play the point", "With a little more bulk, could play all frontcourt positions", etc. Some more information apart from 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses would be most welcome.

by **YoUnGzEE** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:54 pm

there should be an NBA comparison for every player aswell

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:57 pm

Yeah, good idea. (Y)

by **Metsis** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:27 pm

Too much information still takes the fun out of the drafting...

What would be nice, would be that the players had some sort of pre-draft rookie scores attached to them. Some career highlights etc.

But the playing style is important... If you don't need another defensive stopper, well you should be able to select a more offensive minded player.

Player comparison... Well this is again trivial... Cause the rookies are quite bad atleast in Live 2003. Would you like to see something like This guy brings into mind a Greg Ostertag or Anthony Peeler or someone else of a lower level player. Some of the top guys could have this... So the really hyped about players are compared to the stars in the league. But not a second rounder. Maybe something like top 10 picks or something.

But still I think the comparison is quite trivial... The players need more character and playing styles etc. rather then comparing them with old guys.

by **diafenes** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:41 pm

YoUnGzEE wrote:there should be an NBA comparison for every player aswell

the scout report should also divide the nba comparison into upside & downside
i.e: upside: could be the next Garnett
dowside: could turn out into another Leon Smith

I think the inclusion of some sort of generated stats could be interesting and helpful for drafting. this would give an indication of what type of player you'd be getting -this Pf averaged 18ppg, 6rpg and 5bpg in college, so you know your getting a scoring power foward who's a bit weak on the boards but makes up for it by being a good blocker.

I don't know if this would be too much info, but a system where the top 10 or so players have more info, the next 10 a bit less and so on would work. that way you would pay more attention with the more important draft picks.

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:44 pm

Too much information still takes the fun out of the drafting...

True, but too little information isn't realistic. You should be able to make intelligent, informed draft choices. Perhaps it could be balanced out with players whose scouting reports are incomplete - some players would be well scouted, while other players' talents (or lack thereof) remain virtually unknown.

by **Metsis** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 9:50 pm

One thing that could be a good addition to the drafting would also be draft concentration. You could concentrate on single position players more and then you'd have have to choose a position from which the extra time would be taken out of.

I mean, like you are in a dire need of a good shooting guard and you have three good power forwards. You could choose before the draft for the scouts to concentrate more on the shooting guards and less on the power forward position. And then you could choose to commit more time on small forwards and less time on the center position (if you fielded one of your pf's as a c). So you'd have more accurate reports on small forwards and shooting guards, normal reports on point guards and weaker reports on centers and power forwards.

Again this would be optional... You could take normal reports on all the positions or you could choose one pair of good and bad reports... This wouldn't have to include anything extra like cash or something. Just three reports about all the draftees.

Just think about it, when you would choose a player with your strong report and your friend would look at him (maybe with a bad one) and think that you have made a mistake... This is a way that you could actually get a steal in the draft by other means then just stupidity from the AI.

I still think the player comparison would take a lot of effort and editing to be done. And how would this even work??? You would need all the players ratings from their rookie seasons and their eventual rise to bball godhood or their flush down the drain... That would take a lot of work. To be implemented properly.

Some statistics from pre-draft camps could work, as the players would be already created and the simulation engine is there. All you would need is to simulate maybe three games for each player and show the stat averages to the player in the draft screen. Not all the top guys go the these pre-draft camps so they could have "no games played" as their camp scores, but they are usually good. These would help most starting from the middle of the first round...

Again here are my thoughts on what could be improved about the rookie drafting with relatively little trouble.

by **Swoosh** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 9:56 pm

great post metsis (y)

, you are right about everything u said imho

by **diafenes** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:32 pm

Metsis wrote:I still think the player comparison would take a lot of effort and editing to be done. And how would this even work??? You would need all the players ratings from their rookie seasons and their eventual rise to bball godhood or their flush down the drain... That would take a lot of work. To be implemented properly.

I've followed the last few drafts quite thoroughly and in sports.yahoo.com (and quite a few other sites) they have draft capsules for each rookie entering the draft, they always have a comparitive upside/downside for each player (like I mentioned in the my previous post). It is quite generalized and there is quite a large margin for error between upside/downside but it does give an indication of what type of game the rookie would have.

by **Metsis** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:43 pm

diafenes wrote:I've followed the last few drafts quite thoroughly and in sports.yahoo.com (and quite a few other sites) they have draft capsules for each rookie entering the draft, they always have a comparitive upside/downside for each player (like I mentioned in the my previous post). It is quite generalized and there is quite a large margin for error between upside/downside but it does give an indication of what type of game the rookie would have.

Yes, I'm sure that rookies remind you of someone, but the question isn't that. It would be kind of a good thing in the rookie report, but come on... This just can't be implemented into a computer game as easily as that. It is just not doable. It would take a lot of work.

It would be a huge generalizasation... With a few good and few bad examples. Maybe one or two per position, but that covers about 0,2% of all the possiblities.

It is hard to implement, and it wouldn't add that much to the report in my mind.

by **YoUnGzEE** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:57 pm

If they can have the strengths/weaknesses of each player it shouldn't be that hard to include an NBA comparison. ->Check out Sega NBA 2K3!!!

It doesn't have to be very accurate either and because we're selecting players who don't even exist it makes it a little easier to choose IMO.

by **diafenes** on Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:15 pm

Metsis wrote:It would be a huge generalizasation... With a few good and few bad examples. Maybe one or two per position, but that covers about 0,2% of all the possiblities.

Sure its generalizing and yes no player is the same as the other but I'm sure the percentages are bigger. All I'm saying is at the moment EA's rookies are quite pathetic and faceless, this would just give them some sort of recognition.
In terms of more usefulness I believe my idea of having a players college/highschool averages as well as your idea of draft camp averages would give us a more knowledgeable view on type of player they could become.

Metsis wrote:and it wouldn't add that much to the report in my mind.

each to his own opinion

again we're all just really fantasizing on what type of game we want, so difficulty of implementing a given idea shouldn't really be an issue (not in my mind). :wink:

by **bballer22** on Tue Sep 09, 2003 12:52 am

yeh coz they seem to use sam escounting report for 1st round and second round players, like second round u can get unconsiant form the 3 and he is only 75! in the 1st round he would be 80 or 90!
more detail but not too much that would tell u the rating or his future, maybe more general and more stats!

by **Metsis** on Tue Sep 09, 2003 3:22 pm

Have you seen the rookies in Live 2003??? Obviously you haven't... They just suck in that game. Only the top few picks of each draft ever amount to something. And if you do not have a top 10 pick, well the rookies will just go and fill in the IR slots on the roster. This was a huge problem with Live last year. The rookies are generated with the pretty much same generator as with Live 2001, but they have upgraded the real players overalls. So you are lucky to get an overall 73 guy with the 15th pick in the draft. And then he'd end up being your 10th or 11th player, aka third player in a spot. You just couldn't build through the draft in Live 2003... And that just sucked, and the fact that you really didn't need to was a whole other problem with overall 90 guys waiting for your minimum offer at the start of the season, if you were the first team to start your season. They were just lining up at your door. And the you'd have an all-star lineup and where do the rookies fit then... Into the free agent pool??? (Sorry a little rambling to get tuesday started :lol:

)

Player comparison could work and could be implemented... Highschool and college stats would need another simulation engine atleast the highschool stats would need one. The people from hs just record ridiculous numbers and the college game is a whole other thing from the NBA game. Pre-draft stats could be simulated with the same engine.

All of these could be implemented, but I'd rather have a better dynasty... I'm quite sure that the dynasty will be better this time around, but it still won't be all what we want it to be. So hopefully they will add to that depth in Live 2005 so we can get a more realistic gm mode.

With some added information the draft could be much better... I still say that the player potentials shouldn't be the thing that sorts out the players draft order projections... There should be some raw players with huge upsides in the second round. The players who haven't realized their potential and it might take them a couple of years to see wheter he will amount to anything or not. I'd like to have a project to work on... I'd like to see if I could make a difference in the players progress... I'd like that opportunity... Each player should have the possibility of becoming a solid player (even out of the top 10 picks)... Maybe a good back up or something... But this has yet to have happened.

I want the rookies to have a chance again... They didn't have one in Live 2003.

by **paranoid66** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:15 pm

i want the option to see the ratings of the rookies to be drafted...

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:32 pm

That might make drafting a little too easy though. The element of risk and surprise is gone if you can see their ratings. Besides, you can usually guess what their ratings will be like by their strengths, weaknesses, and projected draft position. :wink:

by **Metsis** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:41 pm

This is what makes Live still better then NHL. In the NHL you could see the draftees ratings when drafting, well even during the season they would be coming up for draft. And that is something dumb.

It ain't as exciting as the Live draft... I just want some more reasurances about the players capabilities.

And I don't want any guards with speed 60 and quickness 60, cause those guys just don't exist. Okay they exist, but they would never be in the NBA Draft. They would be taking it down at Burger King or something.

All the players that enter the NBA draft are physically quite good. A slow guard should have it's speed at 75. Or a weak center should have strength of 70. But at the moment when you take a slow like molasses guard, well that means his speed is 50-55 and even Muresan would win that guy in a race down the floor. The rookies need to be more realistic.

That's my take on the issue... All the rookies are athletic and sound players... Only rarely there are players that aren't "fit" for NBA. And I mean not in shape to play NBA. And if you have a guard that has speed of 60, well he isn't in shape to play NBA.

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:44 pm

A very good point. Similarly, all point guards should have decent dribbling and passing ratings, even if they're not expert ballhandlers. They should still be better than most big men when it comes to ballhandling, even if they aren't that good compared to other guards.

by **Metsis** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 8:15 pm

My point exactly... A point guard should be a decent dribbler and passer in any case. A power forward and center should be decent rebounders, shooting guards should be decent shooters and small forwards should be decent at what they do.

Like atleast mid 70 ratings in these abilities. Who wants a shooting guard that has field goals 65??? Who wants a center or power forward who has never seen a rebound? Who would like to have a point guard that is more likely to bounce the ball off his leg then the floor? No one... Are there any players as these in the NBA? No, are there any players like these in the Draft? A couple could be, that have flown below the radar... But usually all the guys in the draft are atleast decent in their areas and reasonably athletic. That's all I ask.

And now, if they keep the high overalls, well they could just make the rookies better (the bad ones I mean).

A typical second round point guard in Live 2003:
Strength: 52
Jumping: 57
Speed: 65
Quickness: 68
Dribbling: 70
Passing: 72

And that ain't even bad... I'm just saying that the guy should be something like this:
Strength: 62
Jumping: 72
Speed: 78
Quickness: 78
Dribbling: 74
Passing: 76

Now this player would already be worthy of some time on the court, if you are thin at point guard.

And why the athletic abilities should be raised is this... The current player progress does not allow huge changes in athletic abilities (other then strength) so a guard with speed <70 is doomed to fail, cause it can only increase by a couple of points. Same goes for jumping. The fact that the athletic abilities don't change that much is realistic and it shouldn't be changed that much.

The rookies just need to be better...

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 11:54 pm

I agree. There shouldn't be too many second round steals - that wouldn't be realistic either. But some second round picks should be capable of filling in at times, and doing a decent job. It would be nice to draft a player in the second round that wouldn't automatically go to the injured roster when the game automatically re-orders the rosters.

rookie scouting

rookie scouting

Who is online