Quote:
Originally Posted by jbergey22
I agree completely with you on this part.
An average scout should be more accurate than OSA. OSA should basically be like a below average scout.
An A scout would have an error margin of +/- 10.(100 scale)
A B scout would have an error margin of +/- 20
so on and so forth.
Like you say it seems OSA is the voice of reason right now instead of the Baseball America type feature it should be.
Id speculate OSA is used to draft for the computer teams which completely defeats the purpose of scouts in the first place as either you have a team that drafts like a 12 year old kid would or as it is where OSA is more accurate than you scouts.
|
Markus is going to say that your scout IS more accurate then OSA, and I'm sure that it is if you took the average deviation between the scout and OSA versus the actual ratings. The problem is that you don't ever take advantage of the 'average deviation' because when you select players in a draft, you are selecting the outliers.
It doesn't matter that my scout was more accurate on say 25 of the 30 players who would go in the first round: I'm going to select one of the 5 that my scout is wrong about because the chosen player looks attractive
because he's incorrectly scouted. If you play enough season every round of the draft has a player that sticks out like a sore thumb and it's obvious that he's the player my scout missed by 3 standard deviations. It doesn't matter that my scout is off by 3 SDs on fewer players, because it only takes one to ruin the illusion that the game reflects 'reality'.