Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiko1313
No, not quite correct. I used 110 out of 200 for potential which translates to 55 on the 100 point scale. But even then the scouts ratings are a little higher, like 55-60. It's only a few points higher than what they should be. If they were supposed to be 45 and we were seeing 55-60, that would not be good. Overrating by a few points isn't a huge deal to me, but still worth pointing out.
For the most part this is a correct interpretation, but as I mentioned above they are overrating only by a few points on average. That doesn't mean they are never underrating a player.
Does that clear it up?
|
Thanks, yes it does paint a clearer picture. So judging by what you said and the above examples you illustrated, the only potential ratings where a scout averaged underrated the actual rating was for GAP (minimum = 54.79), AVOID K (minimum = 54.42), CONTROL for pitchers (minimum = 54.04). Every other potential rating category, it seems that every scout had them overrated on average.
My guess is that since these are only averages of what a scout gave, even for the scouts that overall averaged higher potential ratings than the actual (55 potential rating), they must've had some instances where they underrated the potential ability, just that the other instances outweighed these instances to bring the overall average to over 55. So in other words, for example Scout 1 may have said that a player was 51 in GAP potential in one instant, but because of several other instances, the overall average of his GAP potential rating ended up being 56.25.
So in short, for potential ratings, the scouts tend to overrate talent more than underrate talent. However, scouts still DO underrate talent, just not all that much. For current ratings, this does not hold true, for current ratings, scouts can underrate and overrate just as equally often (roughly).