Quote:
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Ahh, OK.. you're right that the $10m pure amateur scouting budget is on the higher end.
Something I thought of later is that maybe it makes sense that the Tools guy is coming out on top in terms of standard deviation, because you're only looking at the top 58 players in the draft. Maybe the Ability guy will be more accurate for 3rd/4th rounders and later.
But then that begs the question, if the players outside of the top 60 or so in the draft never make the MLB, is the accuracy of their scouting report really that important?
One thing I do like about having a good scout versus OSA is that your scout will be quicker to spot Talent Change Randomness. I saw it in one league where a GM put a pitcher on waivers who had just received a healthy TCR boost. Ouch.
|
Therefore a look at the bottom end of the potential distribution would be required. In my observations it is strinking that all deviations come from scouts' underestimation of potential. That means that neutral or favor ability guys underestimate the potential
more than the tool guys.
OSA is the only one with some overestimates.
I just checked the sample with a Scout which highly favors tools, 5 Mio Budget and 150 rating (which equals "excellent").
The results tends to show that such a scout is at least as good as a high-end scout with "neutral".