Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePride87
See, that's exactly what I had thought....that ability scouts would have more level, less impressive results. You could build a team full of ML-caliber players but miss out on the Trouts of the world....the middle of the bell curve. Safe, predictible. And I thought tools was for the folks more interested in the "home runs" of the minors, with a lot of whiffs but a few superstars. The extremes of the bell curve.
But maybe not so afterall
|
That would make a lot of sense, too.
But I think that would need a change in how players are generated - some more prospects that are closer to their potential but not with a ton of upside, or at least that's how an Ability scout might see them...good at seeing what they can do now and reasonably expect for improvement, but miss like you said, the Trouts or the guys who might "get it" suddenly, etc.
You'd get "pleasant surprises", less busts, but give up on some "dark horses" or "late bloomers".
Right now, it seems like Ability = Actual (which is why they are weaker in draft), Tools = Pots, and accuracy...it doesn't matter unless the scouts are at or near 200 and Tools.
It's just all disappointing.
And...good enough...the Tools scout can hit on actual ability just as well.
IDK it just seems weird. Accuracy might need to be more nuanced and less reliant on budget?