Quote:
Originally posted by D Love
"Fog of war"? Henry, you had me until that line. This debate could have been carried out much more efficiently if everyone used standard terminology instead of these off-the-wall phrases.
Like wouldn't it have been easier to just discuss "Ratings", "Talent" and hidden "Potentials". Instead, I'm not sure whether someone discussing Talent means OOTP Talent or the player's hidden potential ratings or what.
Anyhow, I understand why minor league stats should be more variable in order to make scouting less straight-forward. BUT, I don't clearly see why stats should be used more heavily to rank the top 100. Unless you're saying that favoring stats more is better than simply looking at talent?
|
For us old-time game players, "fog of war" simply means you don't have access to every detail the program does - thus making things appear to happen with more variance.
Also, I'm not defending OR attacking the addition of stats to come up with this list. I'm simply saying that there is always more than one way to do something - especially is your talking about defining potential.
The issue remains - what do we want? Do we want accuracy (which reduces "fog of war" and gives you more of a game that tells you everything with maybe 90% accuracy) or do we want realism (which throws in enough variables to provide maybe 50% of what the program knows).
I'm simply contending that IRL 50-60% is all you really know from all sources... any prospect list published today is doing good if it hits over 50% of the time.