Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweed
The answer is players are more likely to reach their realistic scouted potential. Also more players are likely to develop beyond their scouted value. You turn the old inflated/crash model on it's head and make it a develop/boom model.
Which model is more fun?
A. Drafting a highly rated player, knowing he's very likely to crash to a normal 45-55 player or at best maybe stop dropping at 60?
B. Draft a player that is a 40/48 (I don't do by 5's) and have him boom to a 55 or 60?
Which one kills the complaint "my drafted players never develop, OOTP sucks"?
Which one fills users with excitement as more of their players develop to projected levels or beyond?
Getting rid of model A doesn't mean they can't make it into model B. It doesn't have to be neither. It can be one or the other.  |
Honestly this feels like a personal preference rather than “correct” or “incorrect” ways of viewing things. Some users like to have more hope at draft time and understand they will likely not reach the high ceiling presented by their scout (model A, excitement in the draft). Others prefer a more likely development outcome presented by their scout, knowing they could step up and develop into even more (model B, excitement in development).
I feel like this could be a trait that scouts could have alongside the “favors tools” and “favors ability” axes and then the user can hire whichever scout provides the view they want to see. This would also allow it to work on a spectrum so we don’t have to be stuck on the extremes (20 80-potential players vs. <1 full round of 50-potential players).
Something like “optimism” vs “pessimism”. In high optimism scouts, your scout assumes a 90th percentile outcome, everything goes right in development, where does this player end up? These scouts will have draft picks rated much higher with most of them likely to not meet that potential. In high pessimism scouts, your scout assumes a 10th percentile outcome with minimal development or development lab improvements. These scouts will have draft picks rated much lower and it may be harder to differentiate between same-y players, but their picks are far more likely to meet or exceed their potential.