Quote:
Originally Posted by TomVeal
What this experiment shows is that, when scouting accuracy is set to 100 percent, all scouts agree with the POT OSA ratings. It doesn't show that the OSA ratings are an accurate prediction of future performance.
An experiment that would be meaningful is this: Select a large number of draft-eligible players. Sort them by the difference between their OSA ratings and the ratings given by a scout with a "Legendary" rating for scouting amateurs. Simulate 20 years, compare the careers of the selected players, and determine from that whose Potential ratings were more on-target.
|
Actually, no. What you'd need to do is sort them by potential ratings and then look at their max potential rating in the editor at that same moment. If you simmed 20 years and looked at career stats, you're introducing the development engine, TCR and injury-related changes, so a lot could change in those 20 years.
I've read the OP at least a half dozen times and I can't fully comprehend what the hypothesis is. If someone has a more succinct way of explaining it and the author of the OP could confirm it's right, that would be helpful (for me, at least).
EDIT: I guess what I should say is that I don't understand the evidence behind the hypothesis. I get that the OP says OSA scouting is always right. But I can't follow the explanation of the evidence no matter how many times I read it.