|
||||
|
01-09-2020, 11:08 AM | #21 |
Minors (Single A)
|
It looks like OSA rated Vaughn a 4 star potential with every setting, while the team scout rated Vaughn from 3 1/2 to 2 stars .. which means, all u have to do is ignore ur own scout and draft according to OSA .. OSA IS always accurate when it comes to player potential .. i usually draft looking at the OSA ratings and have had better luck than using my own scout .. my scout, even with a very high budget, cant seem to guess right on prospects and rarely finds any good international players .. but most of the prospects who have developed good careers on my saves were rated high on OSA and normal to low by my scout
__________________
Last edited by LooneyOne; 01-09-2020 at 07:09 PM. |
01-09-2020, 01:43 PM | #22 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,085
|
Thank you Dyzalot for looking in the game engine. Though I think LooneyOne's conclusion is the right one.
At the end of the day, the real question is what scout should we listen to? We know that Andrew Vaughn has potential to be a great player, and it's clear from the images that OSA is the only scout to figure this out, no matter what the accuracy is at. Hopefully someone can find some contrary evidence to suggest that we should actually listen to our own scout. Otherwise why bother having one? |
01-09-2020, 02:25 PM | #23 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
Yeah, I'm not saying I proved that there's no problem. There may still be an issue. However, with the claim that the scouted ratings from OSA don't change with a change in scouting accuracy, that I proved to be false. Now logically what we should see if we investigate it are players that show exactly the opposite of Vaughn. We should see players where OSA rates them low while your scout rates them high and as you increase scouting accuracy, they both converge to show a high potential. If those examples can't be found then we have a problem. If those examples are also out there then the example I posted doesn't show a problem like some are suggesting. It all depends upon context. If OSA is always more accurate then that's not good. However if sometimes OSA is correct, like with Vaughn and sometimes the team scout is correct, then that's what we want to see. Maybe I'll try again with a larger sample size and see what happens.
|
01-09-2020, 02:28 PM | #24 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
Strange. When I look at what I posted I see OSA rating him 3.5 stars on the first two examples with less scouting accuracy and the example with normal accuracy showed him with a 4.0 star potential. So yes, even the stars changed with a change in scouting accuracy.
|
01-09-2020, 02:30 PM | #25 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,291
|
Quote:
|
|
01-09-2020, 02:40 PM | #26 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
OK so I'm bored right now. Decided to test a few more players from the same draft class. Just picking guys from the email you get telling you who the top ten prospects are. This time I'm looking at each scouting report first with "very low" accuracy. The second picture will be with "normal" accuracy and the last one will be with "100%" accuracy. Here's the first one I did, I'll add more to the thread as I do them.
And I'll be honest, I'm starting to get more concerned after only doing this one. Still a very small sample size but to see OSA be right on a 4 star potential at all accuracy levels while the team scout bounces all over the place, well that seems like something isn't working correctly here. But we'll see as I add more examples how it turns out. What seems interesting to me is how much the individual ratings change for the OSA scout yet the overall stars for potential never changes from its "true" number. So just from these two examples at this point I might postulate that if there is a problem, it seems to be with the overall star ratings and not the individual skill ratings. We'll see... |
01-09-2020, 02:41 PM | #27 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
Quote:
|
|
01-09-2020, 02:44 PM | #28 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,291
|
|
01-09-2020, 02:47 PM | #29 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
OK so here's the next guy I did, C J Abrams. Again as you can see, no change with the OSA scout over the three different accuracies for the overall star potential but plenty of changes with individual ratings. It is almost as if OSA's overall potential ratings are always being shown at 100% or something close to that while the individual ratings fluctuate with the different settings as expected. Still a small sample size but a concerning pattern seems to be emerging.
|
01-09-2020, 02:49 PM | #30 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,291
|
Quote:
The fact that the three ratings shown on those screens vary between the three settings tells me there probably isn't a problem. |
|
01-09-2020, 02:50 PM | #31 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
I don't understand why though. I don't care how well the scouting matches the editor, that isn't the problem brought up by the OP. The apparent problem appears to be at this time that OSA overall potential always shows it at 100% accuracy. How much that is off from the editor doesn't really matter if the relationship between 100% scouting accuracy and the editor is a direct one. Which I assume it is but...
|
01-09-2020, 02:52 PM | #32 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
Quote:
Last edited by Dyzalot; 01-09-2020 at 02:53 PM. |
|
01-09-2020, 02:54 PM | #33 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,291
|
Quote:
|
|
01-09-2020, 03:01 PM | #34 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
Ok so next one I did was Nick Lodolo... While this example seems to have smaller discrepancies from both scouts, note that the OSA scout once again shows the correct overall potential at all three levels of scouting while the team scout has some variation, albeit pretty minor in this example. However, unless we can find some examples in the opposite direction, ones where the OSA scout is all over the place but the team scout is consistently correct through all three scouting accuracies, there seems to be a problem.
|
01-09-2020, 03:04 PM | #35 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
If OSA is always wrong then the team scout is also always wrong at 100% accuracy since they always match. Are you claiming there is any possibility that "100% accuracy" doesn't mean "100% accuracy"? Also, since we are comparing two scouts, do I care if they both end up being off by the same amount? It would still be showing the OSA scout being off by the same amount no matter the accuracy setting while the team scout jumps all over. I'm going under the assumption that whether "100% accuracy" is completely accurate or not doesn't matter as long as it is giving us the most accurate look at the ratings possible.
|
01-09-2020, 03:09 PM | #36 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
OK so next player was Brett Baty. Note again the lack of change in the OSA scouting for the overall potential rating.
|
01-09-2020, 03:16 PM | #37 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
OK last one I'm doing, Bryson Stott. Note that once again we seem to see the same pattern of the OSA having the "correct" rating for the overall potential at every accuracy level while we see the individual ratings change and the overall ratings for the team scout change. This is still not a huge sample size but I've seen enough at this point to be concerned and to hope that someone on the development team takes a look at this in more depth to see what is going wrong.
Last edited by Dyzalot; 01-09-2020 at 03:36 PM. |
01-09-2020, 04:54 PM | #38 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,291
|
Quote:
Anyway, happy posting. Last edited by BIG17EASY; 01-09-2020 at 04:55 PM. |
|
01-09-2020, 05:04 PM | #39 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
|
I'm not testing the overall accuracy of the scouting system. I'm only testing the differences between two different scouting systems. Unless 100% scouting accuracy is not the most accurate of all the settings, how accurate it actually is, is irrelevant. I'm willing to take at face value that it is the most accurate. If you want to test how accurate it actually is, be my guest.
|
01-09-2020, 11:27 PM | #40 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,358
|
I'm going to take a stab at this because it is a curious subject. My reasoning is that I like to play in a stats only environment so I'm naturally concerned that reading the stats would be useless if I just needed to follow the advice of OSA. I'm looking for fog of war but I wanted to make sure that "fog" indeed existed. My hope was that the quality of my scout would have to make some sort of difference here. I started an out of the box game with 20-80 ratings. Scouting Accuracy was set to very low. I chose 20-80 because before I was a stats only guy, I used these ratings and I have edited enough players to know exactly what the internal ratings translate to. EX:
250-192= 80 191-175= 75 174-159= 70 etc. etc. I edited my scout to be legendary in all categories with a neutral preference. The first image is from the editor. Just looking at stuff/movement/control the actual/ potentials should be stuff: 40/60 movement 45/70 and control 35/60. The second image is the osa look and the third my head scout. OSA completely misses on the prospects "stuff potential" The legendary scout was closer to accurate. I then edited the the scout to unproven in all categories (he stayed neutral) and ran the rescout to be safe and of course OSA stayed the same. (image #2) Here is the unproven scouts take on the same player. (image 4) While the unproven scout overvalued the prospect it is still a bit more accurate than the OSA rating in a key category. So it is only 1 player. An extremely small sample size but the idea that OSA is always more accurate when it comes to reading prospects I don't think (thankfully) is the case. EDIT: I also noticed as I changed my scouts ability it also changed who he thought were the top prospects. OSA and the Legendary scout felt this player was at the top. My unproven guy did not. (For what that is worth) Last edited by Hrycaj; 01-09-2020 at 11:32 PM. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|