When/Why Scout a Player

Cod · 08-19-2015, 06:49 AM

Every time I'm evaluating a player, I request a scouting report every so often; however, I feel like the results are always the same as the initial scouting report from the beginning of the season.

So I ask, when is a good time to scout a player? Why?

I'm just curious why I feel like I never see changes from report to report. Also, I have scouting set to normal.

catcherjul · 08-19-2015, 09:03 AM

Honestly I stopped doing this since I never saw ratings change when I did it... I'm in your situation so it would help me if someone has a different opinion/experience with it

That's a good question!!

sreem · 08-19-2015, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cod

Every time I'm evaluating a player, I request a scouting report every so often; however, I feel like the results are always the same as the initial scouting report from the beginning of the season.

So I ask, when is a good time to scout a player? Why?

I'm just curious why I feel like I never see changes from report to report. Also, I have scouting set to normal.

Play "Stats Only" and you won't have to worry about this!

NoOne · 08-20-2015, 12:54 PM

it might be useless, like you said. maybe it allows you to get an update before a scouting report is released? try using it a few weeks from the last scouting report.

i don't use it with normal scouting, i typically forget about it.

also, players used to update each wednesday, i think (in ootp15 i fleshed it out temporarily using 100% accurate scouting)... regardless of which day, it was a particular day each week that ratings would change. it's possible that when you sent the scout out, it was before anything could possibly change. it's also possible that simply nothing has changed.

don't use 100% stats, unless you want your ai to be a slave to randomness of statistical results. i.e. you will more often see a better player get benched for an inferior player, just because he had a bad month, but would in most likely regress to his mean by the end of the season. there are good reasons to want this. it is merely a disclaimer.

fans that call into radio talk shows are on 100% statistics evaluation setting, LoL. that's just an exagerrated, relative example to explain what it does - not a reason to avoid it.

i use a good chunk of AI eval as stats, because i want some bad decisions to be made - like RL. the best player does not always play in RL, due to lack of info, knowledge and inept managers. even good managers make mistakes, bur less often.

I am not intimating that 100% ratings evaluation removes all bad/poor AI decisions, beacuse overall is not perfectly weighted with actual statistal output of the game engine. some combinations of skill/ratings work better than others and may result in a lower ovr/pot rating. a human can adjust to this, a program cannot.

SirMichaelJordan · 08-20-2015, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoOne

it might be useless, like you said. maybe it allows you to get an update before a scouting report is released? try using it a few weeks from the last scouting report.

i don't use it with normal scouting, i typically forget about it.

also, players used to update each wednesday, i think (in ootp15 i fleshed it out temporarily using 100% accurate scouting)... regardless of which day, it was a particular day each week that ratings would change. it's possible that when you sent the scout out, it was before anything could possibly change. it's also possible that simply nothing has changed.

don't use 100% stats, unless you want your ai to be a slave to randomness of statistical results. i.e. you will more often see a better player get benched for an inferior player, just because he had a bad month, but would in most likely regress to his mean by the end of the season. there are good reasons to want this. it is merely a disclaimer.

fans that call into radio talk shows are on 100% statistics evaluation setting, LoL. that's just an exagerrated, relative example to explain what it does - not a reason to avoid it.

i use a good chunk of AI eval as stats, because i want some bad decisions to be made - like RL. the best player does not always play in RL, due to lack of info, knowledge and inept managers. even good managers make mistakes, bur less often.

I am not intimating that 100% accurate scouting removes all bad/poor AI decisions, beacuse overall is not perfectly weighted with actual statistal output of the game engine. some combinations of skill/ratings work better than others and may result in a lower ovr/pot rating. a human can adjust to this, a program cannot.

I have to disagree with the 100% stats comment. Only way anything like that happens is if you set current year to 100%. You have to spread the percentage out so a bad year or a few bad months won't overweigh what the player did in the past. Not to mention a player need a to reach a certain criteria for the weight to have full effect...

I'll say the best time to scout is the first day of every month but it also depends on who you are scouting as vets aren't going to change much and how good your scout is in the area you are scouting.

NoOne · 08-22-2015, 10:46 PM

i've re-simmed the same year over and over (50-100yrs) and it was a noticeable decrease in avg/obp/slug and runs per game when i changed it to ai eval, ceterus paribus (w/normal scouting). that wasn't even 100% stats (60% was based on stats). 100% stats would exascerbate the deviation all ratings eval. it wasn't stated on a whim, a gut feeling, or because i prefer it that way. i have no preference nor attachment to either setting. i rely on results, and there is emperical evidence to back it up.

i guess i could try simming out 10 years and then re-doing that experiment, but the players had an existing stats history, so i don't see how that would change anything.

the game engine runs on ratings. they are plugged into a algorithm along with other pertinent varibles (none of which are statistical history) for every single situation the game considers. if the game engine includes such things like recent history, it would be in violation of the law of independent results and would lack integrity. ratings are more predictive of future success than a player's statistical history. regardless of perfomance, a guy with a 70 contact (simplifying) has the same chance of success in that particular situation regardless of his last 1, 5 or 2000 at bats. so, the more you use ratings in your AI evaluation the better the decision-making will be, because it is better at predicting success than stats.

if you use extremely inaccurate scouting and low scouting budgets, this may not hold true at some point. however, with "normal" scouting accuracy, this will definitely hold to be true.

also, you get scouting reports on the first day of the month. it seems a bit redundant to re-scout before any talent changes can occur. if you do bi-monthly, doing that every other month makes a lot of sense. the best time to re-scout would be the day of or after the game updates ratings. as of ootp 15, it was not a continious event. it happened 1/week. so wait at least 7 days from the last report or scouting task, unless you want to average out several attempts before the next ratings update.

RonCo · 08-22-2015, 11:00 PM

NoOne is fundamentally right about the basics of the game's algorithm structure. But it's still probably reasonable to base scouting on stats to some degree. Not sure why you would want to base them 100% on stats, since that's not their conceit in real life.

The game's outcome engine runs on ratings and a series of Log5 calculations that use those ratings as parameters. The scout's purpose is to basically advise you on what he thinks those ratings are and where they might be pointing today. Of course, that arrow can change any time, but generally only nudges a little at a time (last I looked, anyway).

Your job is to look at the stats and see if they look anything close to what the scout says they should, and then determine why they are off (assuming they are). Is it sample size? Is it temporary luck, is it the natural influence of randomization? Then go with your gut.

So, bottom line, when using flaky scouts, it probably makes sense to refresh your scouting report on when it's been awhile since the last update, and you're preparing to do something interesting with the player in hand.

RonCo · 08-22-2015, 11:02 PM

Stats are valuable to you (not the scout), because they are the result of the ratings-based outcomes, so as sample sizes grow reasonable, they tell their own stories and you can begin to ignore the scouts more anyway.

RonCo · 08-22-2015, 11:16 PM

Or, if you play with true ratings on, but (say) a scale of 1-10, the stats can give you a feel if that "6" is closer to a low "7" or a high "5." There can be considerable performance differences between guys of the same ratings at that level of obfuscation. This is one reason I've not been a great fan of scouts in general except as window dressing to help you enjoy the fiction of a league.

Wingedlion14 · 08-23-2015, 10:44 AM

I scout players (usually pitchers) who are coming back from major injury (6+ months for position, 3+ for pitcher when arm or back) so I know what I'm getting when he returns. Although I only have my scout update at the beginning and end of the year, so it might be a situation where I'm not getting an update for the entirety of the time he's injured.

NoOne · 08-23-2015, 04:09 PM

data, data, data...

there is never anythign wrong with more information to help you make a decision - as long as you understand the level of confidence/integrity associated with each piece of information.

if due to sample size it's a +/- 20-30-50% or worse of results, you can't learn much from that. now add on to that the fact that the ability of these players can change drastically in as short as one month's time.

so, you should be very careful of putting too much importance on stats with older players, too.

if you discount their rookie year, and you have a few years of info, it can be very useful for sure.

life is not unlike the game engine, albeit significantly more sophisticated. a player has innate abilities, which we do not have access to, let alone understand all the individual parts that are important. that ability is plugged into some infinitely more complicated calculation. results do not necessarily represent actual ability.

e.g. the luck of which pitchers he faces in a given season compared to average can have a significant effect on his statistical output. when you look at just one individual there is too much luck (and things you cannot control) involved to be 100% sure of talent/ability.

if baseball hadn't been so fearful of progress, they'd be more advanced in statistical analysis to flesh out this type of thing. i am not a sabr metric fanboy. there are plenty of 'new' stats that are poorly thought out or rely on extremely subjective data. relatively speaking, it's not unlike medicine in the 1800's, when they were still putting leaches on people to combat illness.

unfortunately, life is only seemingly random. everything happens due to the various molecules and chemical reactions occuring for eternity before and after. there is no such thing as free will :P . it is an illusion. although we do not understand it all, there is a finite amount of molecules/reactions involved in everythign that occurs. chaos is actually harmony

things occur in a predictable way.

don't let that take the fun out of things, though. LoL. it's still new and surprising to you the moment it occurs.

RonCo · 08-23-2015, 05:14 PM

I think we agree on more than we disagree, but we're looking at things from different points of view...

The question of biological free will aside, and setting aside also the relationship OOTP places between a player's stats and the steps the development engine takes to adjust ratings based on those stats (which, if it still works as it did some time back is actually backward), the relationship between player ratings and stats is a very valuable one to understand if you're playing with scouts on. If you play without scouts, then clearly ratings are the thing to follow (though stats are still valuable to pay attention to if your rating scale is broad enough).

When playing with scouts, you should constantly be asking yourself how accurate your scout is. I completely agree that players ratings can and do change, but stats are the only thing you have at hand to give you a read on how excellent or poor your scouting is. And predicting future stats are the goal of scouting.

We can get into a remarkably interesting philosophical discussion about what a scout is actually doing vs. what the development engine is actually doing. And we could get into even deeper conversation about how the model might be tweaked to make the system more natural (or biological?).

All that said ...

The random action of the development algorithm, when matched with the quantum dynamic nature of randomness itself, make any projection based on anything in OOTP dangerous. Barring a perfect knowledge of ratings, however, past performance _and knowledge of the full situation_ around a player is the best predictor of future performance--but cannot be completely trusted in any situation. Or, as knowledgeable poker players will tell you, there is always the chance that your best bet will turn into a bad-beat.

RonCo · 08-23-2015, 05:18 PM

Making personnel decisions with true ratings on is like playing Texas Hold'em, you need to know the ratings and you're betting on what they'll be worth when you see the future up cards. Making personnel decisions with scouts is like playing Texas Hold'em, but relying on a partially blind person to report to you what cards are in your hand.

NoOne · 08-23-2015, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonCo

Making personnel decisions with true ratings on is like playing Texas Hold'em, you need to know the ratings and you're betting on what they'll be worth when you see the future up cards. Making personnel decisions with scouts is like playing Texas Hold'em, but relying on a partially blind person to report to you what cards are in your hand.

i was agreeing with you in that post. maybe i'll re-write it a bit, lol. i have time to kill. so this isn't a direct reply to you, ronco:

just because 1 player has a greater probability of success than another player doesn't mean they will be more successful than that player - even over the course of an entire career. i think that's the toughest part for people to understand about this concept. you still bet on the guy with the best chance of success. past results do not change the fact that in any given situation player 1 has a greater chance of success.

i had dogged stats a bit earlier and in that last post i was trying to say they do hold some weight in some situations, but you have to understand when they lack integrity and adjust how you use them in evaluation. they can be useful, but they can be detrimental to decision-making, if you don't understand their limitations.

early in a career they are suspect. in the middle of a career with at least 3-5 years of service time (excluding rookie seasons) they can give you great information. that info starts to sour again as his abilities degrade (or anytime/thing that causes them to significantly change). if ratings change drastically, there is no way he can perform at past levels. same idea when they are developing. statistical output doesn't match the player's current abilities. this adds to any error caused by the small sample size of minor league careers at any given level.

assuming accurate ratings, if player one is a better hitter (whatver that entails) than player two, regardless of actual results he is more likely to have success. it doesn't matter if player two's stats are better. player one is the better bet due to the law of independent results no matter what the statistics tell you. results are always murkier. they are a derivative of ability and numerous other factors that have nothing to do with whether player one is better than player two. so why use something that is tainted compared to ratings... becuase scouting isn't 100% and you need to verify them. that's about it.

just like texas hold'em, knowing the odds doesn't gaurantee success. it merely gives you the best opportunity. in the long run, you will have more success playing the odds than any other method (ignoring bluffs and such to make this simpler and relative to ootp's engine). you will still lose - even to inferior players.

concentrating more on ratings, if fairly accurate, is a better predictive model for future sucess than relying on statistics, hands down fact of reality. i would wager that even a step below "normal scouting" setting would still be better for developing players (maybe not mid-career). merely compare %error due to sample size to %error introduced to ratings.

only using ratings has its own drawbacks, but none as obvious or as significant as the limitations of relying soley on statistical results.

using both is better than using only one or the other, but only when you understand %error of each for the given situation.

RonCo · 08-23-2015, 11:31 PM

Yes, I think we agree in all ways in the end.

If I play with no scouts--true ratings--and on a scale of 1-10, and I have two equally aged, equally rated hitters who are rated 6/6/6/6/6, though, I will certainly want to see their stats. There can be an important discrepancy in the "actual" ratings that create those 6/6/6/6/6's ... and assuming you know a little about probability and whatnot, comparing stats can give you a feel for the likelihood that player A is better or worse than player B. The question you're asking at that point is "what are the odds that player A is better than player B?" The stats won't guarantee anything, but the wider the gap and the greater the sample size, the more likely that they differences are real.

RonCo · 08-23-2015, 11:33 PM

I also agree that it's probably not wise to have your scouts set to analyze players based heavily on stats, since they can lie, too.

hfield007 · 08-26-2015, 02:38 AM

if you have a higher level of scouting on and a good scout it is probably much less likely to change.

NoOne · 08-27-2015, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonCo

Yes, I think we agree in all ways in the end.

If I play with no scouts--true ratings--and on a scale of 1-10, and I have two equally aged, equally rated hitters who are rated 6/6/6/6/6, though, I will certainly want to see their stats. There can be an important discrepancy in the "actual" ratings that create those 6/6/6/6/6's ... and assuming you know a little about probability and whatnot, comparing stats can give you a feel for the likelihood that player A is better or worse than player B. The question you're asking at that point is "what are the odds that player A is better than player B?" The stats won't guarantee anything, but the wider the gap and the greater the sample size, the more likely that they differences are real.

yes. and it is important to note that stats become more important to look at if you use a smaller scale like 1-10 vs 20-80.

it's sometimes easy to forget about some seemingly aesthetic differences and how it affects other things.

the lowered resolution would almost require you to pay attention to stats a bit more for the type of comparison you highlighted - again as you noted with a sample size that reduces %error of the results. it's a much different perspective.
.

08-19-2015, 06:49 AM	#1
Cod All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 1,105	When/Why Scout a Player Every time I'm evaluating a player, I request a scouting report every so often; however, I feel like the results are always the same as the initial scouting report from the beginning of the season. So I ask, when is a good time to scout a player? Why? I'm just curious why I feel like I never see changes from report to report. Also, I have scouting set to normal.

08-20-2015, 12:54 PM	#4
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/2 (4)	it might be useless, like you said. maybe it allows you to get an update before a scouting report is released? try using it a few weeks from the last scouting report. i don't use it with normal scouting, i typically forget about it. also, players used to update each wednesday, i think (in ootp15 i fleshed it out temporarily using 100% accurate scouting)... regardless of which day, it was a particular day each week that ratings would change. it's possible that when you sent the scout out, it was before anything could possibly change. it's also possible that simply nothing has changed. don't use 100% stats, unless you want your ai to be a slave to randomness of statistical results. i.e. you will more often see a better player get benched for an inferior player, just because he had a bad month, but would in most likely regress to his mean by the end of the season. there are good reasons to want this. it is merely a disclaimer. fans that call into radio talk shows are on 100% statistics evaluation setting, LoL. that's just an exagerrated, relative example to explain what it does - not a reason to avoid it. i use a good chunk of AI eval as stats, because i want some bad decisions to be made - like RL. the best player does not always play in RL, due to lack of info, knowledge and inept managers. even good managers make mistakes, bur less often. I am not intimating that 100% ratings evaluation removes all bad/poor AI decisions, beacuse overall is not perfectly weighted with actual statistal output of the game engine. some combinations of skill/ratings work better than others and may result in a lower ovr/pot rating. a human can adjust to this, a program cannot. Last edited by NoOne; 08-20-2015 at 12:57 PM.

08-22-2015, 10:46 PM	#6
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/2 (4)	i've re-simmed the same year over and over (50-100yrs) and it was a noticeable decrease in avg/obp/slug and runs per game when i changed it to ai eval, ceterus paribus (w/normal scouting). that wasn't even 100% stats (60% was based on stats). 100% stats would exascerbate the deviation all ratings eval. it wasn't stated on a whim, a gut feeling, or because i prefer it that way. i have no preference nor attachment to either setting. i rely on results, and there is emperical evidence to back it up. i guess i could try simming out 10 years and then re-doing that experiment, but the players had an existing stats history, so i don't see how that would change anything. the game engine runs on ratings. they are plugged into a algorithm along with other pertinent varibles (none of which are statistical history) for every single situation the game considers. if the game engine includes such things like recent history, it would be in violation of the law of independent results and would lack integrity. ratings are more predictive of future success than a player's statistical history. regardless of perfomance, a guy with a 70 contact (simplifying) has the same chance of success in that particular situation regardless of his last 1, 5 or 2000 at bats. so, the more you use ratings in your AI evaluation the better the decision-making will be, because it is better at predicting success than stats. if you use extremely inaccurate scouting and low scouting budgets, this may not hold true at some point. however, with "normal" scouting accuracy, this will definitely hold to be true. also, you get scouting reports on the first day of the month. it seems a bit redundant to re-scout before any talent changes can occur. if you do bi-monthly, doing that every other month makes a lot of sense. the best time to re-scout would be the day of or after the game updates ratings. as of ootp 15, it was not a continious event. it happened 1/week. so wait at least 7 days from the last report or scouting task, unless you want to average out several attempts before the next ratings update. Last edited by NoOne; 08-22-2015 at 11:03 PM.

08-19-2015, 09:03 AM	#2
catcherjul Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Montréal Posts: 311	Honestly I stopped doing this since I never saw ratings change when I did it... I'm in your situation so it would help me if someone has a different opinion/experience with it That's a good question!!

08-22-2015, 11:00 PM	#7
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,354	NoOne is fundamentally right about the basics of the game's algorithm structure. But it's still probably reasonable to base scouting on stats to some degree. Not sure why you would want to base them 100% on stats, since that's not their conceit in real life. The game's outcome engine runs on ratings and a series of Log5 calculations that use those ratings as parameters. The scout's purpose is to basically advise you on what he thinks those ratings are and where they might be pointing today. Of course, that arrow can change any time, but generally only nudges a little at a time (last I looked, anyway). Your job is to look at the stats and see if they look anything close to what the scout says they should, and then determine why they are off (assuming they are). Is it sample size? Is it temporary luck, is it the natural influence of randomization? Then go with your gut. So, bottom line, when using flaky scouts, it probably makes sense to refresh your scouting report on when it's been awhile since the last update, and you're preparing to do something interesting with the player in hand.

08-22-2015, 11:02 PM	#8
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,354	Stats are valuable to you (not the scout), because they are the result of the ratings-based outcomes, so as sample sizes grow reasonable, they tell their own stories and you can begin to ignore the scouts more anyway.

08-22-2015, 11:16 PM	#9
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,354	Or, if you play with true ratings on, but (say) a scale of 1-10, the stats can give you a feel if that "6" is closer to a low "7" or a high "5." There can be considerable performance differences between guys of the same ratings at that level of obfuscation. This is one reason I've not been a great fan of scouts in general except as window dressing to help you enjoy the fiction of a league.

08-23-2015, 10:44 AM	#10
Wingedlion14 Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 170	I scout players (usually pitchers) who are coming back from major injury (6+ months for position, 3+ for pitcher when arm or back) so I know what I'm getting when he returns. Although I only have my scout update at the beginning and end of the year, so it might be a situation where I'm not getting an update for the entirety of the time he's injured.

08-23-2015, 04:09 PM	#11
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/2 (4)	data, data, data... there is never anythign wrong with more information to help you make a decision - as long as you understand the level of confidence/integrity associated with each piece of information. if due to sample size it's a +/- 20-30-50% or worse of results, you can't learn much from that. now add on to that the fact that the ability of these players can change drastically in as short as one month's time. so, you should be very careful of putting too much importance on stats with older players, too. if you discount their rookie year, and you have a few years of info, it can be very useful for sure. life is not unlike the game engine, albeit significantly more sophisticated. a player has innate abilities, which we do not have access to, let alone understand all the individual parts that are important. that ability is plugged into some infinitely more complicated calculation. results do not necessarily represent actual ability. e.g. the luck of which pitchers he faces in a given season compared to average can have a significant effect on his statistical output. when you look at just one individual there is too much luck (and things you cannot control) involved to be 100% sure of talent/ability. if baseball hadn't been so fearful of progress, they'd be more advanced in statistical analysis to flesh out this type of thing. i am not a sabr metric fanboy. there are plenty of 'new' stats that are poorly thought out or rely on extremely subjective data. relatively speaking, it's not unlike medicine in the 1800's, when they were still putting leaches on people to combat illness. unfortunately, life is only seemingly random. everything happens due to the various molecules and chemical reactions occuring for eternity before and after. there is no such thing as free will :P . it is an illusion. although we do not understand it all, there is a finite amount of molecules/reactions involved in everythign that occurs. chaos is actually harmony things occur in a predictable way. don't let that take the fun out of things, though. LoL. it's still new and surprising to you the moment it occurs.

08-23-2015, 05:14 PM	#12
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,354	I think we agree on more than we disagree, but we're looking at things from different points of view... The question of biological free will aside, and setting aside also the relationship OOTP places between a player's stats and the steps the development engine takes to adjust ratings based on those stats (which, if it still works as it did some time back is actually backward), the relationship between player ratings and stats is a very valuable one to understand if you're playing with scouts on. If you play without scouts, then clearly ratings are the thing to follow (though stats are still valuable to pay attention to if your rating scale is broad enough). When playing with scouts, you should constantly be asking yourself how accurate your scout is. I completely agree that players ratings can and do change, but stats are the only thing you have at hand to give you a read on how excellent or poor your scouting is. And predicting future stats are the goal of scouting. We can get into a remarkably interesting philosophical discussion about what a scout is actually doing vs. what the development engine is actually doing. And we could get into even deeper conversation about how the model might be tweaked to make the system more natural (or biological?). All that said ... The random action of the development algorithm, when matched with the quantum dynamic nature of randomness itself, make any projection based on anything in OOTP dangerous. Barring a perfect knowledge of ratings, however, past performance _and knowledge of the full situation_ around a player is the best predictor of future performance--but cannot be completely trusted in any situation. Or, as knowledgeable poker players will tell you, there is always the chance that your best bet will turn into a bad-beat.

08-23-2015, 05:18 PM	#13
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,354	Making personnel decisions with true ratings on is like playing Texas Hold'em, you need to know the ratings and you're betting on what they'll be worth when you see the future up cards. Making personnel decisions with scouts is like playing Texas Hold'em, but relying on a partially blind person to report to you what cards are in your hand.

08-23-2015, 11:31 PM	#15
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,354	Yes, I think we agree in all ways in the end. If I play with no scouts--true ratings--and on a scale of 1-10, and I have two equally aged, equally rated hitters who are rated 6/6/6/6/6, though, I will certainly want to see their stats. There can be an important discrepancy in the "actual" ratings that create those 6/6/6/6/6's ... and assuming you know a little about probability and whatnot, comparing stats can give you a feel for the likelihood that player A is better or worse than player B. The question you're asking at that point is "what are the odds that player A is better than player B?" The stats won't guarantee anything, but the wider the gap and the greater the sample size, the more likely that they differences are real.

08-23-2015, 11:33 PM	#16
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,354	I also agree that it's probably not wise to have your scouts set to analyze players based heavily on stats, since they can lie, too.

08-26-2015, 02:38 AM	#17
hfield007 All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,713	if you have a higher level of scouting on and a good scout it is probably much less likely to change.