Scout Error Revisited

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Ok, we all know 2K7 has more scout error variance. But here is what I've seen in an MP league. Two scouts with the same rating at a position have been as much as 5 rating points off when comparing their ratings. The difference being that one scout had the player on his team (thus, more accurate?). I know when you got a new guy on your team in 2K4 his ratings would fluctuate but usually only by a point or two. 5 points though for the same scout rating at the position is a lot in my book.

Can you imagine the difference you may see if one scout is rated as excellent with the player on his team and the other team's scout (perhaps trade partner) is only rated as fair? That could really alter the perceptions of the value of a trade. One example I've seen is that a team with the player and rated excellent at the position has the guy rated 35/41. My team with an average scout rating at the position has the guy at 28/34. That's 7 points, but more importantly it's about 20% of the rating. If the error increases as the player rating increases, we could possibly see a difference of as much as 15 rating points for a player. :eek: Methinks I should get a really good scout . . . or pay alot more attention to stats. Anyways, has anyone actually witnessed a difference in scouting appraisal in the double digits yet? Or am I way off in thinking the scout error increases as a percentage of the actual player rating as opposed to raw ratings points?

[beargrowlz]

or pay alot more attention to stats


As Jim develops new iterations of the game, I think this is becoming far more important than ratings.

It's an interesting development IMHO, because it paralels the current philosophical divide inside real life major league baseball - where old school scouts base their scouting reports on athletic ability, potential, arm strength, speed (ie, "ratings") and the new sabermetric guys like Theo Epstein, Billy Bean, J.P. Riccardi place far more emphasis on performance based statistical analysis to determine whether a player may be able to help them in the future.

I think in some ways, we're starting to see the same type of opportunity here to determine value in different ways.

That doesn't answer your question, but the similarity of the situations struck me as pretty interesting.

[MrBigglesworth]

I know when you got a new guy on your team in 2K4 his ratings would fluctuate but usually only by a point or two. 5 points though for the same scout rating at the position is a lot in my book.
In 2k4, putting a guy on your team could have huge differences. I remember a kicker that Oakland drafted in the IFL had a potential of 64 or so, then on his team he was in the late 40's, but everyone else saw 61. When he was cut I signed him, and then to me he was late 40's again.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

In 2k4, putting a guy on your team could have huge differences. I remember a kicker that Oakland drafted in the IFL had a potential of 64 or so, then on his team he was in the late 40's, but everyone else saw 61. When he was cut I signed him, and then to me he was late 40's again.

Never saw this in 2K4. Very interesting.

[cuervo72]

Scouting does seem to be implemented differently. In 2k4, guys usually looked worse on your roster. In 2k7, guys typically look *better*, and how much better is a factor of your scout's rating (and for players at the top end of the spectrum, the difference between a poor or an excellent scout can be large, yes). At least that's what I've been seeing, though I could be wrong.