You can do both. And we wouldn't be talking "inaccuracies" in a MAJOR way. For example, if the guy was an athletic big man, with tremendous rebounding skills, but not much upside in his low-post game, that would come through. The inaccuracies in scouting reports would come in the smaller things. Maybe he's a poor FT shooter, that happened to hit well from the line in a particular game. Or maybe he tossed in a couple of threes, which your scout might note, while also mentioning that his form looks quite poor on his long-range jump shots. To me, dissecting that type of scouting report would be FAR more interesting and useful than the by-the-numbers, 4 category, quite unrealistic "scouting reports" we get now. It would also be a LOT harder to code for, though, which is ultimately why your argument will likely win the day.