Posted by mullycj on 4/19/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by uwrjl93 on 4/18/2013 12:26:00 PM (view original):
Somebody brough this up in another post, but it wasn't on this topic. Does anybody think that FSS is just way too accurate? I mean what are the odds that scouts will be spot on in all of their evaluations? Wouldn't it make sense to have some "randomness" built into player progression? I have brought this up in the past, but thought it might be a good time to revisit the idea. Not a huge percentage of players, but each year there should at least be a few that improve way more than expected and a few that improve way less than expected. Real life examples would include Tony Mitchell of N TX, Damian Lillard of Weber St, Kylo O'Quinn of Norfolk St and CJ McCollum of Lehigh. Recruiting isn't an exact science, but in WIS it is pretty darn close.
so I guess I'll chime in..
An exact science? Really? You can from FSS how many rebounds per game a player will get? What his career shooting % will be? How many steals he will get per game? If so, you are miles ahead of me.
FSS tells you ratings. Think of ratings as NFL Combine measurements. Just because college player "A" runs a 4.3 40 or can bench 300 pounds 20 times doesn't mean he will be a good NFL player. I don't have enough fingers and toes to be able to count how many players have over or under performed in their HD careers vs. their ratings. If FSS could predict exaclty HOW my player would perform over his college career, then YES it is way too accurate. Until then, the system is fine as is.
agree with mully ...
Not only that, but FSS is only an estimate anyway ... you have to actually spend money on scouting reports, sometimes many scouting reports, to lock down the "real" categories.
Sure, you see a Blue ... but there is a huge difference in High/High and High/Low ... sometimes as much as 40 attribute points. (a low/high might be +20 ... a high/high might be +60). To me that is certainly not exact either.