QuikSand Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I have made my concerns known elsewhere about the general use of text rather than numbers in text sims... so I'm not inclined to rehash that here. However, I do have a concern specific to BBCF. When reading the prospect scouting reports, there does seem to be a nice variety of little sentence fragments that are used to express the varying degrees of optimism about the player's abilities. A pretty decent effort -- in principle, I really don't object to it here (even if it is, essentially, just a mapping of some little sentences onto a series of underlying numbers). However, I am a bit frustrated by the use of terminology that clearly doesn't really have its simple meaning. A few examples from my current career: - A #734 prospect who "will have jaw dropping speed for a TE." - A #627 prospect who "will become one of the strongest linebackers in the college game" - A #514 propsect who will have "the type of agility rarely seen at the LB position" These are all pretty marginal recruits, but the breathless praise for them in the scouting reports is pretty obviously overstated. I don't even give much of a look at the guys rated in the top 100 or so, but I have to imagine that there are 10 or 20 linebackers in just this one draft class who are given tags like the above... suggesting that they have not only a strength in a certain skill, but rather a freakish ability well beyond what might be expected from anyone at the position. I realize that in the effort to create sentences that really differentiate between a 12/20 guy and a 16/20 guy, you need to provide some clarity -- but isn't this fairly deceiving? I've seen enough guys with "the type of agility rarely seen at the LB position" to realize that such players are, in fact, rather comon at the LB position, which completely undermines the letter of the recommendation itself. It's not a critical problem for me... I can work through the text, recognize that one of these phrases maps to something like a 16/20 and another maps to something like a 12/20, and I can play and enjoy the game that way. But there seems to be something intellectually dishonest about this sort of description that is revealed to be inherently false upon any degree of examination. Perhaps this is yet another symptom of my earlier gripe... the overall difficulty in effectively turning numeric ratings into text descriptions -- that this is the only way to really create a separation among the ratings. *shurg* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toddzilla Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 I liked your commentary on FOFC, and I'm glad to see a more focused message regarding BBCF. I'm interested in seeing the debate. And for those of you not familiar, QuikSand is to Sports Text Sims as Chuck Norris is to roundhouse kicks to the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene778 Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 On first analysis this game seems like a jaw dropping game that will become one of the strongest in the field due to its unique option set that is rare to the field. Further accolades for this work is due because of its overwhelming ability to shake it's competition with a positive attitude from the support staff. I see great future as the promise of great things are developed by the progamming staff in the training process. I for one think that the seasoned fans will be impressed with the overall performance of this rookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roll Tide Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 Lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miral Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 [QUOTE=QuikSand] These are all pretty marginal recruits, but the breathless praise for them in the scouting reports is pretty obviously overstated. I don't even give much of a look at the guys rated in the top 100 or so[/QUOTE] Which is because you are playing a top notch school who top 10 recruits in the country are flocking too. For those of us who regularly recruit from the #300-#1000 range, these reports are probably important to differentiate between the best of that group and the worst of that group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Guest Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 [QUOTE=Miral]Which is because you are playing a top notch school who top 10 recruits in the country are flocking too. For those of us who regularly recruit from the #300-#1000 range, these reports are probably important to differentiate between the best of that group and the worst of that group.[/QUOTE] For the record, this is the first time Kent State has ever been called top notch in any regard :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuikSand Posted December 30, 2005 Author Share Posted December 30, 2005 [QUOTE=Miral]Which is because you are playing a top notch school who top 10 recruits in the country are flocking too. For those of us who regularly recruit from the #300-#1000 range, these reports are probably important to differentiate between the best of that group and the worst of that group.[/QUOTE] As you'd see in my original post, these are exactly those players you reference, and I'm most definitely part of your "those of us" (though I tend to draw from the bottom half of that 300-1000 range mostly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plum Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 the scouting comments are directly drawn from different numbers of the player. One comment could be hands another work ethic, intelligence etc. some are position specific others are general to all positions. The players overall rank has little to do with the comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlie Rahn Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 [quote]- A #734 prospect who "will have jaw dropping speed for a TE." - A #627 prospect who "will become one of the strongest linebackers in the college game" - A #514 propsect who will have "the type of agility rarely seen at the LB position"[/quote] I guess my question is how are these attributes for the recruit? If the TE has a speed attribute above 60 or so and the LB has a strength in the low 70s, both of those comments could be correct. I will certainly look and see if maybe the frequency for some of the top comments needs to be toned down a bit. But, it is conceivable that a prospect in the 500-700 range overall could have a real high strength or speed rating, but be deficient in other areas. [quote]I realize that in the effort to create sentences that really differentiate between a 12/20 guy and a 16/20 guy, you need to provide some clarity -- but isn't this fairly deceiving? I've seen enough guys with "the type of agility rarely seen at the LB position" to realize that such players are, in fact, rather comon at the LB position, which completely undermines the letter of the recommendation itself. It's not a critical problem for me... I can work through the text, recognize that one of these phrases maps to something like a 16/20 and another maps to something like a 12/20, and I can play and enjoy the game that way. But there seems to be something intellectually dishonest about this sort of description that is revealed to be inherently false upon any degree of examination.[/quote] Again, perhaps there are too many of a certain comment (something I haven't seen any real data to show to this point - but certainly possible). But even if that was the case, I'm not sure how "intellectually dishonest" that is. How many scout evaluation in real life involve comparisons to top players that never pan out? Scouting is not an exact science - especially on recruits and young players. There is also scouting error - which is something I will be toning down a bit in this version. if you have poor evaluators of LBs, there's a decent chance some guys may be classified as potential being "one of the strongest linebackers" because of a poor evaluation. I plan on looking at this, but fail to see the dire situation you seem to imply because some LBs get called potentially "one of the strongest at their position" when they are freshmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuikSand Posted December 31, 2005 Author Share Posted December 31, 2005 [QUOTE=Arlie Rahn]I guess my question is how are these attributes for the recruit? If the TE has a speed attribute above 60 or so and the LB has a strength in the low 70s, both of those comments could be correct. I will certainly look and see if maybe the frequency for some of the top comments needs to be toned down a bit. But, it is conceivable that a prospect in the 500-700 range overall could have a real high strength or speed rating, but be deficient in other areas. Again, perhaps there are too many of a certain comment (something I haven't seen any real data to show to this point - but certainly possible). But even if that was the case, I'm not sure how "intellectually dishonest" that is. How many scout evaluation in real life involve comparisons to top players that never pan out? Scouting is not an exact science - especially on recruits and young players. There is also scouting error - which is something I will be toning down a bit in this version. if you have poor evaluators of LBs, there's a decent chance some guys may be classified as potential being "one of the strongest linebackers" because of a poor evaluation. I plan on looking at this, but fail to see the dire situation you seem to imply because some LBs get called potentially "one of the strongest at their position" when they are freshmen.[/QUOTE] Thanks for having a look. I've been combing through a second pool of recruits, with an eye out for this... and I think what I'm seeing may well be within the expected range for the kind of player you suspect (one really good rating, not much elsewhere, properly resulting in a mediocre overall evaluation). And I have no problem with that at all. My concern is that there might well be 25 linebackers in the draft pool who are all noted as being "one of the strongest" which would give me pause... but as I look through them in more detail, there do seems to be a pretty fair stratifying of the guys in question. Glad you're at least following my concern here... and I'm also glad at what I'm seeing on a somewhat closer look. Actually, it seems to me that the (pretty extensive) mix of player projection comments makes this a fairly well implemented version of the numbers-to-text issue I have raised elsewhere... I just finished looking at a few hundred players, and found the variety to be a lot more palatable than usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlie Rahn Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 No problem at all. I still plan on looking at it. As an aside, I appreciate the time and effort you guys are putting into making the game better. In your case, the help with the positional talent distribution for recruits and the overly verbose emails will improve the game. I got some emails from two GDS forum members last night helping me fix another issue. I think the community for these games really helps a developer like me and I want to make everyone know that I appreciate their time and effort (which could be spent in numerous different areas instead). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.