2024 Regular Season SIM 14 Complete - Next SIM Tuesday 12/12

[Z]

I really think its strength will be at the pro-level where so so many of these guys looks close to the same "on paper" but you need to dig deeper or hell rolls the dice sometimes to see if he can fit your team.

Right, exactly.

I know people like mike expressed concern about the change giving us too much precision, and I hear that.

I think in this case it will be helpful that instead of two guys who are rated 5s, maybe we'll have a guy who's a 50 and a guy who's a 55. The scout could still be wrong. Maybe the 50 is better than the 55. But it'll be nice to have a scout be able to effectively communicate, "Both these guys are pretty much average but I think the second guy is a little better." Then it's up to us as GMs to weigh the rest of the information and decide for ourselves.

[Delandis]

"Both these guys are pretty much average but I think the second guy is a little better." Then it's up to us as GMs to weigh the rest of the information and decide for ourselves.

The stats were already there for that. Heaven forbid we have a greater chance to make a mistake.

[Z]

The stats were already there for that. Heaven forbid we have a greater chance to make a mistake.

Come on. We are talking about shades of gray here.

Yes, we make mistakes with the old scale, and we will continue to make mistakes with the new scale.

Yes, stats help us evaluate players with the old scale, and stats will continue to help us with the new scale.

Under the new scale, scouts will offer a little bit more precision. They're still going to be wrong a lot and we're still going to wander through the world of player evaluation getting most of our evaluations wrong.

[Delandis]

Come on. We are talking about shades of gray here.

Yes, we make mistakes with the old scale, and we will continue to make mistakes with the new scale.

Yes, stats help us evaluate players with the old scale, and stats will continue to help us with the new scale.

Under the new scale, scouts will offer a little bit more precision. They're still going to be wrong a lot and we're still going to wander through the world of player evaluation getting most of our evaluations wrong.

What’s done is done and I will adjust accordingly.

Doesn’t mean I have to agree with the rationale or believe it is a better system than what we have in place.

[Z]

What’s done is done and I will adjust accordingly.

Doesn’t mean I have to agree with the rationale.

You don't have to agree.

If you're going to reply with a snippy retort when I say I'm looking forward to something, I'm probably going to respond to you.

[Delandis]

You don't have to agree.

If you're going to reply with a snippy retort when I say I'm looking forward to something, I'm probably going to respond to you.

The reply doesn’t bother me.

But you really shouldn’t expect everyone to agree with this rosey picture of BLB scouting going forward that you are painting. Nor should you expect dissent to remain silent simply because the rule is in place or beacause you believe it is an improvement.

[Z]

The reply doesn’t bother me.

But you really shouldn’t expect everyone to agree with this rosey picture of BLB scouting going forward that you are painting. Nor should you expect dissent to remain silent simply because the rule is in place.

I was simply trying to express one thing that I like. Doing so doesn't mean I think scouting will be perfect now.

There have been many things wrong with it and there will continue to be many things wrong with it after making what I view as one positive change.

I've written literally thousands of critical words on this forum about problems with our scouting. I wrote that massive post in July that required hours of research into old posts to figure out how we got to this point.

I don't understand how expressing optimism and defending that post with reason when it elicits a sarcastic reply somehow makes me some kind of apologist who doesn't think people should be allowed to criticize rules.

I don't think it should be necessary for me to preface a small optimistic post with a disclaimer saying that I don't think scouting is perfect now in order for me to avoid being accused of trying to stamp out dissent. I don't appreciate that.

[Delandis]

I was simply trying to express one thing that I like. Doing so doesn't mean I think scouting will be perfect now.

There have been many things wrong with it and there will continue to be many things wrong with it after making what I view as one positive change.

I've written literally thousands of critical words on this forum about problems with our scouting. I wrote that massive post in July that required hours of research into old posts to figure out how we got to this point.

I don't understand how expressing optimism and defending that post with reason when it elicits a sarcastic reply somehow makes me some kind of apologist who doesn't think people should be allowed to criticize rules.

I don't think it should be necessary for me to preface a small optimistic post with a disclaimer saying that I don't think scouting is perfect now in order for me to avoid being accused of trying to stamp out dissent. I don't appreciate that.

I didn’t ask for any disclaimer and I never said YOU said It was perfect.

I said that the stats already provide the tools to make decisions between players. If a scout is already scouting a guy in error, I’m not sure how there is an argument that adding a more precise scale will lead to more error. I said what’s done is done because it is now a rule and I didn’t want to get into this big thing about the appropriate way to disagree with what you are touting as an improvement.

[Z]

I didn’t ask for any disclaimer and I never said YOU said It was perfect.

I said that the stats already provide the tools to make decisions between players. If a scout is already scouting a guy in error, I’m not sure how there is an argument that adding a more precise scale will lead to more error. I said what’s done is done because it is now a rule and I didn’t want to get into this big thing about the appropriate way to disagree with what you are touting as an improvement.

Precision doesn't imply accuracy. They're different concepts. There can be more precision without there being more accuracy.

You can disagree as much as you want. When you talk about me "painting a rosey picture," I interpret that a certain way. And when you write, "Nor should you expect dissent to remain silent," I interpret that to me that you think I'm expect dissenters to remain silent, which, again, is literally what you wrote.

If I wrote that Delandis doesn't think people should be allowed to speak positively about rules, then I expect you would interpret that statement in a certain way, too.

[Pat]

Things always get heated on off days.

#dailysims

[funclown]

You are ALL missing the point.

Pawtucket is 56-33 and a top 10 farm system all this without inaccurate scouting. The world is once again a happy and safe place to live.

[Z]

You are ALL missing the point.

Pawtucket is 56-33 and a top 10 farm system all this without inaccurate scouting. The world is once again a happy and safe place to live.

Yeah but you tanked and everyone who tanked should be forced to run naked with the bulls,

[funclown]

Wait....I did NOT tank those 3 seasons. I was BROKE and working off debt. Basically none of these players are even Pawtucket high draft picks. Most were traded away competing. Heck Pat got a top 6 pick on my failure.

[Z]

Wait....I did NOT tank those 3 seasons. I was BROKE and working off debt. Basically none of these players are even Pawtucket high draft picks. Most were traded away competing. Heck Pay got a top 6 pick on my failure.

TANKING IS BAD AND IT'S THE ONLY WAY TEAMS TRY TO REBUILD LAH LAH LAH LAH LAH

You're just jealous you're not the one who invented pitching and defense!

[Delandis]

Precision doesn't imply accuracy. They're different concepts. There can be more precision without there being more accuracy.

You can disagree as much as you want. When you talk about me "painting a rosey picture," I interpret that a certain way. And when you write, "Nor should you expect dissent to remain silent," I interpret that to me that you think I'm expect dissenters to remain silent, which, again, is literally what you wrote.

If I wrote that Delandis doesn't think people should be allowed to speak positively about rules, then I expect you would interpret that statement in a certain way, too.

I understand the difference beteween precision vs.accuracy and in my heart, I would have thought you know me better than that.

I’m sorry if I offended you, that wasn’t my intention. But I also I stand by the idea l that alone this will not be a change for the better. I wholeheartedly believe that it will makes scouting easier and imo, is not the path a 10 year old league with seasoned veterans should take.