Quote:
Originally Posted by choltz
It sounds like quite a few teams rely on what I would call qualitative scouting rather than quantitative data. IMO qualitative will lose every time to quantitative because qualitative is subjective at best and tends to reflect the scouters' beliefs of a team based on: past years, team size, rookie status, robot look etc.
Similar to the plot of moneyball, if your numbers accurately measure what you want to know, say percentage high goal accuracy, then they will be much more accurate at finding trends in the 60+ teams you have to simultaneously watch playing for two days straight. At least compared to the opinions of a small group of experienced team members.
|
While i totally agree with what you have said, those things dont totally correlate with moneyball.... although i see the point you make here- we chose who we chose regardless, and no data is gonna get in our stinkin way!
the thing is, this spreadsheet collects everyone's information in one place and tidily color codes and organizes it so that we can percieve each team more objectively, and much less subjectively. we can see whta they claim during pit scouting in the case that a) they dont get to show off or b) they are poorly reflected on the field. this helps us with strategy.
My hope in scoutmaster this year was to eliminate all hope for the subjective chosers and look at things like a machine, to eliminate names and reputations and go for the numbers on their own.
of course, sample size is affected when teams play 7-10 matches at most, but... we cant change that...
i hope someone uses this before its too late!