Frenkie De Jong's potential ability score

[Kelvinu]

Hi. I've been wondering if De Jong's current potential ability score is a true reflection of what this boy could be. As he is now transferred to Barca for 80mil EUR which is fair considering his current form in UCL, I'm wondering if his PA shouldn't be higher.

In the current DB, his potential ability is 

Spoiler

-9 (150-180)

What do you think?

[santy001]

I mean that's already a world class PA. 

On the merit of a transfer however, that would never be factored into the decision to changing a players stats. 

Maybe he will warrant a higher PA at some point in the future, but you're going to struggle to make the argument that its too low. 

[mack4ever]

15 minutes ago, Kelvinu said:

Hi. I've been wondering if De Jong's current potential ability score is a true reflection of what this boy could be. As he is now transferred to Barca for 80mil EUR which is fair considering his current form in UCL, I'm wondering if his PA shouldn't be higher.

In the current DB, his potential ability is 

  Reveal hidden contents

-9 (150-180)

What do you think?

Why would being signed by Barcelona mean he deserves a higher PA?

Do Barcelona have some unknown technology that allows them to determine which players in real life are guaranteed to become world class?

Let's be honest here, he's looked like a promising player so far and it would be sensible to bet on him becoming a very good player in the future but there is no guarantee at all that he will go on to be a world beater.

Right now even the lower end of his PA would make him good enough to be a starter for just about any team in the world, so what exactly is the issue here?

[Kelvinu]

On 07/04/2019 at 00:00, mack4ever said:

Why would being signed by Barcelona mean he deserves a higher PA?

Do Barcelona have some unknown technology that allows them to determine which players in real life are guaranteed to become world class?

Let's be honest here, he's looked like a promising player so far and it would be sensible to bet on him becoming a very good player in the future but there is no guarantee at all that he will go on to be a world beater.

Right now even the lower end of his PA would make him good enough to be a starter for just about any team in the world, so what exactly is the issue here?

No, but Barcelona actually have people who estimate things, and thats their job. You would say that those do a better job than people who modify FM's db.

My opinion is towards the lower end of his PA range. It's only about ten points higher than his current ability score, and he's just 21.

[Mitja]

40 minutes ago, Kelvinu said:

My opinion is towards the lower end of his PA range. It's only about ten points higher than his current ability score, and he's just 21.

obviously it was set too low or his CA was too high. and i doubt Barca would go for a player of bellow 160 PA in FM.

also the random difference of 30 points seems strange for such a renowned player at 20/21. 

[zlatanera]

7 hours ago, Mitja said:

also the random difference of 30 points seems strange for such a renowned player at 20/21. 

Why? We can't know for certain at this stage that he's truly going to kick on and become one of the best in the world. That PA reflects that he could though.

[mack4ever]

9 hours ago, Mitja said:

obviously it was set too low or his CA was too high. and i doubt Barca would go for a player of bellow 160 PA in FM.

also the random difference of 30 points seems strange for such a renowned player at 20/21. 

Of course, Barcelona would clearly never sign a youngster or promote a youngster from their B side who didn't have the potential to be up there with the best in the world.

Adama Traore, Deulofeu, Caceres, Keirrison, Icardi, Soriano, Botia, Romeu, Vazquez, Muniesa, Jeffren Suarez, dos Santos,  (both Jonathan and Giovani), Cuenca, Bojan, Assaulin, Denis Suarez, Rafinha, Montoya, Batra, Tello, Afellay, Fontas and Jeffren all say hi by the way...

[CFuller]

When he was at Arsenal's academy, Marcus McGuane had the potential to be a decent EFL defensive midfielder. Now he's in Barcelona's B team, surely that alone means he should become the English Sergio Busquets. 

Frenkie de Jong's PA looks fine to me. Nobody knows for sure if de Jong will develop into a truly elite midfielder, but he's certainly on course to become a very, very good one.

[enigmatic]

tbf whilst Barcelona have certainly signed dud players before and taken cheap punts before, they've spent an unusual Galatico-sized sum on De Jong which means they're a lot more confident in his potential than some of the other randoms they've signed, and it's not like Ajax are known for demanding extortionate fees for their prospects (quite the opposite) either. So 

Spoiler

given the wide potential range, if he has absolutely no chance of being the best midfielder in the world at his peak (PA>180) and it's important to set the range lower as he is actually much more likely to barely improve on his current Eredivisie level and never really break the first team at Barcelona (PA150ish)

they've screwed up a bit. Then again...

Spoiler

you can count the number of players who actually have a higher PA range on the fingers of one hand, and one of them was also assessed by the Ajax researcher

 

[Mitja]

2 hours ago, mack4ever said:

Of course, Barcelona would clearly never sign a youngster or promote a youngster from their B side who didn't have the potential to be up there with the best in the world.

Adama Traore, Deulofeu, Caceres, Keirrison, Icardi, Soriano, Botia, Romeu, Vazquez, Muniesa, Jeffren Suarez, dos Santos,  (both Jonathan and Giovani), Cuenca, Bojan, Assaulin, Denis Suarez, Rafinha, Montoya, Batra, Tello, Afellay, Fontas and Jeffren all say hi by the way...

as i said in FM they wouldn't bother to buy player of 150-160 PA let alone spend that money on such player. i bet everything you want he will have at least 180 in fm20.

[mack4ever]

Just now, Mitja said:

as i said in FM they wouldn't bother to buy player of 150-160 PA let alone spend that money on such player. i bet everything you want he will have at least 180 in fm20.

You do realise that the AI in FM have no more access to the players hidden attributes than you do. Under the surface they suffer from the same scouting inaccuracies as you do, there is uncertainty in every transfer they make. In my only long save (20+ seasons) in FM19 so far I have seen clubs like Barcelona & Real Madrid sign countless young players who haven't developed into anything like world class players. Personally when I was bringing Bristol Rovers up through the leagues, at one point I had 5 players who were signed by Barca or Real Madrid in their late teens who by their mid 20-s were lower tier Premiership at best.

[Mitja]

1 minute ago, mack4ever said:

You do realise that the AI in FM have no more access to the players hidden attributes than you do. Under the surface they suffer from the same scouting inaccuracies as you do, there is uncertainty in every transfer they make. In my only long save (20+ seasons) in FM19 so far I have seen clubs like Barcelona & Real Madrid sign countless young players who haven't developed into anything like world class players. Personally when I was bringing Bristol Rovers up through the leagues, at one point I had 5 players who were signed by Barca or Real Madrid in their late teens who by their mid 20-s were lower tier Premiership at best.

 

did they pay 75 milion euros for those players? 

[Mitja]

but the main issue of this thread is lower end of his -9 PA and difference of only 10-20 points compared to his age.

[mack4ever]

23 minutes ago, Mitja said:

but the main issue of this thread is lower end of his -9 PA and difference of only 10-20 points compared to his age.

How do you not understand this? Just because he has played well for Ajax and been signed for a large fee doesn't guarantee that he's going to be a great player! Countless players have been tipped for super stardom and have then not got anywhere near. His PA already guarantees that he is capable of reaching a standard where he would be capable of holding his own at damn near any team in the world.

You seem to think that he should have a much higher PA so I have just one question for you.

What has he done so far in his career that proves categorically that he is going to be one of the best players in the world?

[warlock]

I'd love to see a forum-wide ban (outside the strictly relevant sub-forums) on PA/CA discussions? They're tedious, non-productive and completely counter to the spirit of the game.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Mitja said:

as i said in FM they wouldn't bother to buy player of 150-160 PA let alone spend that money on such player.

 

1 hour ago, mack4ever said:

the AI in FM have no more access to the players hidden attributes than you do

This.

There is, however, something called Perceived Potential Ability ("PPA") which scout and coach reports use.  In a nutshell it's at least in part a scout looking at a young player's actual ability (attributes), his age and other similar players and thinking "wow, this kid looks good, must have bags of potential" and so gives him a high perceived potential score (a PPA).

So in the case of 20 year old de Jong, your (or AI) scout sees him with great actual ability in comparison to other similar and recommends him accordingly.  Therefore Barca could well buy de Jong in any save regardless of where his PA falls because of his starting actual ability, and that actual ability looks good for a kid of his age thereby generating a high PPA recommendation.

36 minutes ago, warlock said:

I'd love to see a forum-wide ban (outside the strictly relevant sub-forums) on PA/CA discussions? They're tedious, non-productive and completely counter to the spirit of the game.

Amen.  TBF some people like using them and that's fine, although CA/PA is often misunderstood.

[Mitja]

10 hours ago, mack4ever said:

How do you not understand this? Just because he has played well for Ajax and been signed for a large fee doesn't guarantee that he's going to be a great player! Countless players have been tipped for super stardom and have then not got anywhere near. His PA already guarantees that he is capable of reaching a standard where he would be capable of holding his own at damn near any team in the world.

You seem to think that he should have a much higher PA so I have just one question for you.

What has he done so far in his career that proves categorically that he is going to be one of the best players in the world?

but he is a great player already. Dutch international and right there with top world talents. maybe that's why he was signed by Barca for 75 milion and they didn't pay such money for none of the players you listed there. is he going to be next Messi? i don't know and that's not my job but i truely doubt they would pay that money for a youngster that they don't beleve has the potential to become key player for them. and the lower end of his PA simply doesn't suggest that. what i hinted is not that his PA is too low but that he should have had fixed PA as Ayax key player and Dutch international since 6th of September 2018. we can continue this discussion after fm20 comes out and FdJ becomes 180 PA player just because he signed for Barca maybe?

[enigmatic]

10 hours ago, herne79 said:

 

This.

There is, however, something called Perceived Potential Ability ("PPA") which scout and coach reports use.  In a nutshell it's at least in part a scout looking at a young player's actual ability (attributes), his age and other similar players and thinking "wow, this kid looks good, must have bags of potential" and so gives him a high perceived potential score (a PPA).

So in the case of 20 year old de Jong, your (or AI) scout sees him with great actual ability in comparison to other similar and recommends him accordingly.  Therefore Barca could well buy de Jong in any save regardless of where his PA falls because of his starting actual ability, and that actual ability looks good for a kid of his age thereby generating a high PPA recommendation.

Amen.  TBF some people like using them and that's fine, although CA/PA is often misunderstood.

PPA's pretty accurate for 21 year olds if they're only a few points off their potential, and the club has high JPA scouts and good enough squads to perceive 150CA as "three stars" though...

(Could imagine them buying a low-end potential De Jong anyway, but not at anywhere near that price)

 

[mack4ever]

9 hours ago, Mitja said:

but he is a great player already. Dutch international and right there with top world talents. maybe that's why he was signed by Barca for 75 milion and they didn't pay such money for none of the players you listed there. is he going to be next Messi? i don't know and that's not my job but i truely doubt they would pay that money for a youngster that they don't beleve has the potential to become key player for them. and the lower end of his PA simply doesn't suggest that. what i hinted is not that his PA is too low but that he should have had fixed PA as Ayax key player and Dutch international since 6th of September 2018. we can continue this discussion after fm20 comes out and FdJ becomes 180 PA player just because he signed for Barca maybe?

He's had two good seasons for a club in one of the weaker leagues in Europe and made his international debut at 21. That hardly makes him a great player.

You know who else made their international debut for Holland at 21 after having 2 good seasons for a Dutch club side? Ola John, the powerhouse of world football. You know who else did the exact same thing? Ricky van Wolfswinkel. One season at Vitesse and two at Utrecht where he was pretty damn impressive and he has definitely gone on to be world class...

How can you not wrap your head around the fact that Barcelona do not know for sure that De Jong will develop in to a great player, they're taking a £75m gamble on that fact.

Barcelona don't know how good he is going to be, you don't know how good he is going to be, I don't know how good he is going to be, the researchers at SI don't know how good he is going to be. Even bloody Frenkie de Jong doesn't know how good he is going to be!

That is why he has a PA with a range because nobody on this bloody planet knows how good he is going to be therefore assigning him a fixed PA is nonsensical because we simply don't know in any capacity how good he will be.

[FlorianAlbert9]

23 ore fa, herne79 ha scritto:

 

There is, however, something called Perceived Potential Ability ("PPA") which scout and coach reports use.  In a nutshell it's at least in part a scout looking at a young player's actual ability (attributes), his age and other similar players and thinking "wow, this kid looks good, must have bags of potential" and so gives him a high perceived potential score (a PPA).

 

Sorry, but that's partially false. 

Also the real PA is a part of the so called Perceived Potential Ability.

Scouts/Coaches know the actual PA with a margin of error depend on their JPA. That is easily verifiable: changing a player's PA with a real time editor you will instantly a decrease/increase of the potential's stars. And it must be so 'cause it is the only way scouts/coaches' JPA attribute make sense. 

That's one of the fail of unreal PA system, 'cause in real life even if there would be a PA (sure not in FM way), scouts don't know and the judge a player on his CA, personality and improvment areas (eg. speed is a lot harder to improve, so the player's height).

 

About de Jongs' PA. 

how many players paid that money have a PA under 160? just out of curiosity.

[herne79]

37 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Sorry, but that's partially false. 

Also the real PA is a part of the so called Perceived Potential Ability.

Scouts/Coaches know the actual PA with a margin of error depend on their JPA. That is easily verifiable: changing a player's PA with a real time editor you will instantly a decrease/increase of the potential's stars. And it must be so 'cause it is the only way scouts/coaches' JPA attribute make sense. 

That's one of the fail of unreal PA system, 'cause in real life even if there would be a PA (sure not in FM way), scouts don't know and the judge a player on his CA, personality and improvment areas (eg. speed is a lot harder to improve, so the player's height).

No not partially false .

As I said above, Perceived Potential Ability (which is the star ratings you see for "Potential") is based - at least in part - on a player's actual ability.  PA may also be taken into account, but it is much more than that.  So yes, using an editor to reduce a player's "PA" may lead to a decrease in the potential star rating we see - but you should also notice there are other influences if you do so.  Take a look at the example below.  At the top is a player's in game star rating for current and potential ability.  Underneath I have changed that player's hidden PA value using the in game editor to exactly match his hidden CA value.  It was a substantial reduction of 50 points.  So yes the Potential stars have dropped (by one star), but that star rating for potential still exceeds his star rating for current ability (by 1.5 stars).  So how come the two star ratings aren't equal even though his "hidden" CA and PA are now identical?

It's because, as I previously mentioned, the star rating for potential is actually the aforementioned "Perceived Potential Ability" and factors in the scout/coach looking at the player, thinking "wow he looks good for his age, must have good potential" and rates him accordingly.  I haven't changed the player's attributes (or his CA), thus his ability is still high by comparison resulting in more stars for his potential even though he can't actually improve now.  So when you say it's a fail of the current PA system and scouts should judge players on their current ability, they already take it into account.

Personally I'd like to see PA completely removed from anything in game (except what it's actually there for) and totally hidden - even from editors - because it's so misused and misunderstood and, as @warlock rightly says, not in the spirit of the game.

[FlorianAlbert9]

9 ore fa, herne79 ha scritto:

No not partially false .

As I said above, Perceived Potential Ability (which is the star ratings you see for "Potential") is based - at least in part - on a player's actual ability.  PA may also be taken into account, but it is much more than that.  So yes, using an editor to reduce a player's "PA" may lead to a decrease in the potential star rating we see - but you should also notice there are other influences if you do so.  Take a look at the example below.  At the top is a player's in game star rating for current and potential ability.  Underneath I have changed that player's hidden PA value using the in game editor to exactly match his hidden CA value.  It was a substantial reduction of 50 points.  So yes the Potential stars have dropped (by one star), but that star rating for potential still exceeds his star rating for current ability (by 1.5 stars).  So how come the two star ratings aren't equal even though his "hidden" CA and PA are now identical?

It's because, as I previously mentioned, the star rating for potential is actually the aforementioned "Perceived Potential Ability" and factors in the scout/coach looking at the player, thinking "wow he looks good for his age, must have good potential" and rates him accordingly.  I haven't changed the player's attributes (or his CA), thus his ability is still high by comparison resulting in more stars for his potential even though he can't actually improve now.  So when you say it's a fail of the current PA system and scouts should judge players on their current ability, they already take it into account.

Personally I'd like to see PA completely removed from anything in game (except what it's actually there for) and totally hidden - even from editors - because it's so misused and misunderstood and, as @warlock rightly says, not in the spirit of the game.

Sorry maybe it's for my bad ennglish  , but when i said 'partially' i mean othen than what you have said (age, ca, etc..) an importan factor was the actually PA, that you didn't take into account

And when i said 'with a margin of error' i mean that if a playe have a PA of 150, scouts/coaches could think he can have 140 or 160 (the margin is dependin on their JPA), that with the others factors you said (like age), is translated in stars: so a player of 21yo with 150CA and 155PA will could have more PA stars than a 31yo with the same CA but better PA 'cause the can't reach it anymore.

The breach in the system is well clear even in your example, 'cause with all the same stats, you get an increase/decrease in stars only changing PA: 
the fact is that IRL if you could change a player's PA (if that exists...) scouts cannot detect any difference, cause they don't know it.

In game you cannot take off that huge factor, in game scouts have to know (with a margin of error) the real PA 'cause if not, they JPA will make not sense. 
 

So, for me there are only two way: or cancel JPA, but that would meaning take down almost all scout system or cancel right the PA concpet, 'cause even if PA exists in real life, that is not the same way as it is in FM. 

And returning at the topic: there is no way Barca will spent that amount of money for a 150pa player. In game as in real life.

[santy001]

10 hours ago, herne79 said:

Personally I'd like to see PA completely removed from anything in game (except what it's actually there for) and totally hidden - even from editors - because it's so misused and misunderstood

I made this suggestion to SI a while back, the response was due to the data being localised on each players system, and in turn the game needing someway to also access the actual figures it wouldn't be likely/worthwhile which is understandable. Even if they did it, odds are someone would figure out the process and it would be rendered redundant.

Let's make no mistake about what the star rating system is, its a system implemented to help players. If you are already a good judge of players, if you already have a good understanding of attributes you don't need it. Personally I don't bother to use star ratings, I ignore the new number rating system as well. It got too predictable and too accurate, or rather too indicative of a sure thing in certain scenarios so it got changed to remove that element of certainty and bring an aspect of risk back to scouting. It is unlikely it was ever meant to be as effective as it reached at one point.

It's a loose guide to help people who either find their expertise in the game lies elsewhere (say tactically) or are just outright new to the game. It's functional and serves a purpose. When the dials and knobs start getting twisted in weird ways, you will see some inconsistencies, you will see that something that is programmed is ultimately programmed with a list of rules and therefore there's always going to be room for this behaviour. 

So what's the solution? Well you go with one of two things, either a system has to be implemented that instead gives scouts a divine understanding of a players potential with a % chance of accuracy for every individual (likely to be a killer on processing time having to calculate how accurately your scout will judge the next player they scout) or it has to be a completely randomised judgement with some guiding factors. That'd just make it bizarre when you get a model professional through the youth ranks, who is developing well and already first team material at 18 and has 200PA but your scout just keeps telling you he's never going to make it because this time his dice roll said this player isn't going to be good.

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

I made this suggestion to SI a while back, the response was due to the data being localised on each players system, and in turn the game needing someway to also access the actual figures it wouldn't be likely/worthwhile which is understandable. Even if they did it, odds are someone would figure out the process and it would be rendered redundant

It's also somewhat at odds with SI having made the game as editable as reasonably possible. The great thing is if people think De Jong's potential should be -10 or 161 or 182 or whatever, they actually can set it to that value...

And much as I'm sure people saying "x is our best youth prospect, they should have -8 potential" is annoying to researchers, I'm sure players have had useful input on erroneous or clearly out of date PA figures before (as well as helped reduce complaints in the research forum about "only 4* potential")

 

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

So what's the solution? Well you go with one of two things, either a system has to be implemented that instead gives scouts a divine understanding of a players potential with a % chance of accuracy for every individual (likely to be a killer on processing time having to calculate how accurately your scout will judge the next player they scout) or it has to be a completely randomised judgement with some guiding factors. That'd just make it bizarre when you get a model professional through the youth ranks, who is developing well and already first team material at 18 and has 200PA but your scout just keeps telling you he's never going to make it because this time his dice roll said this player isn't going to be good.

Personally I'd quite like it if, in addition to ability there were a couple of variables for things which scouts reasonably can be expected to observe (whether the player is fully grown and whether they've got a lot or relatively little match experience for their age) which could be noted on reports, bias their estimate of PA, and actually have an in-game effect on their likely development path towards that PA (a player with a low level of physical development for their age might have a growth spurt for their age independently of whether they're getting adequate training or match time; a high PA player who's already physically developed and experienced for their age will probably mature slower and more evenly than one who isn't)

[santy001]

15 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

It's also somewhat at odds with SI having made the game as editable as reasonably possible. The great thing is if people think De Jong's potential should be -10 or 161 or 182 or whatever, they actually can set it to that value...

I had already catered to that, simply leave the box blank and allow people to enter their own desired figure. Philosophically its a very weak argument to make that something isn't good enough and should be something else because of what it is right now. My thinking is that when someone comes with a suggestion to the table in regards to data they should have their idea on what it should be first of all. 

Mainly because of the nature of any discussion such as this thread, where one person clearly thinks De Jong deserves a higher PA, but clearly the researcher doesn't. It's not to come across as too harsh on someone making such a thread, as the general discussion board is a great place to actually have this discussion. But to change a researchers thinking, well a transfer fee doesn't do that, nor does telling them what a -X PA band is because we already know. My thinking has always been that without that crutch to lean upon, people would have to offer up what they think and back it up without being able to to cite what is already the case in the game as though that's a point.

In terms of discussion itself though, PA and CA are certainly the most boring of attributes to discuss. Going through how attributes are utilised to create how a certain player reads the games or makes defence splitting passes has the potential for a lot more engaging a conversation.

- - -

In regards to scouting itself, its improving and it still could do with perhaps another major overhaul but I'd say its heading in the right way. It's a fine line to tread between keeping scout reports easily readable and understandable across the spectrum of players. 

[forameuss]

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

I made this suggestion to SI a while back, the response was due to the data being localised on each players system, and in turn the game needing someway to also access the actual figures it wouldn't be likely/worthwhile which is understandable. Even if they did it, odds are someone would figure out the process and it would be rendered redundant.

I'd agree with that.  It would be very unlikely for there to be a way to properly hide CA/PA values from users.  It has to be available in some form to be used by the modules that need it, so they'd essentially just be hiding it.  They could obfuscate it, or have it in some other format, but when you're going to those lengths, what's the point?  You'd still get people coming on complaining that Johnny Goals PA was 4 wobbly eggs when it should be 7.

Plus it'd be a shame if those that understand the values and workings of it perfectly fine, but wanted to edit be disallowed because SI are doing their best to hide it for pointless reasons.

22 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Mainly because of the nature of any discussion such as this thread, where one person clearly thinks De Jong deserves a higher PA, but clearly the researcher doesn't. It's not to come across as too harsh on someone making such a thread, as the general discussion board is a great place to actually have this discussion. But to change a researchers thinking, well a transfer fee doesn't do that, nor does telling them what a -X PA band is because we already know. My thinking has always been that without that crutch to lean upon, people would have to offer up what they think and back it up without being able to to cite what is already the case in the game as though that's a point.

Slightly different tack, but I'm curious.  You're probably one of the more "visible" researchers on these forums, and you always give really good insights into how you rate players (not that some people listen).  You talk above about the discussions you have to have around researchers, but has there ever been an occasion where someone has come to you with a well-reasoned argument and fundamentally changed your mind?  It always seems like the threads go the same way - someone looks at a player who once scored a good free-kick and uses that as the basis for why they should have 20 free-kicks.  In other words, very little substance.

[santy001]

@forameuss it's not always public, because there are times when points are raised on the forums seen by someone else that gets back to a HR and comes to me in email and in a number of those exchanges I've looked at others perspective.

Sadly the Stoke thread doesn't get much interest, there was Berahino last year whom I feel is now in a good spot but even then a lot of the calls were just arbitrarily on CA. I instead went down the route of significantly lowering professionalism, ambition and consistency which does mean there is something there but its incredibly difficult to bring out now. 

I don't usually directly attribute things to specific posters when it does trigger a change in my thinking, or adds an extra facet to it. There have been instances for sure, but given we have the annual purge of the data forums it makes it hard to remember where some really good contributions came in. 

FM20 promises to be an interesting one, after all, how do you rate what should be one of the best squads on paper, and is almost certainly the most expensive team assembled in world football to finish so far down the table in the second tier of a country? That's the real challenge, because there's a very real risk that signing for Stoke at the moment just becomes a CA tax on players. I think every player bought this season got a hefty CA cut in January. That was in large replicating the lack of pace that has been evident however, I know McClean got raised somewhere down the line at SI and the only two attributes I cut in January were acceleration and pace. 

[enigmatic]

3 hours ago, santy001 said:

Mainly because of the nature of any discussion such as this thread, where one person clearly thinks De Jong deserves a higher PA, but clearly the researcher doesn't. It's not to come across as too harsh on someone making such a thread, as the general discussion board is a great place to actually have this discussion. But to change a researchers thinking, well a transfer fee doesn't do that, nor does telling them what a -X PA band is because we already know. My thinking has always been that without that crutch to lean upon, people would have to offer up what they think and back it up without being able to to cite what is already the case in the game as though that's a point.

But to a large extent, what is already the case in the game is a point; fundamentally PA is best understood in relation to how they might in future compare with other players rather than as any objective quality (at least it is when it's youth players and ranges).  It's much easier for a fan familiar with his club's youth setup to reason that "actually, over the last season it seems like the club now regard X as their best prospect and seem to have given up on Y, so maybe their potential ranges should be the other way round" or "you haven't set a PA for X yet; it should probably be lower than the others based on..." than for them to chime in with "I think X should have a potential of -7 (to which the most common answer is going to be "actually it already is" or "it's -65, for reasons which might be more obvious if you knew what I'd set the other players at"). I assume researchers are actually more likely to find people catching outliers (especially if they're actual mistakes, a bit out of date given recent progress or players the researcher isn't that familiar with) helpful and aren't particularly likely to be swayed by a fan making a case their favourite player's PA should be 145. Especially not if they've already set it to 142. 

Not that de Jong's PA is either an outlying low value or something the Ajax researcher has been likely to have simply not thought about too much.

 

Anyway, SI seem to be going in precisely the opposite direction with the FMDb app exposing a (rounded) version of players' database potential.