I appreciate that Mike is making the effort, and that defense is subjective enough that there is room for debate. But people are presenting eveidence here that the way defense is computed by the game has some serious flaws that isn't just underreporting ability but totally misrepresenting it. That needs to be addressed, and simply saying that Mike has the experience doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I deal with data all the time in my job, and when we get results that are counter-intuitive, we look closely at the data and the methodology to see if we made a mistake. We don't assume the method was right and that we've found something that no one else ever has until we've exhausted more plausible options. And I've seen plenty of studies where that hasn't been done, and the "new" results have been debunked by using the right data and correct method.

That is what should be done given the results that go against other evidence with Hunter. Instead of assuming the game is finding out information that no one else has (that Hunter is a bad CF with poor range), its imperative the game determines if in fact its methodology is wrong. And Garth has presented good evidence that the games assumption about GB/FB is in this case incorrect.

I like the game - I like the game play, I like the trading and the drafting, I like the way the sim is designed to work. I also think the stat engine needs to be improved (the variance on a specific player's stats from league to league is too great) and the defensive stats improved.