OK, so they are indicators but not absolutes? That I can handle.

Quality/Stars indicates on field skills. This does not always translate to "higher skill = better performance" in every game or even for every player over a season, but as a general rule higher quality players perform better than lower.

Value is an indicator that includes quality/stars, but also factors in potential skill (fast training) and age (how long they have to train up and raise quality). Again this is not a hard and fast rule (lots of can't miss stars fail in the real world in all sports), but in general this is how value works. Does this sound ok?

I have a funny feeling that all experienced managers just smile at my last couple posts and think to themselves "if only it were that simple. he needs a couple seasons to realize how foolish his ideas are"