[Dan Theman]

I like the approach that people are taking, here - some time back I came up with a similar proposal, but there are a few shortcomings and arguments that I had to face, as well. Jayzone brought up the complexity issue, so I won't bother with that one.

The proposed system seems to break down ratings into these components:

FIELDING
Range -> speed + inteligence + familiarity
Glove -> glove + intelligence + familiarity
Arm -> arm strength + arm accuracy + familiarity
Catching ability (new aspect)

BASERUNNING
Stealing Ability -> speed + intelligence

HITTING
Eye & Avoid K's -> patience + intelligence

**First off, the rating of "Range" within the game is meant to be an effective range, which can be interpreted as already using all three components. That takes a player's related intelligence, foot speed, comfort, and experience all into account.

The concept of positional familiairty is somewhat a part of the engine, although perhaps not enough. I would like to see a smoother transition to a player's current potential fielding ability at a position. Even if it's something that we can't see as owners until the process is complete, it could still be internal and gradually give less of a chance for errors and an increasing range while the player is learning. It's a relatively small point, but I still would prefer it and think most others would as well.

**Second on the list, the ability that you propose called intelligence is unfortunately a troublesome one.

For example; Manny Ramirez is a brilliant hitter. He can break down an at bat with amazing ease. He's also as dumb as a brick in every other baseball-related aspect: he's forgotten how many outs there were more times than I can remember, run into a million baserunning gaffes, and at one point last year made an incredible diving grab to cut off a throw that never should have been cut off.

His intelligence is a singular one, not evenly distributed over all of his baseball skills. In order to properly reflect this with an intelligence rating, we'd need multiple versions of the rating. You could say we already do: Stealing Ability, Running Instincts, Contact, Eye, Avoid K's, and - as mentioned above - Range are all effected by the various facets of baseball intelligence.

**Third, your breakdown of Arm Strength is actually something I'd prefer, although the potential gain of such a switch might be outweighed by the lack of appreciation of the buying public - we may never get our way on that one.

**Last on my list, a catcher's ability to call a game. This has been debated ad nauseum in this forum and many others spanning the internet gamut. In the end, while the proof isn't there to really support any appreciable difference, I recall working on an idea with "The Artist Formerly Known as Henry" on a very basic catcher rating. The notion was that a catcher's game-calling ability would either be developed or not, and would be something that catchers would attain over time. The thought was there to also have perhaps one more setting along the lines of the "cagey veteran" that a few catchers may someday reach. The overall effect wouldn't necessarily be an improvement in pitching performance, but rather an effective improvement in the pitcher's consistency.