Quote:
Originally Posted by lukasberger
The ratings do allow a great deal of differentiating, so long as you use use the higher scales.
I guess that's why I've never quite been able to understand some of the complaints and was the point I was trying to make a few pages back. There's a world of difference between a guy with a 70 contact potential on the 1-250 scale and one rated at 50. Or power of whatever.
That only shows up as a point if you use the 2-8 or 1-10 ratings, but it's the difference between someone with an outside shot at an MLB career and someone with no shot. Even very small differences in the ratings can mean a lot. Those differences show up quite well when you use the 1-100 scale and when you add them up over the 5-10 important ratings for each player, there is in fact a world of difference between any two guys with a 20 overall rating.
|
I agree. I use the 20-80 scale, mainly because that's the accepted scale among real-life scouts and teams, but it also gives enough differentiation that I can find a one-star player with a good skill or two. But I also understand that others use much smaller scales that don't provide that range.
My answer was simply an attempt to give you some talking points. The ideas I came up with would provide me personally with a deeper level of immersion, but won't necessarily change my draft experience greatly because, as I said, I'm pretty satisfied with the current draft model.