Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOne
why would relative ratings be better? they can be false if the talent in the league is an outlier or merely just a normal ebb and flow. some years they could be overrated or underrated and everything in between. this makes it empirically less clear for promotions. that shouldn't keep you from doing what you are comfortable with, but it adds another level of inaccuracy above and beyond the scouting setting.
|
Not true. The old saying "you can only play the cards you are dealt" holds true here. If you happen to be in AA with really strong players, and you rake, it'll reflect that. Or the opposite. If you don't do well against a strong group, maybe you shouldn't be promoted because theoretically that's who you'll face at the next level.
But say, for whatever reason, talented has flowed at AA and ebbed at AAA. That way, flipping the ratings relative switch over to AAA would show the player might very well hold his own there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOne
if i know a 38/100 contact is ready for AAA, i promote at 38 contact. not only is it the exact same concept as what you are doing with relative ratings, it is more precise in nature because it doesn't float.
|
We'll have to agree to disagree here. For me, the natural ebb and flow of talent means that a 38/100 might NOT be ready for AAA, if, say, there's a particularly strong cohort of talent in AAA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOne
I don't see all 20's as you do, though.
|
Go to a low-A or rookie league player's profile and look at ratings relative to MLB. You'll see a crapload of 20s, 25s and 30s. If you don't have the relative ratings checkbox enabled, you still get 30s and 35s.