Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOne
first, this isn't to convince. keep doing what floats your boat. since you think i am mistaken, i'll explain it.
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 when compared to scale that doesn't shift on you. 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.
|
This is what you don't understand. All of the scales shift based on the overall talent in the league. An 80 power in a league where 60 homers leads the league will indicate that player will hit approximately 60 homers. A 60 power in the same league will indicate the player would probably hit 30-40 homers.
An 80 power in a league where 40 homers leads the league can be expected to hit approximately 40 homers. A 60 power in the same league would be expected to hit 20-25 homers.
An 80 power in the 1900s would indicate a player might hit 5-10 homers. It all shifts based on the overall ability of the league. No ratings scale remains the same no matter what. Based on what you're saying, an 80 power would always equal the same amount of home runs every year in every league. That's simply not true.
Relative ratings tell us that a 30 power in the MLB translates to an XX power in the league you set it to AT THAT TIME. A year later, that value could change to ZZ for one of two reasons -- the talent in the league has changed and/or the player's talent has changed. But the point is that if you're considering moving a player up a level, set his ratings relative to that level and then see that his ratings are all or mostly below average for that league, you know he can be expected to perform below average in that league, assuming you trust your scout.
Is this realistic? Not exactly. But it's OOTP's equivalent of the director of minor league operations asking his scouts and field staff if X player should be promoted. The answer will typically be "yes" or "no, he will struggle at the next level because ..." or some derivative of those two answers. By allowing us to see ratings relative to each level of the minors, OOTP allows us to answer those questions ourselves, rather than building an ask/answer function that makes the game answer that question for us.
If you choose not to use it, that's fine. Just as those who choose to use it shouldn't be looked down on, as another poster did in a post earlier today.
As for all the 20s, search by all players in the entire world in your game (assuming you're playing an MLB structure) with ratings set relative to MLB. If you don't see hundreds of current 20 (or equivalent bottom rating) for each skill, then I want to be a GM in your game. Same goes for the draft. The relative ratings gives us a way to differentiate between all of the guys who look like total duds. They may still be total duds, but it allows us to see that player X is expected to max out at Double-A while player Y isn't expected to get past Single-A.