Quote:
Originally Posted by Painmantle
With any playing time in ootp most people come to understand whatever ratings system they choose to use regularly, I personally use 1-20, originally I used 1-100 and all the arguments for a new, better, more realistic system are purely medicinal imo.
|
Let me propose a few situations to you:
- you sign a minor league free agent, or draft a college bat in the amateur draft. Can you tell, looking at his ratings, if he'd be overmatched in A-ball?
- your starting LF has a 65/100 rating in LF. Can you tell if that is above average or below average in your league, for starting LFs? I'd bet if asked to guess the average LF rating for starting players in a league (or asked the average rating in categories outside the core categories), most users would be off by ten points.
- you join an online league which perhaps uses some unusual settings, or create your own league the same way. Without doing a lot of work, can you tell if your batters have good Eye ratings or not?
You may not face these issues because of the way you play, which is fine, it means these issues don't need to concern you. But other users face these kinds of issues and dozens like them all the time. Relative ratings solve all of these problems (or would if they could be applied to every rating). I'm not sure what meaning you intend when you use the word "medicinal", which usually means something is good, that it cures something (which from your phrasing I don't think is what you meant). We are talking about finding solutions to genuine problems; we aren't advocating purely cosmetic changes that have no real gameplay consequences.