rosco, that's why i've switched to "relative" ratings...but, i'm thinking it may have been a mistake. i made that decision becuase of what i see and prefer to see vs. how it affects the AI. (no ideas on the latter, but i'm going to start paying attention)
an RP may look lower by overall, but if oyu don't use overall to find talent it's no big deal for a human... which is how i do it anyway. if having relative ratings and lower RP to the eye makes the AI handle their contracts better etc etc i'm all for it.
The problem isn't how they are handling the "relative" in use option -- fundamentally that's the same as it always has been, even if more pronounced for RP this year.. it's what they have done to the absolute ratings system for SP-RP.
these are not the same players based ontheir roles. you can't make their ratings relative because they don't represent the same thing nor calculate out to the same results... they are not the same and cannot be judged the same way... same reason you don't judge a First BAseman on their "Stuff" rating, it's irrelevant.
stamina is an example of this...
# of unique pitches for consistent success in that role is an example...
even stuff is calculated differently for rp, they get a little bonus, to represent that htey are throwing harder in shorter innings of work or something like that...
where a position player is on the field is 100% exclusive of their offensive talents... for pitching the role they play ont he field has a significant impact ontheir behaviour/results/ howver you want to look at it.
they should be rated as their own category at all times.. anythign relative for them should be between cl/su/mr/Loogy etc if any exists, which i don't think they do.
in summary, this setting should only have an effect on position players... no reason to apply it to pitching... it's like believing someone is reading the new commandments from 2 gold bricks in a top-hat that only he can see! (haha south park reference). "dumb, dumb..dumb, dumb, dumb"
i blame the forums for this... i've seen similar nonsense brought up in recent years about ratings and amatuers etc etc...
i also love the hubris of the conept that young amatuers lose talent (a perception carried over from real life)... when the more likely cause is merely poor scouting etc..(human error, being completely in the dark about what has a strong correlation with future success). it's not that we are wrong about them, it's that they fail or don't live up to the potential... lol... anyway in the game it represents it as people perceive it in real life.. meh... there shuold just be an insane amount of scouting innaccuracy for drafts, but then people wouldn't have fun failing as often as they do in RL
