Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOne
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.
|
I can't understand why you'd want them relative to their "role". An 80 LOOGY is still a pitcher with subpar stuff. They could have 50 overall stuff but, say, 70 stuff vs LHH. It'd be more confusing if you make a pitcher relative to his role, because then a LOOGY could have better overalls than a SU guy, simply because the LOOGY is compared to LOOGY and the SU is compared to SU. If I'm understanding you correctly you could have a 65-65-65 loogy and a 60-60-60 SU guy, when in reality the SU guy is far better. To me that doesn't make sense to split them into role. I don't see the issue with having a SP and a RP having 80 stuff meaning the same thing, it's just a matter of recognizing that the SP will be able to maintain that strikeout rate over a longer period of time and facing batters multiple times through the order. And I don't need that 80 relative to the league, either. If it's green he's probably a 6-7 K/9 guy, if it's blue it's 8 or higher. I could get more specific on the K/9, but my league is different than yours so it wouldn't matter.
To be honest I think this relative ratings stuff is like bumpers in bowling. I think it's playing in easy mode in a sense. You don't need to have players rated relative to each other or the league to figure out how a player should perform.
For instance there was a player in a quickstart league who was 70-50-50 and then in relative ratings was like 50-20-20. It's like, did you really need relative ratings to realize the guy had terrible movement? The movement is yellow or red, it's pretty clear the guy is a terrible pitcher. I don't need to have it relative to the league to know this guy is a mop up pitcher at best.
I don't see the appeal to it, and I think it's a step backwards to use relative ratings. I'd recommend making the switch to stop using relative ratings.