Quote:
Originally Posted by zrog2000
I totally get sample sizes, luck and randomness. I have arguments with fans of my team all the time because for some reason, younger baseball fans seem to complain if their team doesn't go 162-0 and it kind of drives me insane. And your team can still have a great season if they don't win the WS.
I guess I just don't understand why historical players have lower OVR on purpose. I just can't comprehend that a 1997 Mariano Rivera is rated an 80 OVR while there are about 50 live card relievers rated higher than that. (I'm guessing on that) If 1997 Rivera is an 80, diamonds relief pitchers shouldn't exist.
|
It's basically because if we rated historical players all on the exact same scale as the regular guys, the vast majority of them would be high diamonds or high golds, and you wouldn't see them as much. By lowering the overalls a bit, we can make them a little more available and even out the distribution a bit. And their overalls are not changed by as much as people are thinking, it's just by a touch.
As for 1997 Rivera, he was great, but he had a 240 ERA+. That's incredible, but not exactly historically dominant.
This year for instance, something like 7-8 regular RP's had better than that.
Jose Leclerc had a 311 ERA+. Jeremy Jeffress had a 317 ERA+. Jeffress is an 78 overall. Lecelerc is an 81 overall, 1997 Rivera is an 80 overall.
Rivera is rated better than those guys in-game I'd guess, as he should be, but the point is that the overall isn't exactly far out of line with the cards of many other players who put up similar or better seasons.