Quote:
Originally Posted by Threnodas
Can we come back to this for a moment? Dierker is better in almost every rating and worse in none. By what algorithm could his overall be 73 while Perry's is 82? This isn't about nerfing or buffing certain players or eras, nor do I have an opinion about which player was better in real life or by how much. I'm just bothered by the disconnect between Overall and their individual ratings. One of the two is lying. We can disagree with the AI about how to weigh different ratings to calculate "overall quality", but Dierker dominates Perry in all ratings. He is a Pareto improvement. How can he be worse?
|
Both Markus and I have mentioned that a few specific cards are intentionally underrated, to create diamond in the rough type cards it can be fun for people to find and use. Dierker's one of those cards. That's all.