Quote:
Originally posted by Skipaway
Why doesn't it make sense? Prospects were often rated very differently in different media, and it's known that some media just do a better job than the others. And have you really seen top 100 lists containing 1-2 blue star players? I think you are exaggerating too much to make a point.
|
Yes I am exagerrating to make the point, because obviously you're missing it. Either way whether or not there are 1-2 blue staar players on the top 100 list, the list will now include more marginal prospects than before. Prospects who ultimately will have no further chance for development in the majors unless they get lucky and get a random talent bar increase. Notice I said CHANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT not development (member' luck-->talent--->ratings-->stats).
It is pretty ironic and funny how the quote you have on your signature from Billy Beane (taken from the interesting book
Moneyball)is exactly making the point you're missing and that I'm trying desperately to communicate to you.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Skipaway Billy Beane: Sometimes Joe doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions.
|
Right now in OOTP the facts [stats] don't get in the way of the opinions.
Right now all of us wannabe "Billy Beane" GMs are, just in fact, "Joes" who don't factor in the facts [stats] we just rely on the opinions of the ratings presented by our scouts [ratings & talent bars]. We're doing this not because we choose to, but because we have to since we know stats are not relevant in a players development which is wrong, it should be a factor.
The top 100 list is the problem itself, it's merely a really good symptom that sheds light on the real problem which is Talent Increases are totally utterly random and have no connection to performance [stats].