Quote:
Originally Posted by bdawg
I'll preface this by saying I agree 100% with Abnerdoubleday.
Now onto the reply to the other part of your comment...
I get it. But Rose is only 2 pts higher in AvoidK. 2 pts shouldn't translate to a .269 avg vs .a 181 avg. I'll explain why that doesn't make sense below.
Here are some cards with Contact/AvoidK/ ratings, and their typical performances at Diamond level (I'm looking at my players and about the first few teams in my league that show up on player search, and giving a rough average):
Pete Rose 113/93: .270
Ted Williams: 114/91: .215
Sam Crawford: 101/98: 240
Arky Vaughan: 95/102: .225
Wander Franco: 99/93: .260
Joe Mauer: 109/87: .255
Lou Gehrig: 102/89: .220
Mike Trout: 121/84: .265
Where's the rhyme or reason here? Friggin Wander Franco hits .260 with 99/93 and Ted Williams hits .215 with 114/91? And if your answer is "AvoidK is a more important stat" then how do you explain Joe Mauer and Mike Trout? You just told me +5/-2 means jack between Williams and Franco, but +7/-7 means Trout is a far better player than Williams?
The system is broken, and there are important hidden ratings that DON'T contribute to the visible ratings scales. Mike Trout is a perfect example of this. And I'm not even going to get into pitching, because I could show even moreso with pitching how the ratings don't make sense compared to performance.
|
Listen, I'm not going to give you my background because I hate it when people think their background makes them an expert. But I will say this: even understanding the players are affected by the other players in the league, including opposing pitching, the translation of the visible ratings to stats doesn't make sense in any mathematical scale.
The only thing that makes sense is that somehow the game ends up changing grades based upon the other players in the league. In essence, it's like a teacher grading on a curve. So my 110/95 guy ends up ranking 24th in the league in contact and 198th in avoidk, so the game adjusts his rating accordingly. Which is mathematically disingenuous and completely and utterly ridiculous. The reason the game should give a value is so you can mathematically analyze it, and if the above is true, you can't.
Even so, none of that explains why people like Wander Franco and Mike Trout FAR outperform their ratings compared to other players, and why Ted Williams ends up hitting .200.