Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksabr
The league does use a recalc (3-yr double based on, I believe, neutralized stats), so I did assume the ratings would be consistent with the stats. But there are these incredible divergences, which leads me to ask, does the game sometimes toss aside the IRL performance and basically remake the player in the image it wants for that particular sim, irrespective of his IRL performance? Or is it possible there is some logical explanation why a modern-day reliever with a 137 ERA+ across his first three seasons and a 111 ERA+ career shows up as a 0.5/0.5 star pitcher, while a 19c. pitcher with a sub-100 career ERA+, outside of one outlier season, shows up as a 5.0/5.0 star guy?
|
ERA is a terrible metric to use to gauge player value?
The pitching model is mostly a FIP-based model. So players who beat their FIP will tend to vary a lot more. Someone like Darren O'Day who has a career 2.59 ERA but 3.48 FIP will tend to be rated worse than you might expect, since the game doesn't necessarily quantify why he can beat his FIP.
The other thing to keep in mind is that relievers generally speaking are expected to be better than starters. 111 ERA+ for a reliever is fine, but arguably is only an average reliever at best. If you combine a few other factors into that, it could easily explain why a guy comes out rated very poorly.
Neutralized stats can also have an impact. I know some people believe they over-compensate for era differences, so that can have a bigger impact. Also as mentioned, star ratings are a composite rating, so if you have scouting enabled, your scout might not like them. Or just the way their ratings are put together might make for bad ratings.