Originally Posted by pholmer
Thanks for creating the chart. It will be helpful to many of us who play OOTP, I'm sure. However, the scale does highlight a problem I've noticed with the ratings system.
The blue category is from 158-250. That is 37% of the ratings that are in the highest category. That skews the ratings away from the higher numbers, and the ratings numbers aren't always correct. If the 1-250 scale were evenly distributed over the 5 categories, the blue category would start as 200, not 158.
If I draft, sign, or trade for a specific player who I know can hit, run, and field well, I don't believe he deserves to have a 1 rating in any area, but sometimes they do. Same thing with pitchers; today I acquired an excellent veteran pitcher only to find all his pitches were rated 38! (Out of 600)
I once drafted Joe DiMaggio and found out his "Avoid Ks" number was 123/550. This for a player who struck out only 369 times in his whole MLB career! But just trying to bring a player up to the "League Average" (when you know they are in fact an above average player), often results in him getting 5-star rating when they probably deserve a 4-4+.
I'm not criticizing the jpeters1734 scales at all; I believe it accurately reflects the existing ratings system and will help me more accurately adjust players' ratings when necessary. I don't think every good player needs to get a 5-star rating for just being good. Nor do I think the top ratings need to reflect a "perfect" player. Even HOFers.
Ray Schalk, for example, was not a stellar batter or runner, but he helped define the role of the Catcher, especially the act of backing up the 1st Baseman when a batter is running to 1st. HOF, yes, OOTP 5 Stars, no. We all know players who could have some ratings approaching 250, 600 or whatever in certain categories. Walter Johnson, Sandy Koufax, Randy Johnson; Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, etc. We shouldn't be afraid to give Mariano Rivera a 575 for his cutter if he deserves it.
I know there's a lot of math behind our current ratings; I don't what it is but I believe the current system has a basis in facts and statistics. One last personal comment: there's a reason the 20-80 ratings start at 20, not zero. The 1-600 scale should be 120-600 and the 1-250 should be 50-250. Players scoring lower probably wouldn't ever make it to the majors.
Thanks again to jpeters1734 for making the charts and kicking off this discussion.
|