Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweed
Yeah, the developers should have held their ground on "reality" for a simulation. I see as they try to tighten up the trade module we are also getting some "but it's not fun" feedback. I'm all for options but push come to shove? Reality should weigh heavy on the scale.
Another part of some user's complaints was "there's too many 45's and it's not fun sorting them.". The thing is with the expanded ratings scale going over 600 this problem went away. At least it did for me if I use 20-80 (and not by 5's). Players that are all in the 40's will separated quite nicely on the scale that goes 40-49 by 1's. It draws to the eye that player B is slightly better than player A in your scouts' eye. Now to get the "best" pick you still need to take individual skills into account. I'd say many times I will like a 42/80 better than the 44/80 player that is higher up the list. But the "fun" players didn't want to look at ratings anyway, they just wanted a quick "A's rating is higher than B's rating". 20/80 by 1's gives them that with the 600+ ratings scale.
|
Dead on.
In no reality should a draft have 15+ 80 grade prospects.
So Skubal/Skenes level potential x15 players in a draft?
What SHOULD happen is users understand that no one has a team full of 80’s. Teams are mostly 45-55, with some 60’s, 70, and rarely an 80 for the best of the best.
Even outlets like MLB Pipeline, Baseball America, Fan Graphs, et al never really put an 80 on a player. Konnor Griffin of Pittsburgh is a consensus #1 overall prospect in baseball, 5 tool potentially generational type talent and most sites have him as a 70.