Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Smaegol
Which 2004 Roster set out there has the most realistic ratings? I downloaded 1 (Halofan's) and as a Brewer fan, the first player I looked at was Ben Sheets.My first impression was not good. He had Sheets rated a 1 star pitcher with very below average "stuff" and his Max velocity was I think at 88mph. Ben throws his fastball in the mid 90's. His talent was like a 40. Cmon now...
Are there better roster sets out there?
Thanks
|
As a fellow Brewers apologist, I too felt that the ratings for many of their players were "off"...Sheets being probably the most egregious example. Furthermore, I found a number of no-name players in the Halofan roster set that had All-Star or even HOF calibre ratings/talents. Players like Colter Bean NYY, Craig Ansman PHI, Midre Cummings TB, Jason Grabowski LA, Henri Stanley CF...I began to compile a list of ratings problems, but it got so long that I gave up. In many cases, the computer dumps or benches established starters or stars in order to create room for those "no-names"...and in my mind, that's no good.
The CBL roster set has been solid for me statistically, and it passes the acid test whereby the computer managers has for the most part continued to mirror it's MLB counterparts as far as rosters and lineups. I still have seen the odd case where the OAK computer GM decided to cut Scott Hatteberg, or the COL GM decided to place Chin-Hui Tsao and 3-star SP prospect Aaron Cook on irrevocable waivers and promptly lost them to claims...but for the most part, roster and lineup integrity has been maintained, which makes me feel like the ratings are fairly accurate in terms of being a MLB clone. The big problem with v.2.1 of the CBL roster set is that all the injuries have been healed...so everyone, from Aaron Boone on down is in perfect health. Not a terrible problem in my mind, but worthy of note.
Anyway, hope that gives you a point of reference between the "main" two MLB roster options...