Quote:
Originally posted by ScottVib
Haven't seen this ever before.. I'd assume the AI was basing the decision on potential over the current ratings more than it should have in this situation.
|
Perhaps, but unlikely, as Delvin James' potentials had deteriorated to all Fairs and Poors while Williamson's potentials were all quite good. Plus they'd spent $3M+ to sign Williamson in 2004; so they must have thought he was good. There wasn't a single category in which James bettered Williamson and only one in which he matched him (both had C stamina in relief).
Beyond that, Colome was better than Oropesa and Williamson, while Yan might have been though better in some ways (better control, rated as a Closer). And in addition, the team had several other relievers better than James in the minors (some also better than Puffer - but not clearly better).
We use scouts, so I can buy Puffer being over-rated, but this team went out of its way to get Oropesa and Williamson and as far as I've been able to tell, scouts rarely (if ever) underrate players. Could the scout have been so bad as to think a pitcher with no ratings above 2 (James) was better than a pitcher with all ratings of at least 6 (Williamson)?
Cory