Quote:
Originally Posted by Spritze
PT just "feels" too different from historical or random debut. I get the sample size argument and such but the ratings make no sense on the surface and historical players do not play to their historical abilities.
|
One thing to keep in mind is that the stats are neutralized and therefore, a player's stats can't be judged in an absolute way. If someone pitched very well in 1968, then they might not have such great ratings due to the fact that pitching in general was so good that year. [By the way, I know you already know this, I'm just adding this for others, just in case.]
Another problem is with how a person looks at the ratings. For example, a 70 HR rating is good in a normal baseball league, so they see that and think that this player will hit a lot of HRs. But you need to look at the competition (and not just the pitchers, but the other hitters too) before you can determine if this is a good rating in your PT league.
In a 1977 historical season, there are 377 batters and 30 of them (8%) with ratings of 70+. In my PT Gold league there are 427 batters and 137 (32%) have HR ratings of 70+. In other words, HR ratings of 70+ are 4 times more common in this example. So they're less special in PT. The same is true with respect to other ratings.
Those two reasons, I think, are why people are misjudging how well someone should do. And yes, randomness makes a difference too.
Edit: Unless I'm misunderstanding how OOTP handles league totals, the number of HRs that should be expected in a league are predetermined, but the distribution depends on the particular player ratings. In other words, if everyone in a league has an HR rating from 70-80, then the 70's will on average, get the fewest HRs and will seem like weak HR hitters which is why I wrote what I did above. But if this is not how things work, then can someone explain how things do work?