"100" = 100-200?!

[obaslg]

I started with a default league, coaches off.

Looking at players with "100" stuff, the first one I checked, when I turned the editor on his true stuff ratings were 115/191. Others with a "100" had large variance too (though never under 100). When the rating shown was in the low 90s, it was within a few points of the true rating, and when it was in the 80s, it was dead on. (This was spot check, not a perfect study.)

The same was true for batters' power and eye - "100" meant 100 or way over 100.

I created a fictional league and got the same results.

Questions:
1) Why aren't we seeing something closer to true ratings with coaches off?
2) Why does "100" mean potentially much more?

The first problem screws online leagues, like mine, in which coaches are turned off. One reason we have them turned off is to negate the potential for hacking to see true ratings. Now, if someone with a "100" really has a 175, that's pretty powerful information.

I'm not sure about the second issue. I guess the idea was to put in more of a curve in ability, but isn't a 100-point scale enough for that? If you want to allow for players way above the average, then just use a 100-point scale and set the median at 25 or something.

And why put in different rating display options if even at the best display level there's a huge amount of info hidden?

Minor edit: I don't know why that thumbs up is there - must have been an accident (wasn't sarcasm or anything).