Rating System

[Pirates]

I don't understand how players are rated in All-Time Legends.
In my opinion it is a mess.
They have Don Sutton and Phil Niekro, rated higher than:
Steve Carlton and Bob Gibson.
I'm not sure the people who gave these ratings, ever watched a game from the 60's and 70's.
No person in their right mind would start Sutton or Niekro over Carlton and Gibson.
I'm in my mid 50's, I saw all of these guys play.

[Pointer1VB]

Originally Posted by Pirates

I don't understand how players are rated in All-Time Legends.
In my opinion it is a mess.
They have Don Sutton and Phil Niekro, rated higher than:
Steve Carlton and Bob Gibson.
I'm not sure the people who gave these ratings, ever watched a game from the 60's and 70's.
No person in their right mind would start Sutton or Niekro over Carlton and Gibson.
I'm in my mid 50's, I saw all of these guys play.

You're not right... there's 4 Bob Gibson cards and two of them are rated 93 and 94. The highest Nikro or Sutton card is 91. There's also a 94 Carlton.

Also, Calton and Niekro both played 24 seasons and Niekro has higher WAR and the same ERA+... using the eye test to compare a knuckleballer and a fastball pitcher is a terrible scouting method.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by Pirates

I don't understand how players are rated in All-Time Legends.
In my opinion it is a mess.
They have Don Sutton and Phil Niekro, rated higher than:
Steve Carlton and Bob Gibson.
I'm not sure the people who gave these ratings, ever watched a game from the 60's and 70's.
No person in their right mind would start Sutton or Niekro over Carlton and Gibson.
I'm in my mid 50's, I saw all of these guys play.

Well you'll be glad to know that for the next version in a couple weeks the OOTP team has reworked how they rate the Legend category cards, so this isn't really even an issue moving forward.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by atabakin

Well you'll be glad to know that for the next version in a couple weeks the OOTP team has reworked how they rate the Legend category cards, so this isn't really even an issue moving forward.

Honestly, this is exactly why I have been in favor of this change. It is using a combination of stats taken over a range of years and mashing them together. The only difference between this and the old method is that this new method uses the individual statistical peaks, whereas the "Peak" cards took an average of their performances.

Neither are real, actual results. However, both do represent in their own ways what each player was capable of achieving. With this approach, we now have cards that can also capture the general impressions these mythical heroes left on the sport.

As long as the game is appropriately balanced around this, I see no issue with this that I didn't also have with the equally fake but weaker Peak cards.

[Pirates]

Originally Posted by Pointer1VB

You're not right... there's 4 Bob Gibson cards and two of them are rated 93 and 94. The highest Nikro or Sutton card is 91. There's also a 94 Carlton.

Also, Calton and Niekro both played 24 seasons and Niekro has higher WAR and the same ERA+... using the eye test to compare a knuckleballer and a fastball pitcher is a terrible scouting method.

There in lies the problem. The new statistics like WAR are garbage to me.
You know what these statistics don't show. When you needed a big win, Carleton and Gibson were money men.
When I grew up pitchers went at least 8 innings on a regular basis, those guys were players. Not one of today's pitchers could have made a roster as a starting Pitcher back then.

[CrazyWR]

lol not one? Okay sure

[mcdog512]

When I grew up I had to walk 10 miles in the snow uphill both ways to get to school.

I read "The Glory of Their Times" and the most of the deadball guys interviewed thought the players of the 50's and 60's couldn't hold a candle to their generation of players. People always believe the guys they grew up with were the greatest...

That said, Gibson was awesome.

[CrazyWR]

yea nobody is disputing Gibson was awesome, but just because the game has changed a bit doesn't mean today's players are awful or yesterday's players couldn't compete if they played today like Ottavino said in that interview. I think given the same time frame if you transported someone thru the eras they would have adapted if they were top quality.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

When I grew up I had to walk 10 miles in the snow uphill both ways to get to school.

I read "The Glory of Their Times" and the most of the deadball guys interviewed thought the players of the 50's and 60's couldn't hold a candle to their generation of players. People always believe the guys they grew up with were the greatest...

That said, Gibson was awesome.

The Onion had a fun spin on this a couple decades (19 years!) ago.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Pirates

Not one of today's pitchers could have made a roster as a starting Pitcher back then.

I was watching and playing baseball before you were born, and I throw kids off my lawn every morning for sport, and even I wouldn't say that.

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Pirates

There in lies the problem. The new statistics like WAR are garbage to me.
You know what these statistics don't show. When you needed a big win, Carleton and Gibson were money men.
When I grew up pitchers went at least 8 innings on a regular basis, those guys were players. Not one of today's pitchers could have made a roster as a starting Pitcher back then.

steve carlton's record in the playoffs: 6-6

50% of the time you're right every time

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by Pirates

Not one of today's pitchers could have made a roster as a starting Pitcher back then.

As mentioned by Orcin, I am about 20 years older than your mid 50 youth and disagree. Great players would likely be great in any era; spares would be spares. There is this thing called talent that transcends generations.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Pirates

There in lies the problem. The new statistics like WAR are garbage to me.
You know what these statistics don't show. When you needed a big win, Carleton and Gibson were money men.
When I grew up pitchers went at least 8 innings on a regular basis, those guys were players. Not one of today's pitchers could have made a roster as a starting Pitcher back then.

This is the kind of crap that makes us old people look not very smart. Open your mind to something new for a change.

You know what a pitcher can't do? Win a big game when his team scores zero runs. He also can't field all 9 positions on the field and make great defensive plays saving him runs.

Wins are a team stat, not an individual stat.

Was Jacob deGrom a mediocre pitcher last season with a 10-9 record?

All modern pitchers could pitch as much as older pitchers, but the difference now is that there are relief pitchers that are just as good as the starters if not better in short outings. So modern managers aren't dumb and instead pitch their best pitchers to win as many games as possible. That doesn't prove anything other than relief pitchers used to be terrible failed starting pitchers.