Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
Well doing relative ratings is kind of stat based
Exactly, and part of my problem with it.
Well doing relative ratings is kind of stat based
No theyd all be compared to wbl players at their positionThe other thing is if I'm reading it right we'd see the ratings compared to other A ball players which NO ONE does in real life. You scout/rate players relative to MLB in real life.
I thought the ratings were across all positions. 50 is 50 regardless of where you play. Is a position is dry, a 50 across the board 3B could be 5 stars.
Is a position is dry then yes, but the ratings are in a vacuum, it actually can go above 80 up to 95 but we do not track stats over 80
I thought the ratings were across all positions. 50 is 50 regardless of where you play. Is a position is dry, a 50 across the board 3B could be 5 stars.
Here is how it breaks down from those 3 options in that pic I posted
1) This simply changes the way ratings are shown. It means if you have a 3B with 50 contact he is league average at contact among WBL 3B
2) This adds stats into the mix when scouts give us their ratings of a player. He over achieves for an extended period of time? Gets a bump.
3) This takes down the positional walls and means if you have a 50 rated contact guy, he is average across the whole league.
All ratings ARE relative to the WBL or you'd see guys ratings drop when they were promoted/demoted.
Right and i dont think it is but it doesnt say one way or the other so i cant be sure. Have to check the forums for that one. I just want you to know the ratings right now have nothing to do with the wblStat thing would be useless unless it's park adjusted.
Theyd be rating against the position they were listed at presumably. Unless they were listed as DH they wouldnt be graded against themHow would "ratings by position" affect situations of playing players out of position/DH?
They are only visually booosted though. The number value is the sameAnd by out of position, I mean more so changing a players actual position. If you have a 100 at CF, couldn't you in theory switch him over to LF (where in theory players are worse), and have his ratings boosted?
Yes, so youd have to do a little research before tradesAnd by out of position, I mean more so changing a players actual position. If you have a 100 at CF, couldn't you in theory switch him over to LF (where in theory players are worse), and have his ratings boosted?
Yeah this is a key thing to remember. Youre just dressing up a turd if you do that, its still a turdThey are only visually booosted though. The number value is the same
Can we do thatI want us to vote on comp picks. I think it's time to turn them on or at least give us the option of offering our FAs arbitration.
This is why i wanted to explain everything as thoroughly as i could80-20 ratings relative to position would be retarded. Relative to WBL I think would be ok.
It isnt based on averages at allYeah I understood it based on your screenshot. Basically I would be for keeping ratings and stars as they are, but using WBL averages as the baseline instead of mythical MLB averages
I know what you are saying, but it is by association kind of. The 250 ratings and how they translate to 80-20 were at some point based on what was considered average in MLB. It just makes more sense to base it on WBL.It isnt based on averages at all
I just cant help myselfStop trying to drive change OU
How did they determine where on the 0-250 scale the 80-20 ratings fell?Its never been based on mlb. Its based on the 0 to 250 in a vacuum.
How did they determine where on the 0-250 scale the 80-20 ratings fell?