 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by Trevytrev11 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is always a touchy subject, but some how the prior year has to have a large impact on the overall ratings, but not be the only contributor. I know historically 2K used a three year average, but because of this, there numbers are always a few years behind the players trend. Either players who had a great last season get brought too far down or players who had a great season two and three years ago get held too high up.
What do you do for a player in the middle of his career that had a great year following two mediocre ones? Do you give him the benefit of the doubt and think he has turned his career around or do you think it's the exception to his other seasons? What about a player with one bad year, maybe due to injuries.
I work in finance and we often use a lot of weighted trends always putting more emphasis on the most current trends, but also take into account what happened beyond that to a certain reasonable period. But what is that for baseball?
If 2K does use three year averages, how much weight to they give to that first year of the three. What if a player hits 20 HR's and then 38 and 42 the next two years. An average would project only 33, which would be a down year compared to the two. What happened three years ago in baseball almost seems to long ago to give considerable attention to.
A lot of credible sites put together projections for the upcoming year, which always seem to be much closer to realistic numbers for these guys than what 2K comes up with, so maybe they could just form some kind of a deal with these guys and apply 2K ratings to these projections or something.
The bottom line is no one can ever agree on ratings...every single player is going to be too high or too low. It's just with 2K, they are usually far beyond in each direction from what the average of consensus.
I say if they are going to take three years of history into consideration then do it so that much more ephasis is put on year three than on year one...say 10% year one, 30% year two and 60% year three or something like that.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
It's a good theory but, there's still a few major issues with it. How could you account for someone who spent half their season at AAA and then got called up at the trade deadline for a year then played the next two ?
How could you justify counting 2 previous years where a player was a 4th OF and finally got an opportunity to start and had an awesome year (Nate McClouth) ?
How would injuries effect the ratings when the injury sliders hardly work anyways (Jason Bay) ?
It seems like 2K sports does a 3 year plan for everyone regardless of all circumstances.