[SoxFan01605]

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

The problem with numerical ratings is that people get hung up on the numbers instead of how the player performs. Sure there were ratings bars before(and I could view the ratings in the editor, but I couldn't access that info in game) but the Overall was so ambiguous that it made it difficult to determine who was rated higher. This allows for a more realistic experience as a GM or coach. Girardi doesn't look down the bench and say, "hmmm I need a pinch hitter rated 80 or higher and he needs at least a 75 contact vs left and 85 power." Like was stated before, as well, ratings are based off a formula based on position and a combination of ratings spit out of a formula to give you a number. So I'll have to choose between my 98 pitcher or 99 pitcher..

Well, to be fair, the ratings are a representation of what Girardi does see when he looks down the bench. He has scouting data, experience, etc to rely on in making those calls. Ratings are simply a common, albeit weak, substitute for that data. But you're 100% right about getting hung up on ratings.

On a related note, you're also right that bars at least make it a bit more ambiguous, but the complexity of such managerial decisions is still severely hampered. It would be a dream to one day have NO static ratings information for the user AT ALL. Make users weigh between historical, situational, and current statistical performance along with whatever the user comfort level is with a player (you don't know how often I've gone to a journeyman player in a big spot simply because I suck for some reason with an all-star in-game).

Even for CAPs, use comparative skill (i.e. "Power in-line with Hamilton" or "Steals like Bourn") with an MLB player or create a minor league statistical history (which would also fill another wishlist item for us stat fiends-player history) and have the ratings be generated by the game in the background.

That would probably scare away a ton of players though...lol...but it's fun to dream.