Quote:
Originally Posted by Syd Thrift
I will go so far as to say that while they still aren't perfect I think Wolf's ratings (especially 0/67/22/11) are the best way to go for historical and historical/fictional leagues. The problem with using the defaults is that not only will the game base things on ratings, it'll do so from the standpoint of a modern day manager/GM. That in turn means that it'll do stuff like grossly overrate power in the deadball era, starting a .230 hitter full time because he has the awesome power to hit double digit homeruns. Or else it'll live with a really awful 3rd baseman for way, way too long (we're talking sub-.800 fielding average bad) because a. 3rd base isn't nearly as much of a fielding-central position as it was back then and b. avoiding errors isn't nearly as big of a deal now as it was then as well.
Even with a 0 assigned to ratings the game will still grade players based on ratings if there's nothing else out there for it to base things on. If you make a superstar player from scratch and place them on a team, that team will likely immediately start them and bat them in the heart of the order. There also appears to be a sliding scale for this, so that guys who go 0-5 in their first professional game won't suddenly be relegated to the bench or anything. So... 0% isn't really 0%.
|
How about for a standard MLB league, do you think the ratings (10/60/20/10) are still suitable?