|
The real issue is how to balance actual performance vs. perceived talent. It is important to do this because obviously you want to judge players by how they actually perform...that's a given. It's also very important because percieved talent DOES have a place in OOTP. It helps as a guideline for fair contract values, trades, and expectation.
After a lot of experimenting, it seems to me (and this may be unfortunate) anything with ratings under 50 creates some very odd results when it comes to lineup/rotation selection, as well as salary demands.
The idea is to find that sweet spot, where perception and expectation are present, but not on such a level where it ignores performance. I used to think last year's stats were a somewhat important part of the evaluation equation. That is utter rubbish. I have learned that current year's stats are the primary driver in creating a realistic experience.
What I have learned:
1 Ratings need to be at 50 or higher.
2 Current years stats needs to be substantially higher than last year and two years ago.
3. With the latest updates, normal scouting accuracy is very good, and presents a good fog of war challenge.
4. The trade AI is also very good now on average. The development teams has been fine tuning some things. I do feel you need a healthy perception/expectation part of the evaluation.
So,
Ratings (50) = Expectation/perception
Current Year (30) = performance which keeps players who are playing better higher up in the lineup and rotation.
Last Year (15) = a back up measure to reaffirm (or not) ability and performance, but not to an extent where the results will be too screwy. Think of this as a "tie breaker"
2 Years ago (2) = almost nothing. It is only here to throw a bone to players who have had a statistical anomaly one year, or for players who have either progressed or regressed since then.
|