if you have relative turned on, then 50% of your scale is likely 'average' for that league, if i understand how it works, correctly.
when they are above average for that league, they are probably approaching average for the next step up right?
so, it comes down to opinion on whether you fast-track, let them simmer alot, or somewhere in between.
i've never used the setting, i prefer that the ratings always mean the same thing to me... i dont' have to guess if the league is "better" than average and making the player look worse than they really are -- high levels of talent will make an 'average' player be rated lower than average relative to the gluttony of talent in that league.
some people swear by it, but it empirically makes it more difficult to know what you have... the player is less accurately defined... you need to apply some subjective evaluations by eye of the league's talent and how it is different from any other year to understand what a 50/100 means in any given year, lol.
if you have a very small scale, it becomes less silly. some scales are so small that it's difficult to differentiate player at lower levels... 20-80 or 100pt scale is plenty to see, though... 0-5 or 1-10 may benefit from a relative scale, i am not sure... but leaving the door open.
(you can guess i don't like relative scale nor relative to position
- same reasoning)