Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican
I try to stay far away from discussions on standard deviation, due to memories of math teachers past. I play with ratings from 1-100, because that makes sense to me. What does not make sense is the possibility of a rating above 100. For one thing, you can't (presumably) have ratings under 1, to balance that out. Second, I understood the whole point of a scale, whether 1-100 or the archaic 20-80, to be that all data points would fall somewhere on that scale, distributed (grrrr) according to some formula. So, of course I turn off ratings over 100; but then it bugs me that they are still out there, and some of the guys rated 100 are actually better than others, and wouldn't I want to know that? Math guys, explain please!
|
The 1-100 ratings are not I don't believe divvied up by standard deviations; that is reserved for 20-80. The game just "knows" what a 50 equivalent rating is, or else it figures it out by looking at the league (I don't know the answer here) and then it "knows" how many points on the 1-550 scale you have to go up to go up a point on 1-100. When the scale was 1-250 ratings over 200 were considered every rare and "over 100" if you will but were necessary to account for generational players like Barry Bonds and 1-550 has the same super-high level that few if any players hit.
Also of course if you're playing in an international or minor league, the average player rating is going to be lower and that means that that a player might not even need to inhabit one of those once-in-a-generation ratings levels to be over 100.
If the game just gave you the actual rating divided by 5.5 you'd see:
- basically nobody with low or even below-50 ratings in the major leagues or even AAA
- Nobody with a 100, ever
- Very few people with ratings over 80 or so