[Pelican]

I like the new ratings approach so far. It does tend to flatten things out in the middle, as IRL, true, and the 20-80 ratings scale makes that worse, particularly in increments of 5. All the guys in the middle look the same.

I play with the 1-100 scale, single digits, high scouting accuracy, which is more granular. Yeah, I fully realize and accept that no rating system could be that accurate. Those numbers are estimates, approximations. But those ratings are based on a 600 point scale, so you do get differences, and a valid basis for making distinctions between players. Sure, those differences may prove to be illusory. I still get plenty of good and bad surprises. What I can do is make informed choices on decent evaluations - as can the AI with opposing teams.

Fog of war? I don't understand the challenge. You're left with a bunch of seemingly random players, with no reliable information on which to base a draft, a free agent signing, trades, a roster, lineups. [Or, can you go outside OOTP and check their stats?] Only after they accumulate stats at the MLB level do you have some data. But without meaningful ratings, you could be seeing a hot streak by a bad player, or a cold streak by a good player. Where's the fun in that?

No judging. We play the way we want. Playing without meaningful information is a choice. Like all choices, with consequences. The result is ratings that are not reliable, not stable, just not helpful. That isn't a weakness of the game itself. It's a direct result of choosing to play in a certain way.