|
|
Post by Danny Glover on Oct 26, 2015 17:49:02 GMT -5
But.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Glover on Oct 26, 2015 17:49:14 GMT -5
In defense of the yes votes....
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Glover on Oct 26, 2015 18:02:18 GMT -5
I'm high and lost my thought
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Glover on Oct 26, 2015 18:07:30 GMT -5
if I have a guy that ha an average clutch I would love to be able to increase that to great
Or if I have a guy that is average consistency I would love to be able to increase it to good...
It's simple. Why was that so hard? Or am I still missing in the bullpen?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Oct 26, 2015 22:54:39 GMT -5
I wish shale would have explained what people were voting on better smfh. I explained in the 1st post what I was referring to. Nothing wrong on my part. Obviously, if I didn't include loyalty, winning desire and injury ratings, they were not a part of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Oct 26, 2015 22:58:58 GMT -5
I think we should also discuss the criteria for good consistency, clutch and team leader ranks would be. I for one believe that anyone that had a particularly successful career should have good consistency and if their career average with runners in scoring positions (or average against for pitchers), then they deserve the highest clutch rating.
Or if someone had a particularly clutch moment in history (ex. Fisk in 1975 World Series), they should get clutch just for that maybe. Or if they were someone like A-Rod and seemed to always strike out in the big moments, then they don't get as good of a clutch rating.
For team leadership, I think that the top players that were easy going (in other words, all the studs except those like Eddie Murray that completely despised the media or others like Manny Ramirez that brought personal sideshows with them) should get the top team leader ratings, as well as those that eventually became future major league managers.
Anyone else have thoughts on this? A legit criteria would be good to have. I've always thought that for the most part (with a few notable exceptions), Matt and Darryl have both done random consistency, clutch and team leader ratings for like 95% of each draft class without a large amount of thought put into it. But if I'm wrong about that, it would be good to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Oct 26, 2015 23:08:44 GMT -5
It is real that players develope these ratings over time.....but let's not get to REAL, right? So real only when it suits you. Got it. Fact is the guys who are known leaders already get that rating in draft classes as well as making sure top players get consistency. Very rare does a non leader just become one. Why was Don Baylor then created to be very inconsistent? He had a pretty solid career. Hit close to or over .300 a few seasons. That's not very inconsistent. That's at least an average consistency rating. And he also has a top clutch rating? That all makes no sense. That's another thing I don't understand. How are players very inconsistent and then all of a sudden amazing in clutch situations (aka players that have Very Inconsistent/GREAT combination). Except in very rare cases, that is not realistic at all for any player. Maris has this Very Inconsistent/GREAT combo and it's mind boggling that any player would get this particular combo for no particular reason except if it was done randomly, which most likely was the case. |
|
RoyalsGM
General Manager 
Kansas City Royals
Posts: 4,599 
|
Post by RoyalsGM on Oct 26, 2015 23:50:56 GMT -5
I voted yes, if we are going to artificially alter talent ratings based on some arbitrary reward system, why not the intangibles? The price should be equivalent to the value, but in general, go for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 30, 2015 21:31:00 GMT -5
Looks like this is a no go...for now. Let's revisit, with a more clearly-framed question next time lol
|
|
