|
SittingDuck -> The value of stats, ratings and the hidden rating (7/31/2006 10:22:58 PM)
|
Today I was thinking that with so many historical pitchers being rated in the 8-9-10 range for stuff and control, stats become very vital feedback for discerning what the player's true 'hidden' rating really is and how much of a superstar he will be.
So I've tended to look at those ultra-high ratings for pitchers (and sluggers, too) as just saying they have star MLB talent. Then it is the hidden rating that takes them to the next notch over all the others who have those high visible ratings. And ratings like 5-7 indicate the guy has passable MLB talent, but not necessarily star talent.
This is how I rationalize it, whereas beforehand I felt that Mays and Aaron and a few others should be the only guys with 9-10 power. But if that were the case, then it would be easy to figure out who would be a star (ok, history tells us, but you understand what I am saying) and who would not. But that hidden rating must be the clincher - what separates star from wanna-be.
So ratings of 1-4 seem to me to be developing minors players or guys who just have very capped talent; 5-7 are like 2nd/3rd tier majors players, and 8-10 represent the true studs. Then it comes down to stats.
Now I have to share that I originally felt that most players would pretty much always mirror somewhat their historical statistics, given the playing time and such. But I just recently watched Frank Robinson in the 1966 season (Tripple Crown year!) with a horrid .221 average in the late summer and meager HR and RBI totals. The rest of the lineup was fairly solid, with Boog (who batted behind him) being the semi-nightmare he was then. So very interesting...
All in all, I love it.
|
|
|
|
