Improved "Hide Peak Ratings" option

[Technetium]

I use "Hide Peak Rating" because I want to try to evaluate a player's future worth as a combination of his present stats. I have found I can get a good idea of how a player will turn out by comparing his starting overall rating, his age, and his health rating. If a player gets drafted with an overall rating of 70, age 18, and health 80+, there's a very good chance that player is going to be a superstar. I don't need to see the peak rating to figure that out.

However, it's kind of silly to hide the peak rating when the player's randomized description will often say something like "...is on track to be an outstanding player with outstanding power and..." Generally any player predicted to become "outstanding" has a peak of 90+. You can get similar information through adjectives "excellent", "above average" etc...

My suggesting is that when you choose to hide peak ratings, the game should stop putting giveaways like that in the player descriptions.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I use "Hide Peak Rating" because I want to try to evaluate a player's future worth as a combination of his present stats. I have found I can get a good idea of how a player will turn out by comparing his starting overall rating, his age, and his health rating. If a player gets drafted with an overall rating of 70, age 18, and health 80+, there's a very good chance that player is going to be a superstar. I don't need to see the peak rating to figure that out. That is true,however (again this is a "pet peeve" of mine) no HSer SHOULD EVER have 70 as an overall when drafted!

IMO the highest EVER for a HSer draftee should be 59 & 90% should be in the 51-55 range (with College draftees being in the 59-63 range)


However, it's kind of silly to hide the peak rating when the player's randomized description will often say something like "...is on track to be an outstanding player with outstanding power and..." Generally any player predicted to become "outstanding" has a peak of 90+. You can get similar information through adjectives "excellent", "above average" etc... There is like IRL an over "hyping" of prospects which SHOULD NOT affect the results --- if you just look at either BA's or MILB top 100 you will see all these superlatives flying around about prospects (it is normal for them) but if you check back AFTER the season the so called super studs have been revised eg Lars Anderson comes to mind....:(


My suggesting is that when you choose to hide peak ratings, the game should stop putting giveaways like that in the player descriptions.

As said it is nt a give away but WHAT does need a re work is the WAY Scouting is rated for MILB & MLB..... in essence MLB needs to reduced in its divergence as MLB teams "know" 90% the value (ratings) of the LEAGUE's players. I have suggested in the past that A scouting has a variance of +/-1 whereas D has +/- 4 at Major league level.

It is at Minor level where the distinctions SHOULD really fluctuate as the players' involved are unfinished & thus may or may not develop the skill required (eg velocity or life for a pitcher - strike zone recognition for a batter for example....)


Thus I would say the variance at MILB level be much larger eg at A +/- 3 & D +/- 7.....

Finally I would add that development be LESS linear than at present - ie a player should go,for example over a course of his minor career ----- 55/86,then say 61/82, 63/87, 72/86 & possibly finally 78/93 (as if he found that missing 3 MPH on his fastball or extra life on his Curve)