Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kq76
It's still screwed up.
Endurance: With OOTP2006 a player like Pedro Martinez in his prime would have relatively low overall / potential ratings just because his endurance was low for a starter when in reality he was the best pitcher by far during that stretch of his career and anybody would be an idiot for not ranking him a great pitcher back then. As long as you can start, good. Of course, the more endurance the better, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as it does in OOTP. Who would you want, an innings eater who is about average or a pitcher who is awesome but barely gives you 5 innings a start? For me it is not at all a close decision (I'd of course take the Pedro-like player every time), but it's a close decision going by OOTP2006's ratings.
Role: I still strongly disagree that just changing one's role should give a pitcher a huge boost in overall / potential ratings. That deceives people into believing a reliever is better than he really is. There's a good reason why he's a reliever and not given more innings: he's not that good. Someone shouldn't be able to trick another person into thinking a player is better than he is just by switching his role.
GB%: It still has the opposite affect of in real life and has no affect on HRA. To be fair, I seem to recall this being worse when I first looked at it, but it's still not right.
|
Yea, IMO, like most problems in regards to pitchers in this game it comes down to the need to eliminate the "relief pitcher" and make it so that 95% of all pitchers created have the endurance to be able to start. Starters become starters because they are the better pitchers, not because they have more endurance...although endurance should effect whether a pitcher can regularly go 5-6 innings or 7-8 innings. However, that endurance rating should have a minimal effect on the overall rating of the pitcher because if they aren't very good they aren't going to be around for those later innings anyway.