|
<i>What I cann't help feeling is that some people are taking a piece of modern baseball theory and extrapolating it back into the past. "If I believe this works now it must have always worked.". These people may not care much if their assumption is correct, To those of us who really care passionately about accurately representing the stat ratios of earlier eras this kind iof attitude is really distressing. </i>
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that the stuff rating is based mostly on a comparison of the player's K/9 to the league's K/9 (as you have entered in the league setup). If that's the case, then the problem should not be anywhere as near as dire as you describe.
In terms of star ratings, my understanding is that it's based on standard deviations from the league average. So, even if you have greater convergence in K/9 rates, because the ratings are relative to the league average there should still be a proper distribution of talent.
Let's look at the player that you mentioned: Rommel averaged 2.11 K/9 over the course of his career (1920-32). During that time, the AL mean was 2.98 K/9, so he was 3.95 standard deviations below his peers.
If the game assigns Rommel a low rating for stuff, it's not because Rommel's K/9 rate doesn't compare well to the modern pitcher. Rommel, in this particular aspect, simply doesn't compare well to his peers and the game, appropriately in my opinion, diminishes his rating.
|