Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️. -
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️.I think you got things mixed up. Following actual math is the opposite of tinfoil hat theories. They can market their new concept any way they want, that doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say. I could prove this too by just looking for a card who has 99 contact or higher but didn't actually hit .300 in that year.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️.I think you got things mixed up. Following actual math is the opposite of tinfoil hat theories. They can market their new concept any way they want, that doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say. I could prove this too by just looking for a card who has 99 contact or higher but didn't actually hit .300 in that year.
Then practice what you preach to others and do it. Future Stars don't count though 🤪
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️.I think you got things mixed up. Following actual math is the opposite of tinfoil hat theories. They can market their new concept any way they want, that doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say. I could prove this too by just looking for a card who has 99 contact or higher but didn't actually hit .300 in that year.
Then practice what you preach to others and do it. Future Stars don't count though 🤪
Okay. Josh Donaldson, 2015 MVP card. Didn't hit .300 average against either side (.296 and .299) per baseball-reference. Yet has 102 contact vs righties and 104 contact vs lefties.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=donaljo02&year=2015&t=b
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️.I think you got things mixed up. Following actual math is the opposite of tinfoil hat theories. They can market their new concept any way they want, that doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say. I could prove this too by just looking for a card who has 99 contact or higher but didn't actually hit .300 in that year.
Then practice what you preach to others and do it. Future Stars don't count though 🤪
Okay. Josh Donaldson, 2015 MVP card. Didn't hit .300 average against both sides (.296 and .299) per baseball-reference. Yet has 102 contact vs righties and 104 contact vs lefties.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=donaljo02&year=2015&t=b
There's one, we're on the way to many.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️.I think you got things mixed up. Following actual math is the opposite of tinfoil hat theories. They can market their new concept any way they want, that doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say. I could prove this too by just looking for a card who has 99 contact or higher but didn't actually hit .300 in that year.
Then practice what you preach to others and do it. Future Stars don't count though 🤪
Okay. Josh Donaldson, 2015 MVP card. Didn't hit .300 average against both sides (.296 and .299) per baseball-reference. Yet has 102 contact vs righties and 104 contact vs lefties.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=donaljo02&year=2015&t=b
There's one, we're on the way to many.
Stop, I provided what you asked for and therefore proved my point to be right and yours to be wrong. I'm not gonna invest more time into this, moving on.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
Next card I thought wouldn't meet that criteria, I looked it up just to see if I'm right (again) and what do you know...
David Ortiz 2005 Silver Slugger
.298 versus righties, 103 contact in the game. -
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
Next card I thought wouldn't meet that criteria, I looked it up just to see if I'm right (again) and what do you know...
David Ortiz 2005 Silver Slugger
.298 versus righties, 103 contact in the game.I didn't say it was a concrete .300 = 99 contact lol. Show me where a card that hit almost .300 has 79 contact like your OP stated. That was the point I addressed. They didn't scale back cards when 125 scale was introduced.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
Next card I thought wouldn't meet that criteria, I looked it up just to see if I'm right (again) and what do you know...
David Ortiz 2005 Silver Slugger
.298 versus righties, 103 contact in the game.I didn't say it was a concrete .300 = 99 contact lol. Show me where a card that hit almost .300 has 79 contact like your OP stated. That was the point I addressed. They didn't scale back cards when 125 scale was introduced.
I never said that either though, maybe you should read back my original post. I never even mentioned that .300 hitting until you came up with it. I just do the math from a 125 scale to 99 and back. You know math right? It's really easy. All you have to do is take the contact or power number, divide it by 125 and then multiply by 99.. and POOF... there's the number it would be on a 99 scale.
You're the one who said this logic doesn't apply because they said that 100 contact is given when a player bats .300 average. I debunked that with both Donaldson and Ortiz. So what exactly are you trying to tell me?
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
Next card I thought wouldn't meet that criteria, I looked it up just to see if I'm right (again) and what do you know...
David Ortiz 2005 Silver Slugger
.298 versus righties, 103 contact in the game.I didn't say it was a concrete .300 = 99 contact lol. Show me where a card that hit almost .300 has 79 contact like your OP stated. That was the point I addressed. They didn't scale back cards when 125 scale was introduced.
I never said that either though, maybe you should read back my original post. I never even mentioned that .300 hitting until you came up with it. I just do the math from a 125 scale to 99 and back. You know math right? It's really easy. All you have to do is take the contact or power number, divide it by 125 and then multiply by 99.. and POOF... there's the number it would be on a 99 scale.
You're the one who said this logic doesn't apply because they said that 100 contact is given when a player bats .300 average. I debunked that with both Donaldson and Ortiz. So what exactly are you trying to tell me?
That attributes aren't scaled back per the person in charge of actually doing the ratings of the game lol. Players weren't given less contact when they upped the scale to 125, cards that were at 99 contact already were bumped up if they were around or exceeded the old benchmark of .300
The benchmark on the 99 scale was .300. Now it's around .340. So a single season card that's around .300 average will be around 99 contact. Could they get a few points above or below that, sure. 99 isn't the hard cap anymore.
" 100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).". This is what you said and I understand the math concept you applied. However, that's not what they did. Let's look at an example:
In MLB The Show 17 Johnny Bench's 99 card is from 1970. He had 72 contact vs.
RHP and 97 vs LHP. The same card in MLB The Show 20 now has 89 contact vs RHP and 114 contact vs LHP. That's not a straight mathematical jump of his contact ratings from the 99 scale to the 125 scale.We can look at his power ratings too. His card in 17 had 94 power vs RHP. His card this year only has 100 vs RHP.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
Next card I thought wouldn't meet that criteria, I looked it up just to see if I'm right (again) and what do you know...
David Ortiz 2005 Silver Slugger
.298 versus righties, 103 contact in the game.I didn't say it was a concrete .300 = 99 contact lol. Show me where a card that hit almost .300 has 79 contact like your OP stated. That was the point I addressed. They didn't scale back cards when 125 scale was introduced.
I never said that either though, maybe you should read back my original post. I never even mentioned that .300 hitting until you came up with it. I just do the math from a 125 scale to 99 and back. You know math right? It's really easy. All you have to do is take the contact or power number, divide it by 125 and then multiply by 99.. and POOF... there's the number it would be on a 99 scale.
You're the one who said this logic doesn't apply because they said that 100 contact is given when a player bats .300 average. I debunked that with both Donaldson and Ortiz. So what exactly are you trying to tell me?
That attributes aren't scaled back per the person in charge of actually doing the ratings of the game lol. Players weren't given less contact when they upped the scale to 125, cards that were at 99 contact already were bumped up if they were around or exceeded the old benchmark of .300
The benchmark on the 99 scale was .300. Now it's around .340. So a single season card that's around .300 average will be around 99 contact. Could they get a few points above or below that, sure. 99 isn't the hard cap anymore.
" 100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).". This is what you said and I understand the math concept you applied. However, that's not what they did. Let's look at an example:
In MLB The Show 17 Johnny Bench's 99 card is from 1970. He had 72 contact vs.
RHP and 97 vs LHP. The same card in MLB The Show 20 now has 89 contact vs RHP and 114 contact vs LHP. That's not a straight mathematical jump of his contact ratings from the 99 scale to the 125 scale.We can look at his power ratings too. His card in 17 had 94 power vs RHP. His card this year only has 100 vs RHP.
To be honest, I don't even really care how they came or come to the numbers they use. I see the attributes on cards today on the 125 scale and I just don't see the added value of the higher scale. A lot of cards are rated too low (and some too high as well) and like I said earlier, the 120+ guys don't even jump out that much. That's why I said it feels like a placebo to me and I would prefer them to go back to the 99 scale. Remember when Corey Seager Live Series card was an end game card in 17? That's what I miss most of all and that sentiment I what I tried to show.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
Next card I thought wouldn't meet that criteria, I looked it up just to see if I'm right (again) and what do you know...
David Ortiz 2005 Silver Slugger
.298 versus righties, 103 contact in the game.I didn't say it was a concrete .300 = 99 contact lol. Show me where a card that hit almost .300 has 79 contact like your OP stated. That was the point I addressed. They didn't scale back cards when 125 scale was introduced.
I never said that either though, maybe you should read back my original post. I never even mentioned that .300 hitting until you came up with it. I just do the math from a 125 scale to 99 and back. You know math right? It's really easy. All you have to do is take the contact or power number, divide it by 125 and then multiply by 99.. and POOF... there's the number it would be on a 99 scale.
You're the one who said this logic doesn't apply because they said that 100 contact is given when a player bats .300 average. I debunked that with both Donaldson and Ortiz. So what exactly are you trying to tell me?
That attributes aren't scaled back per the person in charge of actually doing the ratings of the game lol. Players weren't given less contact when they upped the scale to 125, cards that were at 99 contact already were bumped up if they were around or exceeded the old benchmark of .300
The benchmark on the 99 scale was .300. Now it's around .340. So a single season card that's around .300 average will be around 99 contact. Could they get a few points above or below that, sure. 99 isn't the hard cap anymore.
" 100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).". This is what you said and I understand the math concept you applied. However, that's not what they did. Let's look at an example:
In MLB The Show 17 Johnny Bench's 99 card is from 1970. He had 72 contact vs.
RHP and 97 vs LHP. The same card in MLB The Show 20 now has 89 contact vs RHP and 114 contact vs LHP. That's not a straight mathematical jump of his contact ratings from the 99 scale to the 125 scale.We can look at his power ratings too. His card in 17 had 94 power vs RHP. His card this year only has 100 vs RHP.
To be honest, I don't even really care how they came or come to the numbers they use. I see the attributes on cards today on the 125 scale and I just don't see the added value of the higher scale. A lot of cards are rated too low (and some too high as well) and like I said earlier, the 120+ guys don't even jump out that much. That's why I said it feels like a placebo to me and I would prefer them to go back to the 99 scale. Remember when Corey Seager Live Series card was an end game card in 17? That's what I miss most of all and that sentiment I what I tried to show.
I get that, but I think from an SDS profit standpoint if you can get an endgame live series SS at the beginning of the game spending money on stubs and packs is less likely. Generally speaking ultimate team modes aren't about current players. Live series cards are really just vehicles to bigger and better things. I am glad to have more flashbacks for current players.
To their credit with expanding content the way they've done they've also supplemented stubs well.
I think they need to expand game modes for h2h. Create reasons to hold onto lesser cards besides just collections. There are possibilities there, who knows what the future holds.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
Next card I thought wouldn't meet that criteria, I looked it up just to see if I'm right (again) and what do you know...
David Ortiz 2005 Silver Slugger
.298 versus righties, 103 contact in the game.I didn't say it was a concrete .300 = 99 contact lol. Show me where a card that hit almost .300 has 79 contact like your OP stated. That was the point I addressed. They didn't scale back cards when 125 scale was introduced.
I never said that either though, maybe you should read back my original post. I never even mentioned that .300 hitting until you came up with it. I just do the math from a 125 scale to 99 and back. You know math right? It's really easy. All you have to do is take the contact or power number, divide it by 125 and then multiply by 99.. and POOF... there's the number it would be on a 99 scale.
You're the one who said this logic doesn't apply because they said that 100 contact is given when a player bats .300 average. I debunked that with both Donaldson and Ortiz. So what exactly are you trying to tell me?
That attributes aren't scaled back per the person in charge of actually doing the ratings of the game lol. Players weren't given less contact when they upped the scale to 125, cards that were at 99 contact already were bumped up if they were around or exceeded the old benchmark of .300
The benchmark on the 99 scale was .300. Now it's around .340. So a single season card that's around .300 average will be around 99 contact. Could they get a few points above or below that, sure. 99 isn't the hard cap anymore.
" 100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).". This is what you said and I understand the math concept you applied. However, that's not what they did. Let's look at an example:
In MLB The Show 17 Johnny Bench's 99 card is from 1970. He had 72 contact vs.
RHP and 97 vs LHP. The same card in MLB The Show 20 now has 89 contact vs RHP and 114 contact vs LHP. That's not a straight mathematical jump of his contact ratings from the 99 scale to the 125 scale.We can look at his power ratings too. His card in 17 had 94 power vs RHP. His card this year only has 100 vs RHP.
To be honest, I don't even really care how they came or come to the numbers they use. I see the attributes on cards today on the 125 scale and I just don't see the added value of the higher scale. A lot of cards are rated too low (and some too high as well) and like I said earlier, the 120+ guys don't even jump out that much. That's why I said it feels like a placebo to me and I would prefer them to go back to the 99 scale. Remember when Corey Seager Live Series card was an end game card in 17? That's what I miss most of all and that sentiment I what I tried to show.
I get that, but I think from an SDS profit standpoint if you can get an endgame live series SS at the beginning of the game spending money on stubs and packs is less likely. Generally speaking ultimate team modes aren't about current players. Live series cards are really just vehicles to bigger and better things. I am glad to have more flashbacks for current players.
To their credit with expanding content the way they've done they've also supplemented stubs well.
I think they need to expand game modes for h2h. Create reasons to hold onto lesser cards besides just collections. There are possibilities there, who knows what the future holds.
Fair points, although making stubs has never been easier. I think people spent more real money back then than they do now.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
Next card I thought wouldn't meet that criteria, I looked it up just to see if I'm right (again) and what do you know...
David Ortiz 2005 Silver Slugger
.298 versus righties, 103 contact in the game.I didn't say it was a concrete .300 = 99 contact lol. Show me where a card that hit almost .300 has 79 contact like your OP stated. That was the point I addressed. They didn't scale back cards when 125 scale was introduced.
I never said that either though, maybe you should read back my original post. I never even mentioned that .300 hitting until you came up with it. I just do the math from a 125 scale to 99 and back. You know math right? It's really easy. All you have to do is take the contact or power number, divide it by 125 and then multiply by 99.. and POOF... there's the number it would be on a 99 scale.
You're the one who said this logic doesn't apply because they said that 100 contact is given when a player bats .300 average. I debunked that with both Donaldson and Ortiz. So what exactly are you trying to tell me?
That attributes aren't scaled back per the person in charge of actually doing the ratings of the game lol. Players weren't given less contact when they upped the scale to 125, cards that were at 99 contact already were bumped up if they were around or exceeded the old benchmark of .300
The benchmark on the 99 scale was .300. Now it's around .340. So a single season card that's around .300 average will be around 99 contact. Could they get a few points above or below that, sure. 99 isn't the hard cap anymore.
" 100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).". This is what you said and I understand the math concept you applied. However, that's not what they did. Let's look at an example:
In MLB The Show 17 Johnny Bench's 99 card is from 1970. He had 72 contact vs.
RHP and 97 vs LHP. The same card in MLB The Show 20 now has 89 contact vs RHP and 114 contact vs LHP. That's not a straight mathematical jump of his contact ratings from the 99 scale to the 125 scale.We can look at his power ratings too. His card in 17 had 94 power vs RHP. His card this year only has 100 vs RHP.
To be honest, I don't even really care how they came or come to the numbers they use. I see the attributes on cards today on the 125 scale and I just don't see the added value of the higher scale. A lot of cards are rated too low (and some too high as well) and like I said earlier, the 120+ guys don't even jump out that much. That's why I said it feels like a placebo to me and I would prefer them to go back to the 99 scale. Remember when Corey Seager Live Series card was an end game card in 17? That's what I miss most of all and that sentiment I what I tried to show.
I get that, but I think from an SDS profit standpoint if you can get an endgame live series SS at the beginning of the game spending money on stubs and packs is less likely. Generally speaking ultimate team modes aren't about current players. Live series cards are really just vehicles to bigger and better things. I am glad to have more flashbacks for current players.
To their credit with expanding content the way they've done they've also supplemented stubs well.
I think they need to expand game modes for h2h. Create reasons to hold onto lesser cards besides just collections. There are possibilities there, who knows what the future holds.
Fair points, although making stubs has never been easier. I think people spent more real money back then than they do now.
True, but I think time becomes a factor for people. When you can pump out more content quickly a lot of casual gamers aren't looking to play the market or obtain rewards through BR or events they become more inclined to buy stubs.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
You said many, one and many are two very different concepts.
Sigh. If I can prove 1 case, which I did, everything else goes out the window automatically. In such an equation 1 or 100 doesn't make any difference. But by all means go look for some cards and look it up yourself as I'm sure there are more, knock yourself out. I'm not gonna be bothered though.
No no, I won't be doing your work for you.
Well, I did exactly what you asked.
Yes, you found one. That doesn't equate to many though. You're also latching onto the wrong part of my original post. My point was that cards weren't scaled. So 99 contact on the 99 scale wouldn't be reduced to 79 like the example you posted.
Your one example is far from egregious.
Next card I thought wouldn't meet that criteria, I looked it up just to see if I'm right (again) and what do you know...
David Ortiz 2005 Silver Slugger
.298 versus righties, 103 contact in the game.I didn't say it was a concrete .300 = 99 contact lol. Show me where a card that hit almost .300 has 79 contact like your OP stated. That was the point I addressed. They didn't scale back cards when 125 scale was introduced.
I never said that either though, maybe you should read back my original post. I never even mentioned that .300 hitting until you came up with it. I just do the math from a 125 scale to 99 and back. You know math right? It's really easy. All you have to do is take the contact or power number, divide it by 125 and then multiply by 99.. and POOF... there's the number it would be on a 99 scale.
You're the one who said this logic doesn't apply because they said that 100 contact is given when a player bats .300 average. I debunked that with both Donaldson and Ortiz. So what exactly are you trying to tell me?
That attributes aren't scaled back per the person in charge of actually doing the ratings of the game lol. Players weren't given less contact when they upped the scale to 125, cards that were at 99 contact already were bumped up if they were around or exceeded the old benchmark of .300
The benchmark on the 99 scale was .300. Now it's around .340. So a single season card that's around .300 average will be around 99 contact. Could they get a few points above or below that, sure. 99 isn't the hard cap anymore.
" 100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).". This is what you said and I understand the math concept you applied. However, that's not what they did. Let's look at an example:
In MLB The Show 17 Johnny Bench's 99 card is from 1970. He had 72 contact vs.
RHP and 97 vs LHP. The same card in MLB The Show 20 now has 89 contact vs RHP and 114 contact vs LHP. That's not a straight mathematical jump of his contact ratings from the 99 scale to the 125 scale.We can look at his power ratings too. His card in 17 had 94 power vs RHP. His card this year only has 100 vs RHP.
To be honest, I don't even really care how they came or come to the numbers they use. I see the attributes on cards today on the 125 scale and I just don't see the added value of the higher scale. A lot of cards are rated too low (and some too high as well) and like I said earlier, the 120+ guys don't even jump out that much. That's why I said it feels like a placebo to me and I would prefer them to go back to the 99 scale. Remember when Corey Seager Live Series card was an end game card in 17? That's what I miss most of all and that sentiment I what I tried to show.
I get that, but I think from an SDS profit standpoint if you can get an endgame live series SS at the beginning of the game spending money on stubs and packs is less likely. Generally speaking ultimate team modes aren't about current players. Live series cards are really just vehicles to bigger and better things. I am glad to have more flashbacks for current players.
To their credit with expanding content the way they've done they've also supplemented stubs well.
I think they need to expand game modes for h2h. Create reasons to hold onto lesser cards besides just collections. There are possibilities there, who knows what the future holds.
Fair points, although making stubs has never been easier. I think people spent more real money back then than they do now.
True, but I think time becomes a factor for people. When you can pump out more content quickly a lot of casual gamers aren't looking to play the market or obtain rewards through BR or events they become more inclined to buy stubs.
That's where RNG or whatever you want to call it kicks in. The casual wants to win and are thrown a bone like a perfect release floating over the middle. This reward with 90-95 players makes them think that they could do even better with 98-99's so they buy their stubs to get these players and are still not any better than they were. Its the perfect business plan.
