![]() In this system a player who would’ve previously gotten a 6, now gets a 2.9, and a player who would’ve gotten a 7.5 now gets a 7.4. Imagine if 5 was the default instead of 6.7 and we simply triple the variance. Now clearly that’s not true, but what’s the point in having a 10 point system when you condense 90% of match ratings into a 1.5 point window? My left back whose out of his depth playing at FBd will end the season 6% worse than the leagues best player. A bad player will end the season around a 6.5-6.6, whereas good players will end up in the 7.2+ range. ![]() It also has the problem of average ratings over the course of a season. On a 1-10 scale that means the difference between conceding a goal and scoring one is 1 letter grade, B->C and B->A respectively. A player who committed an error that led to a goal and your striker with 1 goal in the game may are probably within 1 point of each other (6.2/3-7.2-3). The narrow ratings don’t really make sense, and don’t display intuitively on a 1-10 scale. While you’re not wrong, that isn’t really an answer to the question. The local players usually get in the expected range, 6.5-7.3 as you say, but the (good) expensive imported players can get a lot of 8s, 9s and 10s over a season. You see it quite often in the Chinese Super League. ![]() You could easily get a very low average rating with a terrible defender/goalie in a top league, likewise you could easily get a very high average with a great player in a poor league. If you want to see more extreme ratings then play a player that has no business being in that league. If they're not good enough then they won't play, if they're too good then they'll be getting a transfer to a better league pretty quick. Players aren't often way above or below the average. It's still easy to spot a good, bad or average game.Īnd the narrow ratings make sense when you consider average level in a league is usually pretty similar.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |