100 rating vs. 99 Topic

kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure I saw on the forums a while back where billyg stated that in a convo with oldresorter, OR stated that he felt the difference between 100 and 99 was similar to the difference between 99 and 90. I think that's possibility considering how long it takes for a player to go from 99 to 100 and sometimes they stay at 99 for a whole season and you never get a max'd out email.

What are other's opinions? 
12/11/2010 6:06 PM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
I thnk you heard wrong
12/11/2010 6:11 PM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
I think you heard wrong mason - you making up stuff?
12/11/2010 6:35 PM
philjackson1
Posts: 15 (0)
Rookie
7
Prospect
I remember what mason was talking about...I'm not going to try to find it but I definitely remember that.

edit: This is tkimble btw.
12/11/2010 7:03 PM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
phil - u may remember something, but 100 is 1 better than 99, 99 is 9 better than 90, pretty sure of that one.  Now someone may have stated different, was not me, if it was, I will set the record straight here, 100 is 1 better than 99, 99 is 9 better than 90.  
12/11/2010 7:14 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by oldresorter on 12/11/2010 7:14:00 PM (view original):
phil - u may remember something, but 100 is 1 better than 99, 99 is 9 better than 90, pretty sure of that one.  Now someone may have stated different, was not me, if it was, I will set the record straight here, 100 is 1 better than 99, 99 is 9 better than 90.  
This is a pretty simplistic view. Even if you didn't make the statement you definitely know looking at it in that way isn't very accurate. It's the equivalent saying D- is 1/3 letter grade above F and A- is 1/3 letter grade better than B+ so therefore the difference between D- and F is the same as A- and B+ and I think everybody would be in agreement that that is not the case.
12/11/2010 7:24 PM
miz2
Posts: 34 (0)
Prospect
2
Prospect

... IQ and attributes don't scale the same way.... never have


 

12/11/2010 7:45 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by miz2 on 12/11/2010 7:45:00 PM (view original):

... IQ and attributes don't scale the same way.... never have


 

Doesn't really matter, the principle is the same.
12/11/2010 8:28 PM
jetwildcat
Posts: 1204 (0)
Hall of Famer
198 3
Prospect
Posted by kmasonbx on 12/11/2010 8:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by miz2 on 12/11/2010 7:45:00 PM (view original):

... IQ and attributes don't scale the same way.... never have


 

Doesn't really matter, the principle is the same.
not sure i follow you here, mace.

what's so unrealistic about the ratings being "simplistic"?

the added benefit of 100 vs 99 compared to 99 vs 98 comes from the notion that more players are 99 and under than 98 and under in any given rating. thus the extra practice needed has a redeeming aspect in that respect.
12/11/2010 8:55 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10043 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 292 18
Pro
A player with 100 in a category doesn't seem to perform appreciably differently than a player with a 99.  For example, Nathan Carroll had low- to mid-90s rebounding his sophomore year.  In the offseason he jumped up to 100, which he kept for his entire junior season.  In that off-season he dropped to 99 and never got the point back no matter how much practice I put into it.  He averaged significantly more rebounds both as a sophomore and as a senior than he did as a junior.  In general I can't tell much difference between what a guy with a 96 or 97 rating does from a guy at 100.  Over a sufficiently large sample size (I'm thinking at least 20-25 seasons) you could probably distinguish the stats of a guy with 99 in some category from a guy with 100 all else being equal, but it certainly doesn't look like a massive leap based on anything I've seen.
12/12/2010 2:37 AM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
kmason - i think you must be thinking of a hypothetical conversation. i vaguely remember the discussion but 90-99 being equal to 99-100 was definitely not a conclusion on how the real game worked.

in reality, the difference is probably pretty similar from 98 to 99 and 99 to 100. however, assuming some of the outcomes in the sim are based on "abilities" which appear to be products, not sums, of ratings, each additional point is probably slightly more valuable. but to me, that is the extent of the difference.
12/12/2010 2:43 PM (edited)
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
I was just curious because I remembered reading that and I've only had 2 or 3 guys that have ever been 100 in any category in all my seasons so I don't have much of a sample size for comparison. At the time I posted this my 100 rebounder seemed to be rebounding better than guys that were in the high 90s that I've had in the past. But lately there hasn't been much difference.
12/12/2010 2:58 PM
_hannibal_
Posts: 455 (0)
Veteran
23
Prospect
Posted by kmasonbx on 12/12/2010 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I was just curious because I remembered reading that and I've only had 2 or 3 guys that have ever been 100 in any category in all my seasons so I don't have much of a sample size for comparison. At the time I posted this my 100 rebounder seemed to be rebounding better than guys that were in the high 90s that I've had in the past. But lately there hasn't been much difference.
I think the way rebounds are distributed has changed recently greatly favoring centers.
12/13/2010 9:52 AM
100 rating vs. 99 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.