Curious as to how people deal with some different issues when ranking/rating players.
First, Dur/Sta - I think you can deal with this on a straight line scale to a point. For example, let's say you make it 5-10% of total rating for regulars and more for pitchers. But it doesn't work well once you get below a certain point - and what is that point. It seems having a STA of under 10 is nearly worthless (so even if he is 100-5, that is much worse than a 50-55 guy or even a 5 - 100 guy, who is worse than the 50-55 guy). Instead, I guess you could use the rating as a % percentage of their total rating (lets say guy two guys have "skills" of 100, with player one have a 100 DUR and player 2 having 75, Then they get a rating of 100 (100 *100%) and 75). I've tried giving penalties for low ratings, but this makes for arbitrary breaking points.
Second - very low and very high skill ratings. I'm not sure that the ratings work in a linear fashion. Take Power. A guy with 100 power is hitting way more than twice as many HR as a guy with 50 power (other skills being the same). So how do you account for this. Is there a nonlinear formula that gives a larger factor the farther from 50 you go (positive or negative)? Maybe every point added is worth 1-5% more (or less) than the last point added (would this be rating = (skill-50)*1.01^(skill-50). That would not be the right calc, but I hope you get the point.
Just interested how people handle this and am trying to start a fun discussion.