I'm probably overthinking this, should probably do more of a traditional scale that's more easily understood, but I had an idea for a different kind of rating, one that takes into consideration more factors to give you a more accurate impression.
The scale would be based on 0, and would include 3 categories: value, hook, and versatility. Each category would have it's own rating, and then there would be a composite rating. A composite rating of 0 would mean you're getting exactly what you expected, a positive number would indicate a better than expected result, while a negative number would indicate a worse than expected result, and the key here is that it is relative to design intent.
Take a ball like the Code Red. I'd give it a 0 for value because I think you're getting exactly what you pay for with it, I'd give it a -1 for hook because it's not as aggressive as most other options at the price point, but I'd give it a +3 for versatility because it works on virtually everything, for an aggregate rating of +2 meaning that despite the cost, I think it's a good buy.
Next, take something like the Show Off. Value would be +2 because it's a ton of ball for the price point, Hook would be +3 for the same reason, and versatility would be a -3 because it needs a LOT of oil in the heads. It's good at what it does, but takes a big hit because it's kind of one note. Composite +2, because you're not going to get more ball for that price.
Next, we talk about the love of my life, the Hustle Ink. Value I would rate +3, what you get for the price just doesn't make sense. Hook I'd put at +1 because it does hook more than the price point would suggest, but it's not a monster, and Versatility I'd put at +3 because it's good from any angle on a lot of conditions in a lot of situations and looks good for every style of bowler, for a composite score of +7.
Then maybe we talk about the Timeless. I'd give it a -1 for value because it underperforms at that price. I'd also give it -1 for hook because at that price, it doesn't hook as much as you'd expect. For versatility I'd also give it a -1 because it's more of a niche ball, it kind of requires a certain circumstance or bowler style or condition for it to shine, total of -3.
Yeah it's all still subjective, but so is any rating system. I also don't really like the overall whatever out of 10 rating, because if I apply that scale to my 4 picks above, I'd put the Code Red at a 9, the Hustle Ink at a 10, the Timeless at a 7, and the Show Off a 9, but for me that maybe overestimates the Code Red a bit despite how good it is because of the price point, but I can't justify dropping it to an 8 or lower because it's better than that. That also way underestimates the Hustle Ink and rating that a "12 out of 10" is just stupid, just like people that give "110%." That doesn't math. Timeless fits about where I'd put it anyway, but I also don't like the Show Off rating because despite how much bang for your buck it is . . that's kind of just really what it is, it's a lot of hook for the price, doesn't really mean it's a good ball, but that's what the individualized ratings are for.
Or is that too complicated for people to get? Even if I explain all that every video, that's going to take up a lot of time, and how many are just going to fixate on the number and assume a traditional scale of 1-10 and say, "well he said it was a 2, so it must really be terrible." I don't like to cater to or allow for ignorance or stupidity, but ignoring it is unrealistic. I also realize that making something more specific also makes it more complicated, and while more information is good, if it's not simple enough to easily understand, you're kind of defeating the purpose. Please give thoughts, suggestions, maybe better or more relevant categories, possibly an additional category or two, or just say to scrap the whole thing. Thanks!
