I have a slight problem with the new rating system, but overall I think its better.
Take a guy like MA Fleury and say he has a 50/50 chance of being a great goalie with a 9 rating, or a good goalie with an 8 rating. Now if his chances of being great compared to good are 50%, then shouldnt that make him a 9F. But with this system, a 9F would mean he could only reach half of his potential?
I think a good system would be were a player has 3 rating numbers. His "peak" number, his "probable" number, and his "low" number. Therefore I think a guy like Fleury could have a rating like 9.5-8.5-7.5. That way it would be like saying...he could be an elite HOFer, but most likely just a really good say top 5 guy in the league, and at the very least he would be just a good #1 guy who is maybe #15 in the NHL.
That way even a guy like Schremp could be a 9-7.5-3. Saying he has potential to be elite, but will most likely just be a good 2nd liner, or possibly not even an NHLer at all. Otherwise, under the new system, if he has a 9F rating, that means he is either going to be elite or a complete bust with no middle ground.
And then sure fire guys like Zherdev would be a 9-8.5-8. And lower end (but good) prospects like Colin Fraser could be a 6-5-5.
Am I making any sense or just making things more confusing?