So does that mean you don't even attempt to rate players who aren't consistent at all?
I think you are using a narrow conception of consistency. There is consistency throughout a season, but there is also consistency throughout a career.
Mortimer's had half a rookie season and then his second season. Given the difference in quality between the two seasons I think it's premature to judge him.
How does Mateo get a 4 then?
Because he's been playing first grade since 2007. In 2008 he was massive - one of the best players in the world. Since his best season is a 5, and his worst is a 3, I give him a 4. If he was 30+ I'd say he's on the decline and give him a lower score but next year he's as likely to be a superstar as he is to be 'only' above average.
Hindmarsh is far more valuable to a team doing what he has done over the past few years then if he stayed out on the left near the wing and ran into a hole once a game like a Ben Creagh or Mitch Aubusson.
I agree.
But Hindy is also a long way from the midfield monster of '04-'07 who ran for 120 metres a game while also making 40 tackles, saving 3 tries and putting on a series of massive hits.
You rated Tahu above Hindmarsh... no, no, wrong, bad.
Like I said, I'm rating Tahu on ability, not on form. I believe Tahu will show more quality than Hindy next year, as he did this year in patches.