Reliever Ratings - 20/80 issues
 

Reliever 20/80 relative ratings are skewed too high. When I sort by OVR, I shouldn't be getting relievers at the top of my lists. I can't find any setting to fix this. Have I missed something?

Scouting Explained: The 20-80 Scouting Scale

Edit: I have "All player ratings are displayed relative to:" Major League. I also have "Overall ratings are based on all players" checked.

They are set to relative in 3 buckets. Hitters, starters, relievers. So each of those sections should be compared against themselves and not viewed on a whole.

Great post.

In my opinion, OOTP should adhere to the 20/80 rating scale and it's fundamental concepts. It's the one thing that OOTP should address if they want to take the game to the next level. It affects trading/drafting/scouting....

Relievers are the only place we "cheat" on that scale, mostly because adhering to the full scale would only give relievers half the usable range, and I think it would look weird to see the top relievers in the game still not be more than 3 or 3 1/2 stars. They are certainly valued less - an 80 reliever and an 80 SP are definitely not worth anywhere close to the same thing.

Imo i think it’s more confusing in its current form. I personally wouldn’t think a 3* RP is terrible especially if his scouting report mentioned that he’s a top tier RP. Seeing a 80 RP then trying to convert him to SP to only see his rating drastically drop is more alarming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To some people, seeing ANY player rated with 'stars" looks pretty weird.

When I see AAA teams filled with players rated 30-40; when I see a definite correlation between WAR and overall; I'll know OOTP understands baseball scouting and ratings.

In OOTP, a 60 means he's better than a 55 and not as good as a 65. In baseball, it means he might make the all-star team, is a great closer, or #3 starter. There are NO exceptions. They are directly tied to 'expected WAR'. It's been that way for a LONG time.

I haven't purchased 20 yet and this is the main reason. I've owned them all since version 4 and might purchase 20. If you are saying the relievers are the only 'outlier' and everything else is per Major League Baseball, I'll gladly purchase 20 and be happy with it. I seriously doubt that is the case and your comment about 'stars' reinforces my doubts.

If you think the GMs/scouts don't use charts almost identical to the one the OP posted, you would be sadly mistaken. Understand it and fix it, it will go a LONG way towards trading/drafting/scouting AI issues. Or you can just correlate 'stars' to a 20-80 scale and ignore MLB scouting standards.

Everyone is rated internally on the 20-80 scale, and if someone wants to use stars instead of 20-80 then we simply translate them between the two (ie. 78 and above is 5*, 72 and above is 4.5*, etc...). We have both available because people like options.

We do try to follow the MLB scale, although we can't follow it exactly mostly because we need a way to rate players whether they're MLB guys, AA guys, ***, CPBL, or playing in College or a fictional league on Endor. But as mentioned, other than relievers being overrated on overall, we do try to maintain as close as we can to the scouting scale.

Overall **value** should correlate to WAR if "overall ratings based on all players" is checked. As it is now, if I truly want a comparison of all players, I have to exclude relievers, generate a sorted list, refactor reliever ratings, then recombine the list,. Adjusting the reliever scale would fix that problem.

Also, as long as the ranking within relievers doesn't change, their relative value would remain internally consistent. Of course, if an OOTP players want top relievers to be 80 grade he can turn off "overall ratings based on all players" setting and get what he wants.

As for the compression of differences, the range of reliever values is compressed.

Top Reliever seasons since 2009
Worst Reliever seasons since 2009

Kiley's estimate should reach 65 (4 WAR) for top relievers. If you add that level to the reliever range, you'd still have an eight tier grouping for relievers. I suggest that's a sufficient differentiation of players. Again, if OOTP players want more, they can uncheck the setting or view the other pitcher ratings.

My $0.02. (Your exchange rate may vary.)

I don't mean to be contrarian or "hipster," but this whole discussion (which is great) is fuel for the argument to turn overall ratings off. If you evaluate players based on their individual ratings and not a convenient overall rating, you'll get a much clearer picture of the player's value and there's no way there can be confusion between a 5-star reliever and a 5-star shortstop.

Just my :2cents:

You know, it might be a great optional setting to put a reverse-handicap on relievers. Just make their overall/talents visualize as 75% the value when it's turned on. No need to change any internal ratings for how the AI values players.

i.e. with the change in visualization on, an 80 rated reliever shows up as 60.

I stopped using the stars about two years ago. For me, it is just more cool not having the stars, and playing without them adds a bit to the experience overall.

OVR is super useful when I'm evaluating my organisation because I can sort by it to quickly see the 20/25 potential players and weed them out if necessary, plus also quickly get a heuristic about the kinds of top potential players in my org. I do not want to have to manually go through every single player in the org and evaluate their ratings, that would take forever. It's a useful organisational tool to initally evaluate potentially good or bad players faster with a decent degree of confidence.

To each his own. I'm not saying one way is right or wrong. I just find in my experience that I know my players a lot better now than I did when I had overall ratings on. I keep copious notes and shortlists, so I haven't ever really needed to look at all the players in my organization at one time. But I can see how that's useful for what you're doing.

I agree there isn't any right way. We all play differently. One of OOTP's strengths is the ability to tweak settings. Having the option to have relievers (like every other position) fit within the overall value of all players would only make the game better.

BTW, at this point I actually hardly use OVR. As a new player, however, I found it useful. (I moved my league to OOTP this season.) The other guys in my league, who don't devote as much time to learning the game, use it quite often. As a matter of fact, one of their biggest complaints has been this issue.

OVR is great for sorting, scouts use a 20-80 OVR scale in real life. With that said I currently turn off OVR because of the RP problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is there any chance of implementing this, so that the reliever grades look much more in line with RL?


Edit: If you ask me, the way receivers are rated overall is extremely confusing. You will fin RP with good component ratings and good stats, who are some how rated less overall than other pitchers with worse individual tool ratings, and also performed worse on the stats line.

Bump

I have Current Overall and Current Potential off, I like to have the 20-80 ratings for different categories but not the Overall Number.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I guess I am dumb because I do not see the problem. Like someone mentioned above, I just separate into 3 groups when I looked at the overall value, batters, starters and relievers. I do not expect a 5 star reliever to have the same WAR value after 5 years as a 5 star starter.
I like the way OOTP does it know.

I agree with you completely