Rating System Preference? Stars or Values (20-80)?
 

I tried searching the Forums for this question as I presume it has been discussed dozens of times over the years. But I could not find any results specific to this question. So I apologize ahead of time if I missed the thread.

I have been using the Stars system recently but it seems the Values system gives you a bit more precision. As such, I'm curious what your preference is?

Thank you in advance!

Used to be 1-100 but been a 20-80 guy show no max for about 3 years and love it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a strong preference the 20-80 scale as I feel it lines up with Frangraph's FV rating without fangraph's baked in proximity ratings a lot more when evaluating players .

(For reference: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-new-...outing-primer/)

It's been a little wonky this season. With the new ratings on a scale of 1-550, players who were in that bench / platoon situation now are shuttle bus guys, and 50 (which is supposed to be your average every day player) feels more like a bench or platoon guy. Take it with a grain of salt. That's more feel than data though.

20/80 by 5's, and it's not even close.

IIRC stars were not even coded into the total rewrite of the game for 2006(?). Users complained and they returned, still, IMHO, as useless as they were before they left. :D
Please take that as lighthearted and not an insult to anyone that likes the stars.
If you like the stars then more power to you, it's your game, enjoy it however you want :thumbup1:

20/80 like the pros.

The one thing I would prefer would be that there would be no grade above 80. I would prefer the top rating in the game to get 80 and everything worse than that get 75 and less.

For instance, there would only be one 80 grade fastball in league at any given time. Or changeup. Or speed. Or power, etc.

Neither.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you one of those no ratings guys? I've been wanting to try it, but there is no consistency between performance in HS / College and MiLB so its really hard to actually evaluate players.

Yes. I’ll admit I turn potential ratings on (20-80 scale) for the draft, but other than that, ratings are off. I don’t find any issues evaluating minor leaguers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The way people talk I'm sometimes convinced that "Prefer Ability" scouts are basically just rating stats. I too would like to play without them but it would be crazy.

This is the most accurate season I've played in small testing. When I compared WAR to player rating, for batters, every single player above 2.5 WAR was 55+ There's never been any inflation of talent in my first 2 leagues, even the draft ratings have stayed low. My only point being, playing wtihout ratings might be doable.

That makes sense. I mostly struggle evaluating in Rookie Ball where the season length is so short you don't get a usable sample size. I don't see much of a way to avoid turning on potential at the draft otherwise its just a total crapshoot,

You're right, IDK how to get around that. Scouting Director advice is so, so not the way to go. You don't want to obsess over ratings, but scouts and teams rate players, that part exists in MLB.

20-80 or 2-8…I’ve used both.

Ratings off except defense and speed
Potentials on
Overall rating and potential ratings off

The truth is that there is a very strong correlation between HS / College and potential. It's just that there's very little correlation between potential and early MiLB success.

1,000 percent what Sweed said


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk