OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

c-man · 12-14-2001, 03:46 PM

I also agree that some sort of ratings should stay in place. when you think of the ratings as a subjective scouting report and not objective performance guides, it makes a lot of sense. Real players are constantly scouted in the minors and the majors.

However one alternative is that all the types/names of ratings could change to "control, velocity, mechanics, breaking pitches,etc" for pitchers. and "bat speed, power, contact hitting, eye, swing, mechanics, etc" to reflect how scouts look at players(i think). i saw where ootp4 will incorporate some of these ratings, but maybe that could be the primary rating system? then we would slowly have to learn these ratings translate to as far as performance goes. some would be easy (control=walks) some would be more difficult (multiple combinations of the pitching ratings could = numbers of doubles given up) great control and a great breaking pitch could make for a great pitcher regardless of velocity and mechanics,etc. as it is now, ootp's "scouts" do that translation work for us, from raw qualities of players to what that probably means statistically.

here's an example from real life--(sorry--this is fun and interesting to think about)--i remember a scout looking at a pitcher friend of mine in high school and expressing concern that he showed too much emotion on the mound, and he analyzed his arm and wind-up mechanics, and the movement on his breaking ball. Those things were more important than his stats...(he had a 0.50 ERA and a jillion K's and didnt get drafted--small high school)

Another friend of mine was drafted because he went to a walk-on tryout, threw in front of a scout and the scout liked his breaking ball. he never even faced a batter for this guy. Undoubtedly the scout could tell he wasnt gonna be a superstar, but he threw a couple of nice pitches and he gave him a shot, thinking just maybe if the planets aligned, he could develop more speed on his fastball and contribute. it didnt amount to much, he was done 2 months later. the key is, the scout didnt say "i think he's going to have a below average ability to prevent doubles"

I think the game works well as is, i love it, but this could also be an interesting way to think about scouting/ratings.

12-14-2001, 03:46 PM	#46
c-man Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 130	I also agree that some sort of ratings should stay in place. when you think of the ratings as a subjective scouting report and not objective performance guides, it makes a lot of sense. Real players are constantly scouted in the minors and the majors. However one alternative is that all the types/names of ratings could change to "control, velocity, mechanics, breaking pitches,etc" for pitchers. and "bat speed, power, contact hitting, eye, swing, mechanics, etc" to reflect how scouts look at players(i think). i saw where ootp4 will incorporate some of these ratings, but maybe that could be the primary rating system? then we would slowly have to learn these ratings translate to as far as performance goes. some would be easy (control=walks) some would be more difficult (multiple combinations of the pitching ratings could = numbers of doubles given up) great control and a great breaking pitch could make for a great pitcher regardless of velocity and mechanics,etc. as it is now, ootp's "scouts" do that translation work for us, from raw qualities of players to what that probably means statistically. here's an example from real life--(sorry--this is fun and interesting to think about)--i remember a scout looking at a pitcher friend of mine in high school and expressing concern that he showed too much emotion on the mound, and he analyzed his arm and wind-up mechanics, and the movement on his breaking ball. Those things were more important than his stats...(he had a 0.50 ERA and a jillion K's and didnt get drafted--small high school) Another friend of mine was drafted because he went to a walk-on tryout, threw in front of a scout and the scout liked his breaking ball. he never even faced a batter for this guy. Undoubtedly the scout could tell he wasnt gonna be a superstar, but he threw a couple of nice pitches and he gave him a shot, thinking just maybe if the planets aligned, he could develop more speed on his fastball and contribute. it didnt amount to much, he was done 2 months later. the key is, the scout didnt say "i think he's going to have a below average ability to prevent doubles" I think the game works well as is, i love it, but this could also be an interesting way to think about scouting/ratings.