Ratings Scale Conversion Cross-Reference Cheat Sheet

[jpeters1734]

The attached sheet converts all the ratings scales to one another. This should be useful if you're in an online league that uses a ratings scale different than what you're used to.

For example, if you see a player with a 13 speed in a 1-20 scale, it converts to around 60-79 in the 1-100 scale. Since 13 is in the bottom half of the Green section of 1-20, I'd put it at about a 67 on the 1-100 scale.

This could also be useful when creating players, since the editor uses 1-250 for it's scale. Keep in mind that any rating above 200 is off the scale.

I hope this is useful to someone. I included 2 versions, a printer friendly black & white and a dark version with colors.


EDIT: fixed the issue with 45 being shown twice in the 20-80 scale

[luckymann]

Thanks JP, that's great.

[discodude5]

Jp, in the 20-80 scale there are gaps in the ranges, like 20-30 then next one is 35-45 etc.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by discodude5

Jp, in the 20-80 scale there are gaps in the ranges, like 20-30 then next one is 35-45 etc.

correct, when using the 20-80 scale, there's not a rating between 30 and 35.

Unless you're referring to the overall scales, which this chart is not supposed to represent

[koohead]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

correct, when using the 20-80 scale, there's not a rating between 30 and 35.

Unless you're referring to the overall scales, which this chart is not supposed to represent

I think he means the start/end points overlap or do not overlap. For instance, the ranges go 20-30, 35-45 45-50, 55-65, 70-80. So the weird one that stands out is 35-45 and 45-50 because 45 is listed for both ranges.
Looking at my game, I think the actual 2nd range is 35-40, and then it goes 45-50, then 55-65 and 70-80 like you have it.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by koohead

I think he means the start/end points overlap or do not overlap. For instance, the ranges go 20-30, 35-45 45-50, 55-65, 70-80. So the weird one that stands out is 35-45 and 45-50 because 45 is listed for both ranges.
Looking at my game, I think the actual 2nd range is 35-40, and then it goes 45-50, then 55-65 and 70-80 like you have it.

Ah you’re right. 45 a should be average, yellow

[PSUColonel]

The truth is...actual grades scouts use are more like 20,30,35,40,45,50,55,60,65,70,80

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

The truth is...actual grades scouts use are more like 20,30,35,40,45,50,55,60,65,70,80

I’m down for another scale, lol

[koohead]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

The truth is...actual grades scouts use are more like 20,30,35,40,45,50,55,60,65,70,80

yeah kind of wish that's what OOTP used.

[pholmer]

Thanks for creating the chart. It will be helpful to many of us who play OOTP, I'm sure. However, the scale does highlight a problem I've noticed with the ratings system.

The blue category is from 158-250. That is 37% of the ratings that are in the highest category. That skews the ratings away from the higher numbers, and the ratings numbers aren't always correct. If the 1-250 scale were evenly distributed over the 5 categories, the blue category would start as 200, not 158.

If I draft, sign, or trade for a specific player who I know can hit, run, and field well, I don't believe he deserves to have a 1 rating in any area, but sometimes they do. Same thing with pitchers; today I acquired an excellent veteran pitcher only to find all his pitches were rated 38! (Out of 600)

I once drafted Joe DiMaggio and found out his "Avoid Ks" number was 123/550. This for a player who struck out only 369 times in his whole MLB career! But just trying to bring a player up to the "League Average" (when you know they are in fact an above average player), often results in him getting 5-star rating when they probably deserve a 4-4+.

I'm not criticizing the jpeters1734 scales at all; I believe it accurately reflects the existing ratings system and will help me more accurately adjust players' ratings when necessary. I don't think every good player needs to get a 5-star rating for just being good. Nor do I think the top ratings need to reflect a "perfect" player. Even HOFers.

Ray Schalk, for example, was not a stellar batter or runner, but he helped define the role of the Catcher, especially the act of backing up the 1st Baseman when a batter is running to 1st. HOF, yes, OOTP 5 Stars, no. We all know players who could have some ratings approaching 250, 600 or whatever in certain categories. Walter Johnson, Sandy Koufax, Randy Johnson; Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, etc. We shouldn't be afraid to give Mariano Rivera a 575 for his cutter if he deserves it.

I know there's a lot of math behind our current ratings; I don't what it is but I believe the current system has a basis in facts and statistics. One last personal comment: there's a reason the 20-80 ratings start at 20, not zero. The 1-600 scale should be 120-600 and the 1-250 should be 50-250. Players scoring lower probably wouldn't ever make it to the majors.

Thanks again to jpeters1734 for making the charts and kicking off this discussion.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by pholmer

Thanks for creating the chart. It will be helpful to many of us who play OOTP, I'm sure. However, the scale does highlight a problem I've noticed with the ratings system.

The blue category is from 158-250. That is 37% of the ratings that are in the highest category. That skews the ratings away from the higher numbers, and the ratings numbers aren't always correct. If the 1-250 scale were evenly distributed over the 5 categories, the blue category would start as 200, not 158.

If I draft, sign, or trade for a specific player who I know can hit, run, and field well, I don't believe he deserves to have a 1 rating in any area, but sometimes they do. Same thing with pitchers; today I acquired an excellent veteran pitcher only to find all his pitches were rated 38! (Out of 600)

I once drafted Joe DiMaggio and found out his "Avoid Ks" number was 123/550. This for a player who struck out only 369 times in his whole MLB career! But just trying to bring a player up to the "League Average" (when you know they are in fact an above average player), often results in him getting 5-star rating when they probably deserve a 4-4+.

I'm not criticizing the jpeters1734 scales at all; I believe it accurately reflects the existing ratings system and will help me more accurately adjust players' ratings when necessary. I don't think every good player needs to get a 5-star rating for just being good. Nor do I think the top ratings need to reflect a "perfect" player. Even HOFers.

Ray Schalk, for example, was not a stellar batter or runner, but he helped define the role of the Catcher, especially the act of backing up the 1st Baseman when a batter is running to 1st. HOF, yes, OOTP 5 Stars, no. We all know players who could have some ratings approaching 250, 600 or whatever in certain categories. Walter Johnson, Sandy Koufax, Randy Johnson; Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, etc. We shouldn't be afraid to give Mariano Rivera a 575 for his cutter if he deserves it.

I know there's a lot of math behind our current ratings; I don't what it is but I believe the current system has a basis in facts and statistics. One last personal comment: there's a reason the 20-80 ratings start at 20, not zero. The 1-600 scale should be 120-600 and the 1-250 should be 50-250. Players scoring lower probably wouldn't ever make it to the majors.

Thanks again to jpeters1734 for making the charts and kicking off this discussion.

hey thanks, but just an FYI, I created this for the old 1-250 scale several versions ago.

Regarding the Blue category, keep in mind that anything about 200 is considered super rare