Ratings vs. Reality

[ovccsteve]

How do you handle players whose ratings don't match their results? Last season I had two pitchers who started 31 and 23 games respectively, with solid ERA's (4.14 & 3.90). The second was a rookie. The first guy now has 86 career starts with a 3.83 ERA and almost 2/1 K/W--at age 23 with no injury history and fair endurance (13). However, every scout I check them with gives them both ratings of 20 out of 80 for both OVR and POT. They're completely untradable except for rookie leaguers or total scrubs. If they're really as bad as their ratings, I have other pitchers I'd like to give a shot to, but it seems wrong to exile them to the minors. Any thoughts?

[1998 Yankees]

My thoughts: Ratings are fuzzy. Results are factual. I would go with results until proven otherwise.

You can't trade them now anyway, as you said, except for garbage. Why not give them a chance? One's 23 and the other is a rookie? Ratings change frequently in this game. Maybe they will be rated differently with another good season under their belts.

What do they say in the investments business? "Past performance is no guarantee of future results?" Well, for me, past performance rules over scouting reports, that's for sure.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by ovccsteve

How do you handle players whose ratings don't match their results? Last season I had two pitchers who started 31 and 23 games respectively, with solid ERA's (4.14 & 3.90). The second was a rookie. The first guy now has 86 career starts with a 3.83 ERA and almost 2/1 K/W--at age 23 with no injury history and fair endurance (13). However, every scout I check them with gives them both ratings of 20 out of 80 for both OVR and POT. They're completely untradable except for rookie leaguers or total scrubs. If they're really as bad as their ratings, I have other pitchers I'd like to give a shot to, but it seems wrong to exile them to the minors. Any thoughts?

Overall ratings are broken at the low end. You'll do better looking at specific abilities, because some 20s can play.

[StratMan]

I've just purchased 2007 and imported the game I started in 2006 and also noticed that the low end ratings and middle reliever ratings all appear to be screwed up. Mediocre middle relievers are showing 70+ ratings when they were in the 40s before. My entire minor league system (save about 3 or 4 players) have ratings of 20-22. They used to range between 20-40, with 20 reserved for rookie ball. I have a platoon RF with a 96 def rating who can hit around .300 against RHP with a 21!

Honestly, if this does not get fixed, I'm not sure I like 2007. Overall ratings are too important to essential "go missing" for half of the player pool.

[ovccsteve]

Originally Posted by StratMan

Honestly, if this does not get fixed, I'm not sure I like 2007. Overall ratings are too important to essential "go missing" for half of the player pool.

I still like 2007, but it does seem that more than just a bell-curve quantity are clustered at the bottom of the ratings. (As a Bill James reminder, quality in professional baseball isn't a bell curve, it only represents one end of the curve, the end where the very best accumulate. That means there are always many more poor players than good ones. But I do wonder if the curve is too steep--meaning too high a percentage of bad players--in the current version.)

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by ovccsteve

I still like 2007, but it does seem that more than just a bell-curve quantity are clustered at the bottom of the ratings. (As a Bill James reminder, quality in professional baseball isn't a bell curve, it only represents one end of the curve, the end where the very best accumulate. That means there are always many more poor players than good ones. But I do wonder if the curve is too steep--meaning too high a percentage of bad players--in the current version.)

I don't think there's a problem necessarily with too many bad players. The problem is that the OVR ratings are too low for a very large number of players. You could have a player hit .300 and drive in 75, but he's a 20. Have a player hit .195 with 100 k's... he's a 20. The OVR is definitely out of whack.

And I do agree that OVR ratings are too important to be broken. Definitely a major fix needed for patch 2. But in the mean time, just look at all of their ratings and stats. For a while, I tried turning off OVR ratings, but that kind of sucked.

[ovccsteve]

Back to the two fictituous dudes who started this conversation, I picked one of them up in spite of his twin 20's because his other ratings were solid. But now, for both guys, they're other ratings stink now, too. (I don't think either one has a single rating at 10 or better.) But they keep throwing the electronic horsehide like they know what they're doing.

And, before anyone asks, I spend big$$$ on my scouts. You'd think at least one of them would give these guys good ratings.

[teak88]

... I've noted on these boards before that I dislike the somewhat clinical precision of the ratings; ie, someone rated a '6' (I use 2-8) will be better than someone rated a '5' by the same scout. This turns ootp into a bit too much of a mathamatical calculation... building a team based on ratings rather than on performance.

In the real world, scouts said that Pete Rose and Mike Piazza (to use two HOF examples) wouldn't make it... but those boys could hit regardless of the scouts. While Brien Taylor was going to be the next Whitey Ford.

I like having the scouting being much less predictive.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by teak88

... I've noted on these boards before that I dislike the somewhat clinical precision of the ratings; ie, someone rated a '6' (I use 2-8) will be better than someone rated a '5' by the same scout. This turns ootp into a bit too much of a mathamatical calculation... building a team based on ratings rather than on performance.

In the real world, scouts said that Pete Rose and Mike Piazza (to use two HOF examples) wouldn't make it... but those boys could hit regardless of the scouts. While Brien Taylor was going to be the next Whitey Ford.

I like having the scouting being much less predictive.

I would certainly agree to a point. And I think scouting is designed this way in 2007. But with scouting turned off, this shouldn't be the case, which it currently is.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by ovccsteve

Back to the two fictituous dudes who started this conversation, I picked one of them up in spite of his twin 20's because his other ratings were solid. But now, for both guys, they're other ratings stink now, too. (I don't think either one has a single rating at 10 or better.) But they keep throwing the electronic horsehide like they know what they're doing.

And, before anyone asks, I spend big$$$ on my scouts. You'd think at least one of them would give these guys good ratings.

How is their performance relative to league average?

[ovccsteve]

Originally Posted by RonCo

How is their performance relative to league average?

League ERA last year was 4.48. The rookie had a VORP of 25.7, the young vet of 27.9. The scout I signed because he was a 20 in rating pitching has them at 6-7-8 and 6-10-8 respectively, and the other coaches basically agree.

[StratMan]

Originally Posted by teak88

... I've noted on these boards before that I dislike the somewhat clinical precision of the ratings; ie, someone rated a '6' (I use 2-8) will be better than someone rated a '5' by the same scout. This turns ootp into a bit too much of a mathamatical calculation... building a team based on ratings rather than on performance.

In the real world, scouts said that Pete Rose and Mike Piazza (to use two HOF examples) wouldn't make it... but those boys could hit regardless of the scouts. While Brien Taylor was going to be the next Whitey Ford.

I like having the scouting being much less predictive.

Everyone likes to play a little different. You still need some gauge of ability and potential, whether completely accurate or a wag. Otherwise, a draft is meaningless.

I have scouts off, which gives me precise ratings. The problem is that there are huge differences in the 20-22 rang and the middle relievers are highly overrated compared to other players.

If you try to play as a day to day GM and scan waiver wires and building your minor league system, you spend nearly all of your time trying to compare players with the same overall rating. While I may be a micromanagement affectionado, that is just plain tedious and a huge step backward.

Does anyone know if this is listed on a issue list to be patched?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by ovccsteve

League ERA last year was 4.48. The rookie had a VORP of 25.7, the young vet of 27.9. The scout I signed because he was a 20 in rating pitching has them at 6-7-8 and 6-10-8 respectively, and the other coaches basically agree.

What scale are those component ratings based on?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by StratMan

Does anyone know if this is listed on a issue list to be patched?

This is on the list of things Markus is looking at. Only Markus can say what will eventually make it into a patch and what will wait for the next version.

[Syd Thrift]

2 things to point out:

1. Overall ratings can range from useful only at a glance to downright meaningless depending on how your league is running. A low-walk league probably won't value high-control pitchers as heavily as a high-walk league will, for example. As an extreme example, I'm moving into 1902 in my dynasty and the scouts absolutely salivate over guys I *know* will hit .245 with 7 homeruns and few walks.

2. Although most people concentrate solely on their scouting ratings, individual scouts will also determine value based on the preference sliders. Maybe some of these need to be referenced on the front scout pages, I don't know, but they can be pretty darn important. A guy who heavily favors average over OBP will very likely give a Bill Buckner type a better rating than a Ken Phelps (circa 1987), even if he's the best scout in the league.

Some people don't like that and for them, I say turn scouting off. My biggest issue is that personality is too far under the hood (although if you do take the extra click you can see a guy's influences pretty easily).

[George Vedros]

I have a question about ratings? I'm playing the demo and have gone to the editor to change certain ratings for my historical sim. I read the index which said to hit the enter button to make the change stick. I can't find any such buttton. I have Mike Andrews from 1972 set at 2B. But he has no rating at the positon in spite of my editing.

Thanks...

[AD31]

Originally Posted by George Vedros

I have a question about ratings? I'm playing the demo and have gone to the editor to change certain ratings for my historical sim. I read the index which said to hit the enter button to make the change stick. I can't find any such buttton. I have Mike Andrews from 1972 set at 2B. But he has no rating at the positon in spite of my editing.

Thanks...

Enter on your keyboard

[ovccsteve]

Originally Posted by RonCo

What scale are those component ratings based on?

1-20

[RonCo]

Wow. Those are some interesting ratings. Very much on the low side. My guess is that they have great GB% and somewhat high velocity.

[Neags23]

Originally Posted by RonCo

This is on the list of things Markus is looking at. Only Markus can say what will eventually make it into a patch and what will wait for the next version.

Maybe the complexity of generating OVR ratings is high enough that it could take substantial work to fix it... but I do have to say I'd be sorely disappointed if this isn't at least tweaked in a patch. It's broken. There are obviously a lot of important things to look at and fix... but I don't see how overall ratings couldn't be near the top of that list. It would really be a glaring omission.