Overall Ratings Scale

[PSUColonel]

I am curious what overall ratings scale people are using in this version? I haven't been very happy with how they have been displayed in this version, as it's basically impossible to use them in summarizing what level a player may be best placed without the use of relative ratings.

I always liked the 20-80 scale with increments of 5...but I now Find it useless without the relative ratings turned on. The stars might be very slightly better...but not much.

Obviously I get the feeling a lot of people just turn them off all together and only use components ratings, or maybe with components and just the overall potential rating turned on.

Any thoughts?

[CBLCardinals]

I use 2-8

potentials on
Other rating (speed, defense) on

Ratings off, overall rating off, potential rating off.

[kidd_05_u2]

I use 20-80 with increments of 5, but only really look at overall when evaluating how a player fits with the MLB club.

For the high minors, I look at the components with ratings relative to MLB. For the low minors, I look at the components with ratings relative to the level I'm trying to assign players to. I don't see any problem whatsoever with using relative ratings.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by CBLCardinals

I use 2-8

potentials on
Other rating (speed, defense) on

Ratings off, overall rating off, potential rating off.

You cannot use 2-8 for overall & potentials....although I wish you could. I am asking about overall and potentials.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

I use 20-80 with increments of 5, but only really look at overall when evaluating how a player fits with the MLB club.

For the high minors, I look at the components with ratings relative to MLB. For the low minors, I look at the components with ratings relative to the level I'm trying to assign players to. I don't see any problem whatsoever with using relative ratings.

There is nothing wrong with using relative ratings since it's an option. I guess what I am saying is that NOT using them is also an option....but based on the way this year's version treats the overall rating, it's virtually impossible to NOT use them.

[Klew1986]

I use the 20-80 scale as well.

[Reed]

I play random historical and I just use 1-5. Basically if a player pops up that I don’t recognize with a 4 or 5 rating, then I get curious and look at their real life record.

[CBLCardinals]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

You cannot use 2-8 for overall & potentials....although I wish you could. I am asking about overall and potentials.

Oh ok gotcha

Yeah I just turn those off and have for awhile.

I’d rather evaluate the players on potentials and stat output versus should I play a 53 overall rating versus a 49.

It had made my playing experience much more enjoyable doing it this way.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by CBLCardinals

Oh ok gotcha

Yeah I just turn those off and have for awhile.

I’d rather evaluate the players on potentials and stat output versus should I play a 53 overall rating versus a 49.

It had made my playing experience much more enjoyable doing it this way.

I used to turn off overalls but it like it as a sorting mechanism. I also don't like clicking on 50 different players when I offer a player for a trade just to realize he's a 2-star minor league cannon fodder, lol

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

I use 20-80 with increments of 5, but only really look at overall when evaluating how a player fits with the MLB club.

For the high minors, I look at the components with ratings relative to MLB. For the low minors, I look at the components with ratings relative to the level I'm trying to assign players to. I don't see any problem whatsoever with using relative ratings.

Pretty close to what I do. The 20-80 is a broad stroke to get my attention. The actual evaluation is done looking at the player's actual skill set and stat output.

The overall/potential is information you would be getting from your staff as part of an evaluation, just like the actual skill set evaluations. This also applies to each level that you are looking at. Your staff is more than capable to evaluate a player based on how he would fit in at any league level. Nothing wrong with using "relative to league X" evaluations either , it is realistic.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I am curious what overall ratings scale people are using in this version? I haven't been very happy with how they have been displayed in this version, as it's basically impossible to use them in summarizing what level a player may be best placed without the use of relative ratings.

I always liked the 20-80 scale with increments of 5...but I now Find it useless without the relative ratings turned on. The stars might be very slightly better...but not much.

Obviously I get the feeling a lot of people just turn them off all together and only use components ratings, or maybe with components and just the overall potential rating turned on.

Any thoughts?

I used 20-80 increments of 5 ever since they added it. This year, I've gone back to stars for a few reasons.

First, there is only 10 different rating levels with stars, 20-80 has 13. I would love a 2-8 scale as that would only have 7 different levels. I like fewer rating levels for two reasons. One, too many levels clog up the development reports. I dont care that player A has improved from 40 to 45 when nothing else has changed. Two, I like more uncertainty in the ratings.

Another reason for going back to stars is that I don't like how the overall columns do not shrink. They stay the same width as they do for the stars. It's a minor cosmetic thing, but it annoys me.

Last reason, I think the star changes are easier to follow in the development reports for some reason. It'll say something like "changed from 1.5 to 2.5 stars", but the 20-80 is like "30/80 to 35/80". The "80" makes it harder to quickly see what's changing

[Pelican]

I’m not a “fog of war” guy. I use a 1-100 scale for actual and potential ratings. (The traditional scout’s 20-80 is too confusing for me. Hey, I grew up in a decimal system.) Scouting accuracy on high. Stars for the overall ratings. (I realize and acknowledge that the granular 1-100 scale overstates the accuracy of the ratings, even with scouting on high. Nevertheless I like the comparisons it yields. All taken with a large grain of salt.)

I read the scouting reports, but I find them to be of limited value. (They are not very detailed. I don’t care where the player lives. There are only a few variations in narrative. Needs work.) All ratings are relative to MLB. With relatively high TCR, development on, this is all subject to change, so I ask for updated scouting reports frequently. (In my scouting budget, I spend little on MLB players. I can see those guys and their stats. Don’t need a scout to waste time. Better to spend money on minor leaguers, amateurs, and international guys I can’t see.)

Even with all this detailed information, there are plenty of surprises.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Reed

I play random historical and I just use 1-5. Basically if a player pops up that I don’t recognize with a 4 or 5 rating, then I get curious and look at their real life record.

Again...you cannot use 1-5 for OVERALL Ratings.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I used 20-80 increments of 5 ever since they added it. This year, I've gone back to stars for a few reasons.

First, there is only 10 different rating levels with stars, 20-80 has 13. I would love a 2-8 scale as that would only have 7 different levels. I like fewer rating levels for two reasons. One, too many levels clog up the development reports. I dont care that player A has improved from 40 to 45 when nothing else has changed. Two, I like more uncertainty in the ratings.

Another reason for going back to stars is that I don't like how the overall columns do not shrink. They stay the same width as they do for the stars. It's a minor cosmetic thing, but it annoys me.

Last reason, I think the star changes are easier to follow in the development reports for some reason. It'll say something like "changed from 1.5 to 2.5 stars", but the 20-80 is like "30/80 to 35/80". The "80" makes it harder to quickly see what's changing

I am with you on this...I'd love to see an overall rating scale for 2-8 also!!

[PSUColonel]

OK..here is a great example of what I mean..and it's widespread, so you won't have any trouble finding others.

Zack Raabe is rated 25/45 by my scouts. He is a FA, so I am considering signing him. Typically in past versions, a player with a current overall rating of 25 I would have thought to be A+ or low A. Probably low A even. Now, I see he has some experience in A+, so I am thinking that's maybe where I should put him. When I ask my scouts how he is relative to A+, they say he's a 60/80. So the conclusion here is that this player is much better than A+...yet his non-relative ratings don't reflect that. So what is going to happen most likely here is I will have a 25/45 (non-relative) player in AA.

The point I am trying to make is that in past versions, there was a much more realistic feel between non-relative & relative ratings. In past versions, if this were truly a AA caliber ratings, his non-relative overall would have been likely a 35, and no lower than a 30. Now, you have players with a 25 overall in AA...something I am not sure is totally realistic.

[CH1MA3RA]

I can't remember what thread it was in, but I'm fairly certain I saw Matt the dev say something to the effect of a 60 being the "average" in the ootp scouting scale rather than the real life 50. if that is true, then that may account for the shift in level relative ratings. In your example, assuming 60 is the average, then Raabe is likely best suited for A+ since he has a 60/80 relative to that level.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by CH1MA3RA

I can't remember what thread it was in, but I'm fairly certain I saw Matt the dev say something to the effect of a 60 being the "average" in the ootp scouting scale rather than the real life 50. if that is true, then that may account for the shift in level relative ratings. In your example, assuming 60 is the average, then Raabe is likely best suited for A+ since he has a 60/80 relative to that level.

but with relative ratings enabled, should a 50 be average....I can see something like this without relative ratings, but with them it would seem to me a 50 would almost HAVE to be average.

[CH1MA3RA]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

but with relative ratings enabled, should a 50 be average....I can see something like this without relative ratings, but with them it would seem to me a 50 would almost HAVE to be average.

That would be true if the irl 50 grade average was the baseline within the system, but if a dev has said that the system treats 60 as average (which I assume is because the player pool doesn't include Joe Schmos with 0 potential dragging the "average" down) then I'd suggest adjusting your view of the relative same as I have done. After reading that I've set my baseline as a 55 at a level for them to play there, so that they have room to grow into average or better at said level.

[darkcloud4579]

I find these ratings discussions always so difficult because without knowing precisely how your league is setup, it's hard to know what a good rating is. I just created a league recently where I made the creation modifiers around .500 for everybody and turned off "all player ratings are displayed relative to" and this way, players get evaluated based on positional value.

I like stars better than numbers, mostly because it's all relative to the talent in the situation.

[kidd_05_u2]

I just looked at the ratings in a standard MLB save. The majority of position players at AAA are rated 35-45. The majority of position players at AA are rated 25-35. This seems fine to me.

Using ratings relative to MLB as a guidance to assign players to the minors doesn't really make sense because the way components lead to an overall is not linear. A batter with a contact rating of 30 should always be rated 20-25ovr in relation to the MLB. He is simply not good enough to make contact on MLB pitchers, so his other traits don't play up. However, this same player could be an okay hitter in AA if his other component ratings are high.

As an example, imagine you have a player in AA putting up the same numbers Joey Gallo puts up in the MLB. This guy could be rated 45-50 for AA because his power makes up for the fact that he hits .190. But if you were to rate him for the MLB, he would rate as a 20-25 because if he hits .190 in AA, it means he probably has no chance to hit MLB-level pitching.

In Raabe's component ratings I see a bad defender who would post an OBP of like .220 at best and with no power whatsoever. Why would such a player be rated more than 25 ovr for the MLB? There are hundreds of players better than him but not good enough for the MLB, those are the ones who would be rated 30-40. If past versions of OOTP gave a player like Raabe a higher OVR, then I would say the way ratings are assigned are better now.