Why the different overall ratings?

[saturn2187]

Two pitchers, similar ratings - one rated 1 star potential, the other 2.5 potential.

Take a look.

Pitcher A potential- Stuff 4, Movement 7, Control 6, Stamina 9, hold 8, g/f .57
Pitcher B potential- Stuff 4, Movement 7, Control 6, Stamina 9, hold 6, g/f .46

Pitcher A identical ratings, advantage in hold runners. Overall ratings 1 star, getting rocked in AAA (1-2, 5.65 ERA)

Pitcher B same ratings, a bit less at holding runners. Overall rating 2.5, dominating majors (10-5, 3.67)

The reason I'm asking this is because I made up a spreadsheet where I insert component ratings and get a score. This will be used in free agency to decide who to pursue. That plan can go out the window with these results.

Player A link: Player Report for #43 Dennis Rasmussen
Player B link: Player Report for #32 Jaime Navarro

Your thoughts?

Thanks

[tomwolf2008]

I assume this is 1-10 scale?

Part of the reason is the actual rating for a player(meaning the number you'll see if you use the editor) is based on the scale of 1-255. Assuming the scale is divided roughly equally, then for example, a rating of 100 and a rating of 124 in the editor might both reflect as rating of 4 in your game, but I think you'll agree that 100 and 124 are not exactly equals.

[saturn2187]

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

I assume this is 1-10 scale?

Part of the reason is the actual rating for a player(meaning the number you'll see if you use the editor) is based on the scale of 1-255. Assuming the scale is divided roughly equally, then for example, a rating of 100 and a rating of 124 in the editor might both reflect as rating of 4 in your game, but I think you'll agree that 100 and 124 are not exactly equals.

That's a good point. I just wonder if the difference between a high 4 and low 4 would be enough to result in such a dramatic difference.

[DCG12]

Originally Posted by saturn2187

Two pitchers, similar ratings - one rated 1 star potential, the other 2.5 potential.

Take a look.

Pitcher A potential- Stuff 4, Movement 7, Control 6, Stamina 9, hold 8, g/f .57
Pitcher B potential- Stuff 4, Movement 7, Control 6, Stamina 9, hold 6, g/f .46

Pitcher A identical ratings, advantage in hold runners. Overall ratings 1 star, getting rocked in AAA (1-2, 5.65 ERA)

Pitcher B same ratings, a bit less at holding runners. Overall rating 2.5, dominating majors (10-5, 3.67)

The reason I'm asking this is because I made up a spreadsheet where I insert component ratings and get a score. This will be used in free agency to decide who to pursue. That plan can go out the window with these results.

Player A link: Player Report for #43 Dennis Rasmussen
Player B link: Player Report for #32 Jaime Navarro

Your thoughts?

Thanks

There are several factors I see here, first you list potentials in your post but that's apples/oranges because Rasmussen is 31 and his potential probably doesn't mean much as he's either at the peak of that potential or even on the downside. Navarro is 23 so he just reached his potential. Currents are 4-6-6 vs. 4-7-6, not a big difference but again that's on a small scale it could be more on say a 100 point scale and that movement difference could be a major influence.

Looking at the current ratings for each guy Rasmussen only has three pitches, one of which is a changeup rated a 3. Navarro has four pitches all 4's and 5's.

As for Rasmussen getting rocked in Triple A as you put it he only had one bad game, the 8-5 loss that he only went 4 2/3 innings. His other two appearances he went 7 and lost 3-2 and went 2 2/3 in relief. He's pitched a grand total of 14 innings so small sample. Just look at Navarro in 18 spring training innings, an 8.84 era so again small sample.

I would be cautious about Navarro also because that 3.67 era and 10-5 record seems a little better then his stats would suggest so I might think he has a good D behind him or he's been lucky.

He is trending down though as he had a 3.50 era in April, May and June but jumped to over 4 in July and over 5 in the previous week.

[saturn2187]

All good points. I'm actually the Phillies -- the team Navarro is on.

I've had a rash of injuries lately, leading to sub-par defenders compared to my normal guys, so maybe Navarro is showing his true colors.

You echo a good point about the 1-10 ratings scale and how it may murky up some analysis.

The small sample size - another good point. Rasmussen's opposing hitting had a .491 BABIP in his 11 major league innings so i'd wager he had a bit of bad luck going into that 16.68 ERA (although he did still have a 7.79 FIP).. Likewise he's got just a 3.27 FIP in AAA so probably defense hurting him there too.

I think you make good points, both of you. I guess Navarro's been putting up better numbers than expected due to the defense. His 4.31 FIP compared to his 3.67 ERA echos that sentiment. Luckily, they're due back soon. Thanks again.

[RchW]

Rasmussen looks like a journeyman in decline. His stuff rating must have been higher than 4 when he was winning 18 games. It looks like he may be losing stuff velocity and sufficient quality on his 3 pitches to make him a last resort 5th starter or long man from the pen. Put another way, he wouldn't make a good pitching staff in my league. What does the development report say?

Both pitchers have low stuff for a 10 point scale and low pitch ratings too. I don't like primary pitches under 7 in that scale. Navarro's 4 higher quality pitches do make a big difference vs Rasmussen as a starter. The star ratings look right on to me. Navarro has peaked IMO and looks to be just league average at best. Given that, he is a perfect candidate for a sell high trade. The AI will value his current state over his limited future.