Stats Only vs Ratings

RubeBaker · 05-28-2016, 10:29 AM

I have immense respect for TheWolf here. His advice & recommendations are invaluable. That being said, I tried Stats Only & for my experience, I find that my preference is Ratings. I go by the 20-80 scale & recently changed my AI settings to 30/50/15/5 & after doing a LOT of tweaking in the past couple of months, this is the most realistic setting IMHO. As everyone says, it's your game, play it your way.

Déjà Bru · 05-28-2016, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubeBaker

I have immense respect for TheWolf here. His advice & recommendations are invaluable. That being said, I tried Stats Only & for my experience, I find that my preference is Ratings. I go by the 20-80 scale & recently changed my AI settings to 30/50/15/5 & after doing a LOT of tweaking in the past couple of months, this is the most realistic setting IMHO. As everyone says, it's your game, play it your way.

Yes, I also value The Wolf and his argument for ratings only. I have tried to play it that way because I know that, if I wanted maximum virtual reality and immersion, I should.

But, I don't stick with it. It's not because I am lazy. Well, as I was typing that, I realized that maybe I am in that I don't have the time and energy to do all the numbers digging and crunching to do the job properly.

This is a game, after all, and it should be fun to play. It's not fun for me, feeling like a blind man. This game in recent years has become a tough challenge without adding that handicap as well.

So, what a great game, eh, in that Wolf and his loyalists can play the way they want and we can play it in ours? I am having a blast with OOTPB 17, as much as I did way back when with OOTPB 6.

NoOne · 05-28-2016, 02:36 PM

GMs do get more feedback than just stats.. so, i'd argue it's less realistic to play with stats only. i think the "most realistic" are just silly to begin with... there isn't one individual who possess enough knowledge to actually understand what "realistic" is relative to baseball modelling. it's all a best guess and depends on solid research. otherwise we'd have better sports simulations available. not that ootp isn't good enough. it's still a video game, not a nasa program to launch a rover to mars... ie the requirements aren't as sophisticated.

stats plus ratings is a good mix... and don't use 100% accurate scouting. the weights of the years just makes the gm short or long-term orientated on those decisions. more weight on previous years will ikely help with decisions on players in and around their primes... less weight to 2 and 3 yrs ago will maybe help with better decisions on the ends of the career etc. those choices in percentages won't really have to do with being realistic or not. because it's not something that should be blanket applied to all the leauge in the first place. (not a criticism, but an observation of ramifications - do we need it applied on a individual basis? i am not saying that one way or the other... time, effort, and the return on investment would answer that question.)

heh, if you think about it the more traditional the GM is the less they care about the stats, lol. the majority of GMs rely on scouting reports more so than statistics... i believe that will change in short order as the inherent value of understanding the game better than the next guy/girl is incalculable, but scouting reports will always be important, too. just better utilized along with stats.

TribeFanInNC · 05-28-2016, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubeBaker

I have immense respect for TheWolf here. His advice & recommendations are invaluable. That being said, I tried Stats Only & for my experience, I find that my preference is Ratings. I go by the 20-80 scale & recently changed my AI settings to 30/50/15/5 & after doing a LOT of tweaking in the past couple of months, this is the most realistic setting IMHO. As everyone says, it's your game, play it your way.

I'm a general proponent of stats only as well. But I recognize it's not for everyone. Basically you end up playing the role of both scout and GM. Some people don't like the extra time or effort it takes and it seems like busy work instead of playing a baseball game. I respect that opinion as well.

But I think everyone should try it once.

MrBojangles · 05-28-2016, 11:20 PM

Stats only does seem like a great deal of work. I can imagine how sweet the pay-off must feel if successful with that - since you've put in the work. So, respect for those that do it, but not for me.

ThePretender · 05-29-2016, 03:12 PM

My issue with stats only is that I've never found minor league stats are predictive or helpful of anything. So how would I know when to promote someone if the stats aren't accurate? When I play with ratings I see players who are clearly ready for the majors struggle in AA or AAA, and then when I promote them to the majors they do exactly as I expect.

Maybe some people doing stats only would say "he's not ready" or that's part of the experience but I think it's extremely difficult when, at least in my experience, minor league stats aren't accurate.

Or the draft, I'm not sure how you'd be able to draft someone accurately when virtually every player I look at in the draft has good stats coming out of HS/College.

Good for you if you can play it this way, but I don't see how.

BigRed75 · 05-29-2016, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoOne

stats plus ratings is a good mix... and don't use 100% accurate scouting. the weights of the years just makes the gm short or long-term orientated on those decisions. more weight on previous years will ikely help with decisions on players in and around their primes... less weight to 2 and 3 yrs ago will maybe help with better decisions on the ends of the career etc. those choices in percentages won't really have to do with being realistic or not. because it's not something that should be blanket applied to all the leauge in the first place. (not a criticism, but an observation of ramifications - do we need it applied on a individual basis? i am not saying that one way or the other... time, effort, and the return on investment would answer that question.)

This here. If 100% accurate scouting was turned on in real life Brien Taylor would never have been drafted...

SxSnts9 · 05-29-2016, 10:59 PM

I've considered trying stats only but my only issue is that I enjoy the crapshoot of the draft quite a bit... Same for inter national free agents. How do you know who to pick when drafting? If you just go with whomever the head shot recommends or whoever demands the highest signing bonus isn't that Just boring?

Izz · 05-29-2016, 11:31 PM

Pretty sure most stats-only folk use feeder leagues for the draft.

Honorable_Pawn · 05-30-2016, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izz

Pretty sure most stats-only folk use feeder leagues for the draft.

And the problem with feeder leagues is the loss of immersion.

Every player comes from the same handful of schools. Really? There's only 100 high schools in America? Let's not forget that if you have a feeder team in, say, Oklahoma you will likely have zero players on that team from Oklahoma. You're more likely to get a guy from the Dominican Republic on that team than you are from Oklahoma.

Also, the OOTP engine distributes stats from top-level down. The league-wide stats are allocated by current rating. On a 1-100 scale the variation in a single specific current rating is between around 30 for the best players and around 10 for the worst players. 20 points tops. Whereas you can see from 30-100 in the ML level. What this means is that the stats in the feeder are more evenly distributed making it nearly impossible to find any strong correlation between future MLB players and stats. The OOTP engine is all about potential at that level--not current ratings.

Lastly, the bloat of feeders is not worth the effort in setting them up.

So much realism is lost using feeders that even if stats-only was a more realistic option (which it's not) then, ultimately, it would still be a net realism-loss.

Real GMs get scouting reports. My suggestion to those who want to increase the difficulty without losing realism is to increase the fog of war by dropping the rating scale to 1-10. If you still need challenge decrease the accuracy of scouting.

TribeFanInNC · 05-30-2016, 09:05 AM

Agree that feeder stats are not super predictive. The end result is that your draft is just quite random. Your first three picks might never make it out of Single A, but the Round 4 guy becomes the prospect. I kinda like that dynamic.

But as I note, it isn't for everyone. In fact, it probably isn't for a lot of people.

NoOne · 05-31-2016, 12:09 AM

i don't use them, but i think the idea of feeder leagues is pretty cool compared to just creation and dumped into draft pool.

yeah, the stats would be just as 'useful' as the generated stats

i think what tribe shows is that some results are definitely more realistic, but the means to get there is a bit different, even if in proportion (or not). i think they did address this a little bit in '17. there are more surprises, but nothing like the unpredictability of a real-life mlb draft, or what you get with stats only.

PSUColonel · 05-31-2016, 12:16 AM

why doesn't OOTP just generate 4 years of stats for generated players? I never understood why it's only one year of stat lines.

05-28-2016, 10:29 AM	#1
RubeBaker All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: USA Posts: 641	Stats Only vs Ratings I have immense respect for TheWolf here. His advice & recommendations are invaluable. That being said, I tried Stats Only & for my experience, I find that my preference is Ratings. I go by the 20-80 scale & recently changed my AI settings to 30/50/15/5 & after doing a LOT of tweaking in the past couple of months, this is the most realistic setting IMHO. As everyone says, it's your game, play it your way.

05-28-2016, 02:36 PM	#3
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	GMs do get more feedback than just stats.. so, i'd argue it's less realistic to play with stats only. i think the "most realistic" are just silly to begin with... there isn't one individual who possess enough knowledge to actually understand what "realistic" is relative to baseball modelling. it's all a best guess and depends on solid research. otherwise we'd have better sports simulations available. not that ootp isn't good enough. it's still a video game, not a nasa program to launch a rover to mars... ie the requirements aren't as sophisticated. stats plus ratings is a good mix... and don't use 100% accurate scouting. the weights of the years just makes the gm short or long-term orientated on those decisions. more weight on previous years will ikely help with decisions on players in and around their primes... less weight to 2 and 3 yrs ago will maybe help with better decisions on the ends of the career etc. those choices in percentages won't really have to do with being realistic or not. because it's not something that should be blanket applied to all the leauge in the first place. (not a criticism, but an observation of ramifications - do we need it applied on a individual basis? i am not saying that one way or the other... time, effort, and the return on investment would answer that question.) heh, if you think about it the more traditional the GM is the less they care about the stats, lol. the majority of GMs rely on scouting reports more so than statistics... i believe that will change in short order as the inherent value of understanding the game better than the next guy/girl is incalculable, but scouting reports will always be important, too. just better utilized along with stats. Last edited by NoOne; 05-28-2016 at 02:47 PM.

05-29-2016, 10:59 PM	#8
SxSnts9 Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2016 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 154	I've considered trying stats only but my only issue is that I enjoy the crapshoot of the draft quite a bit... Same for inter national free agents. How do you know who to pick when drafting? If you just go with whomever the head shot recommends or whoever demands the highest signing bonus isn't that Just boring? __________________ "They let me down real easy when they cut me. I showed up at the stadium and was told that visitors aren't allowed in the clubhouse." - Bob Uecker

05-29-2016, 11:31 PM	#9
Izz Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 2,469	Pretty sure most stats-only folk use feeder leagues for the draft. __________________ Not only do I play OOTP but I also write science-fiction: My Website A brief history of the Australia-New Zealand Baseball League (AUNZBL 2019-2119)--A Dynasty Report The National Penterham Four-Bases Association--A Dynasty Report

05-31-2016, 12:16 AM	#13
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,139	why doesn't OOTP just generate 4 years of stats for generated players? I never understood why it's only one year of stat lines. Last edited by PSUColonel; 05-31-2016 at 11:06 AM.

05-28-2016, 11:20 PM	#5
MrBojangles All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: low and inside Posts: 568	Stats only does seem like a great deal of work. I can imagine how sweet the pay-off must feel if successful with that - since you've put in the work. So, respect for those that do it, but not for me.

05-29-2016, 03:12 PM	#6
ThePretender All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,331	My issue with stats only is that I've never found minor league stats are predictive or helpful of anything. So how would I know when to promote someone if the stats aren't accurate? When I play with ratings I see players who are clearly ready for the majors struggle in AA or AAA, and then when I promote them to the majors they do exactly as I expect. Maybe some people doing stats only would say "he's not ready" or that's part of the experience but I think it's extremely difficult when, at least in my experience, minor league stats aren't accurate. Or the draft, I'm not sure how you'd be able to draft someone accurately when virtually every player I look at in the draft has good stats coming out of HS/College. Good for you if you can play it this way, but I don't see how.

05-30-2016, 09:05 AM	#11
TribeFanInNC Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,019	Agree that feeder stats are not super predictive. The end result is that your draft is just quite random. Your first three picks might never make it out of Single A, but the Round 4 guy becomes the prospect. I kinda like that dynamic. But as I note, it isn't for everyone. In fact, it probably isn't for a lot of people.

05-31-2016, 12:09 AM	#12
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	i don't use them, but i think the idea of feeder leagues is pretty cool compared to just creation and dumped into draft pool. yeah, the stats would be just as 'useful' as the generated stats i think what tribe shows is that some results are definitely more realistic, but the means to get there is a bit different, even if in proportion (or not). i think they did address this a little bit in '17. there are more surprises, but nothing like the unpredictability of a real-life mlb draft, or what you get with stats only.