scales

jdolecek49 · 10-29-2020, 01:55 PM

to me 1-100 is much more precise. i dont understand with 202-80 how 50 is average. I have tried over and over 20-80 to understand how 50 could be average in my mind but it does not happen, maybe it is because i do not have a scientific mind. Does anyone else think the 1-100 scale is more precise?? what are your thoughts?
thank you for your time

Déjà Bru · 10-29-2020, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdolecek49

to me 1-100 is much more precise. i dont understand with 202-80 how 50 is average. I have tried over and over 20-80 to understand how 50 could be average in my mind but it does not happen, maybe it is because i do not have a scientific mind. Does anyone else think the 1-100 scale is more precise?? what are your thoughts?
thank you for your time

1-100 is more precise merely because it gives more points to be grading with than 20-80. More "granularity" as I believe it is called. However, there is a reason why 20-80 is the default. A long time ago, I took these notes:

The 20-80 Scouting Scale

The invention of the scale is credited to Branch Rickey and whether he intended it or not, it mirrors various scientific scales. 50 is major league average, then each 10 point increment represents a standard deviation better or worse than average. In a normal distribution, three standard deviations in either direction should include 99.7% of your sample, so that’s why the scale is 20 to 80 rather than 0 and 100.

If that is confusing, just consider that 50 is 30 points away from both 20 and 80 on that scale. Therefore, 50 is in the exact middle of the range and should represent the average, given enough data points.

Matt Arnold · 10-29-2020, 02:12 PM

This is roughly where the 20-80 scale comes from: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting...couting-scale/

1-100 is more precise because there's 100 points from top to bottom. 20-80 obviously only has the 60, plus even less if you limit it to every 5th one. Some people like more precise, some like more fog of war.

Déjà Bru · 10-29-2020, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

This is roughly where the 20-80 scale comes from: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting...couting-scale/

1-100 is more precise because there's 100 points from top to bottom. 20-80 obviously only has the 60, plus even less if you limit it to every 5th one. Some people like more precise, some like more fog of war.

Ah! Thanks, Matt. I was just wondering where I got that from (I take notes from all sorts of sources). I was scouring the online manual to see if it was from there.

CBeisbol · 10-29-2020, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdolecek49

to me 1-100 is much more precise. i dont understand with 202-80 how 50 is average. I have tried over and over 20-80 to understand how 50 could be average in my mind but it does not happen, maybe it is because i do not have a scientific mind. Does anyone else think the 1-100 scale is more precise?? what are your thoughts?
thank you for your time

Of course the 1-100 scale is more precise. For reasons already pointed out
It's like measuring something with inches vs measuring in cm.
In the 1-100 scale each unit is smaller, in 20-80 each unit is larger

Why is 50 average in the 20-80 scale?
Because it's in the middle
There are 30 points between 20 and 50 and 30 points between 50 and 80

I know you said you're not scientific minded, but others who may read this may be. Or, at least, able to understand a simple scientific concept

The 20-80 scale roughly mirrors standard deviations with each 10 roughly equaling one standard deviation

Thus, the majority of major league players will fall between 40 and 60 (50 plus or minus 10 (plus or minus one standard deviation)). Fewer will fall between 30 and 40 or 60 and 70 (1 to 2 standard deviations) and very few between 20 and 30 and 70 and 80 (2 to 3 standard deviations).

*https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-...-from-the-mean

Timofmars · 10-29-2020, 11:49 PM

Something interesting to note about the 20 - 80 scale is that the expected performance difference between 50 and 60 or 40 and 50 is not the same as between 60 and 70 or 30 and 40. The Fangraph link above gives an estimated WAR of 2 at 50 rating, 3 at 60 rating, 5 at 70 rating, and 7 at 80 rating.

So while a 60 rated guy might be expected to give 2 more WAR than a 40 rated guy, a 80 rated guy would be expected to give 4 more WAR than a 60 rated guy.

Although in OOTP, it seems low rated players typically perform better than expected. Like most 30 and under rated players are putting up positive WAR numbers, it seems. But it seems close for higher rated players.

r0nster · 10-30-2020, 01:34 PM

i use the 1-100 scale i find it simpler and comfortable with it

Questdog · 10-30-2020, 02:31 PM

One thing about the precision of the 100 point scale over the 20-80 scale. It was mentioned that the 20-80 pt. scale gives a little more fog of war over the 100 point scale, but this is only true if scouting is off. With scouting on, there is no fog of war relief from the 100 pt. scale over the 20-80 scale... You are getting more precise guesses from the scouts, but not more accurate ones....

Bluenoser · 10-30-2020, 03:15 PM

50 is average the same as 5 is average on a 1-10 scale. It's right smack in the middle of your number range.

10-29-2020, 01:55 PM	#1
jdolecek49 Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2020 Location: Florida Posts: 495	scales to me 1-100 is much more precise. i dont understand with 202-80 how 50 is average. I have tried over and over 20-80 to understand how 50 could be average in my mind but it does not happen, maybe it is because i do not have a scientific mind. Does anyone else think the 1-100 scale is more precise?? what are your thoughts? thank you for your time

10-29-2020, 02:12 PM	#3
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 16,265	This is roughly where the 20-80 scale comes from: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting...couting-scale/ 1-100 is more precise because there's 100 points from top to bottom. 20-80 obviously only has the 60, plus even less if you limit it to every 5th one. Some people like more precise, some like more fog of war.

10-29-2020, 11:49 PM	#6
Timofmars Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 251	Something interesting to note about the 20 - 80 scale is that the expected performance difference between 50 and 60 or 40 and 50 is not the same as between 60 and 70 or 30 and 40. The Fangraph link above gives an estimated WAR of 2 at 50 rating, 3 at 60 rating, 5 at 70 rating, and 7 at 80 rating. So while a 60 rated guy might be expected to give 2 more WAR than a 40 rated guy, a 80 rated guy would be expected to give 4 more WAR than a 60 rated guy. Although in OOTP, it seems low rated players typically perform better than expected. Like most 30 and under rated players are putting up positive WAR numbers, it seems. But it seems close for higher rated players.

10-30-2020, 01:34 PM	#7
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,082	i use the 1-100 scale i find it simpler and comfortable with it

10-30-2020, 02:31 PM	#8
Questdog Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: In a dark, damp cave where I'm training slugs to run the bases...... Posts: 16,142	One thing about the precision of the 100 point scale over the 20-80 scale. It was mentioned that the 20-80 pt. scale gives a little more fog of war over the 100 point scale, but this is only true if scouting is off. With scouting on, there is no fog of war relief from the 100 pt. scale over the 20-80 scale... You are getting more precise guesses from the scouts, but not more accurate ones....

10-30-2020, 03:15 PM	#9
Bluenoser Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In The Moment Posts: 14,506	50 is average the same as 5 is average on a 1-10 scale. It's right smack in the middle of your number range.