Ratings exceeding 80 in 20-80 scale

[x McLovin x]

I play using 20-80 ratings scale and noticed that some players have individual ratings above 80. For example, Aroldis Chapman has a 90 "Stuff" rating (see attached screenshot).

[x McLovin x]

Another one - "Avoid K's" for Luis Arraez:

[Rain King]

Yes, that is possible.

There is a setting (same place you set the scale) to determine whether Ratings over the Max are displayed (or just display as the max rating i.e. 80).

It is labeled "Show Raings > Max" with the options of "YES" or "NO, cut off".

[x McLovin x]

Here's a third example - "Stealing Aggressiveness" for Esteury Ruiz.

[x McLovin x]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Yes, that is possible.

There is a setting (same place you set the scale) to determine whether Ratings over the Max are displayed (or just display as the max rating i.e. 80).

It is labeled "Show Raings > Max" with the options of "YES" or "NO, cut off".

Thank you - if that's the case, I guess my question is does it make sense for a rating to be higher than the maximum (80)? Shouldn't the 90's all be 80's? And then you can scale down the other players already at 80 to 75 or so, so on and so forth?

[Rain King]

That's never been the way that OOTP has worked. There have always been ratings that can go beyond the main scale.

The "average" player in the league is what sets the scale, not the outliers. So, the players get rated essentially by how much better/worse they are than the average.

Otherwise, when you get a Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds you are going to get the rest of the league pushed downwards to where hardly anyone looks to be above average.

[x McLovin x]

Originally Posted by Rain King

That's never been the way that OOTP has worked. There have always been ratings that can go beyond the main scale.

The "average" player in the league is what sets the scale, not the outliers. So, the players get rated essentially by how much better/worse they are than the average.

Otherwise, when you get a Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds you are going to get the rest of the league pushed downwards to where hardly anyone looks to be above average.

You make some fair points. I just personally feel like the scouting scale should really technically be 20 to 90 instead of 20 to 80 if that is the case. And those generational talents like Bonds and Ruth should be the only ones with 85 or 90 ratings.

Also, this isn’t exactly the same idea but this kinda reminds me of why I prefer +/-stats (like ERA+ and FIP-) where “average” is 100 and then you can gauge a players ability relative to the average. It’d be awesome if there was a way to reflect this type of scale for ratings (as opposed to just stats) as well.