Profile ratings don't agree with scouting

[slazer33]

As noted above, the overall/potential ratings stars I see on an MLB player's profile page do NOT match the ratings of OSA or my head scout in the scouting window - and they are not an average, either. I remember this from older OOTP versions and I thought the problem was fixed. Or does it represent something else?

[Painmantle]

Oh Great, the traditional "Different Stars" thread Happens every version!

IIRC the answer goes something like this, It was never broke, scouting is not absolute, it is a variable and the changes are only reported for those purposes at the most frequent once a month ,they are not dynamic. Then there is the fact that stars are basically useless for any true evaluation of talent. They are a general utility to use for comparison of players. Basically the stars you see on the profile page are not likely from the same time frame as other sources. They could very well be from a report from 1 or more months ago, and since evaluations change, you see different "stars"

If all the scouting reports were the same it would certainly take a lot of the fun out of the game. (My opinion)

[slazer33]

Well I'm only a week of games into OOTP 17 so I doubt it's new scouting, right?

And I didn't ask for all scouting to be the same. But if my head scout says on the profile page that he's 3/4 stars, then shouldn't it say that on the scouting reports too? This isn't asking for all scouting to be the same. Seriously? This is making sure that the profile page's scouting is an accurate reflection of my head scout.

[Painmantle]

Originally Posted by slazer33

Well I'm only a week of games into OOTP 17 so I doubt it's new scouting, right?

And I didn't ask for all scouting to be the same. But if my head scout says on the profile page that he's 3/4 stars, then shouldn't it say that on the scouting reports too? This isn't asking for all scouting to be the same. Seriously? This is making sure that the profile page's scouting is an accurate reflection of my head scout.

I never said you wanted that, I went out of my way to point out it was MY OPINION. I would suggest you worry a little less about small variances in "stars" and play the game, I'm just going to quit answering questions on this forum because when people don't like the answer they feel the need to turn it into a debate.

Scouting is a variable, not a constant, I don't at this point know what else I can say, so I just let someone else chime in. I hope you find the answer your looking for even if it's wrong!

note/disclaimer: my answer was based on past versions of the exact same question, maybe it is broke in "This version"

[Silent_Thunder]

Also as stated in the manual, OSA is "chronically underfunded" and often produces less than optimal results. In other words they're the in game equivalent of the sports rags you can read online, and anything they say should be used as a second opinion, with a grain of salt the size of Texas.

[jmuelly]

scouting confuses me altogether. My scout (ray montgomery) says Alcides Escobar would struggle to even survive in the minors. Seems like the evaluation of an existing MLB player is far off.

[msupoke]

[snip]

[jofos]

[snipped]

[Painmantle]

[snipped]

Thanks Guys I really appreciate the feedback, now try to read more with your eye's and brain and a less with your emotion and feelings and everyone will get along just fine!

[PSUColonel]

I have given up on stars and play without them, and have switched to ratings relative to MLB. Have harped on the stars for years to no avail. For some reason or another people must think they make sense...they don't to me, and unless the system is changed, the next best thing you can do is turn them off. The truth is, I have been advocating a system where the overall rating is presented in deviations of 5 on a 20-80 scale.

[Painmantle]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I have given up on stars and play without them, and have switched to ratings relative to MLB. Have harped on the stars for years to no avail. For some reason or another people must think they make sense...they don't to me, and unless the system is changed, the next best thing you can do is turn them off. The truth is, I have been advocating a system where the overall rating is presented in deviations of 5 on a 20-80 scale.

Scouting is nothing more than another opinion of a player. The best course of action is to look at all the available information and make your own evaluation as opposed to putting all your faith into a single source (Stars) It isn't really that daunting of a task to see that a player has 4 stars here, 3 stars there and 3 1/2 stars in a 3rd area and reasonably deduce that he's likely a 3-4 star player. or 3 1/2* if you want to be precise. Since scouting isn't an exact science, you cannot expect it to be represented "exactly" in a simulation. But if this particular aspect bugs one that much then turning it off is probably the best choice. I think the problem here is that some people want the game to work how they want it to or they think it should work and not how it actually works.

Here is an example. In my Historical 1980 league (That is now in 1982) 20 yr old Andres Galarraga OSA shows him as 1/2 out of 1 star, My scout shows him as 1/2 out of 3 1/2 Stars, His Profile Page shows him as OSA 1/2 of 2 1/2 Scout 1/2 of 4.

So I throw out the High and the Low (remembering that OSA sucks) and make a reasonable evaluation that Galarraga is about a 3-3 1/2 star Player as far as potential goes. Can you really expect anything more precise from a system with such limited range where the evaluation is based on someone's opinion?

[PSUColonel]

I would actually like multiple scouting opinions beyond two, and for each to have their own overall rating (which they now do) what I'd like to see eliminated is the Stars shown on the players front page profile, as well as the ones the AI used when sorting players (they are the same) I'm not saying they should not exist,...just that they should be visible...only the ones from various scouting sources should be

[Harry_BallSack]

Its unfortunate that Painmantles points are too often lost in his crankiness, always good points (as have been on my posts) but too often just cranky imo.

[Painmantle]

Originally Posted by Harry_BallSack

Its unfortunate that Painmantles points are too often lost in his crankiness, always good points (as have been on my posts) but too often just cranky imo.

here is a very simple concept: My post are not "cranky" until you read them with that particular attitude. Instead of trying to portray assumed emotion into a post, just read the words at face value. Your emotions are your own, I can't make you "feel" anything, that's all on you!

[Mr. Marlin]

Ahhhh this is why I like stats only. No stars, no bars. Numbers talk and BS walks.

[endgame]

Yep, longstanding point of contention and discussion, but Painmantle's given a fair accounting of at least one method using those interpretations to arrive at one's own assessment. Ultimately, that's what's most important: collecting available info, however reliable, and arriving at judgment. That's actually the point of being a GM.

I'll add that this is an area I'm certain will see some tweaks, if not revision or rewrites, but wouldn't hold your breath for that to happen. There's a great deal of discussion that will ensue long before any real change hits the presentations. In the final analysis, or what I'd make of it, it's usually a timing thing, but what it says is what it says. Use it as a tool. I mean, how many of us in the management role -at least in gaming -have the good fortune, or willingness for that matter, to offer up the inquiry, "Interesting, Struthers. Just how did you arrive at this assessment of Calhoun? When did this occur and what methods did you employ?" We simply take the collective sources of information and do our best to come to decisions.

Lastly, and admittedly tangential, there are good people with good intentions in the community and, over time, experiencing their presence and contributions uncovers their value. Probably not much different than the reports and profiles we've been discussing. One says, what a jerk. Another, always been helpful to me; one more, very reliable and knows the game. So, for what it's worth, sometimes knowing the man or his habits, is an adjustment. We learn what helps us and it should seldom be judged with just one experience. Test it over time and review posts. I often do, particularly when I suspect a troll, for instance. First move? Read his other posts. Draw conclusion based, in part, on the whole.

In that spirit, Painmantle's been a spirited contributor and tries hard to help. Here's more about him here: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ml#post3616894

[Mr. Marlin]

I remember a great line Brad Pitt had to one of his scouts in Moneyball "If he's such a good hitter why doesn't he hit good?"

The job of a GM in real life and in OOTP is to take all the available data and make a decision. The OSA scout tells you one thing, your scout tells you something else, the stats tell a third story. It's not supposed to be easy! I could never play with scouting at 100% accuracy. To me that would suck all the fun out of it.

Ray Straley is a fiction player in my league. For most of his career the guy was a monster. He was unhittable, won Pitcher of the Year, led the league in SOs. The OSA & my scout agreed he was a stud. Then his k/9 states dropping WHIP starts going up. ERA starts going up. I traded him for two prospects. The fans were furious, the other players were furious. By the end of the following season both those prospects are on my ML team and Straley in the highest paid pitcher in AAA. You gotta follow your own gut.

[Painmantle]

Originally Posted by endgame

Yep, longstanding point of contention and discussion, but Painmantle's given a fair accounting of at least one method using those interpretations to arrive at one's own assessment. Ultimately, that's what's most important: collecting available info, however reliable, and arriving at judgment. That's actually the point of being a GM.

I'll add that this is an area I'm certain will see some tweaks, if not revision or rewrites, but wouldn't hold your breath for that to happen. There's a great deal of discussion that will ensue long before any real change hits the presentations. In the final analysis, or what I'd make of it, it's usually a timing thing, but what it says is what it says. Use it as a tool. I mean, how many of us in the management role -at least in gaming -have the good fortune, or willingness for that matter, to offer up the inquiry, "Interesting, Struthers. Just how did you arrive at this assessment of Calhoun? When did this occur and what methods did you employ?" We simply take the collective sources of information and do our best to come to decisions.

Lastly, and admittedly tangential, there are good people with good intentions in the community and, over time, experiencing their presence and contributions uncovers their value. Probably not much different than the reports and profiles we've been discussing. One says, what a jerk. Another, always been helpful to me; one more, very reliable and knows the game. So, for what it's worth, sometimes knowing the man or his habits, is an adjustment. We learn what helps us and it should seldom be judged with just one experience. Test it over time and review posts. I often do, particularly when I suspect a troll, for instance. First move? Read his other posts. Draw conclusion based, in part, on the whole.

In that spirit, Painmantle's been a spirited contributor and tries hard to help. Here's more about him here: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ml#post3616894

Endgame I truly appreciate those words. I had so forgotten about that interview LOL G-Ma fyi had her 100th Birth Day last August 9th, she has slowed down greatly but still doing relatively well.

The only thing I'd like to add is, anyone who has ever had an actual conversation with another person knows it really isn't what you say, but HOW you say it. Regardless of what anyone believes they can "read into" a post they really have no Idea "How it was said" and therefore the intention behind it, I for one prefer to give the benefit of doubt. And I think everyone in this community would benefit from doing the same. For the most part anything anyone post on these forums can be taken in multiple ways, It's the emotion your reading with that causes issues 99% of the time and not the emotion that the post was actually written with.

With that being said, I have been called names in the past and I will in the future by people who really have no Idea who I am and that's ok, but I don't recall ever retaliating even to the most degrading derogatory comments.

[Hammercraft]

I've noticed that looking at a player's stars in one window (trade, draft, roster, etc) won't necessarily match when you inspect the player directly, even if you're using the same ratings source and settings. I think that might be the issue. Not accuracy, but consistency between windows/views.

[hjrrockies]

Originally Posted by Hammercraft

I've noticed that looking at a player's stars in one window (trade, draft, roster, etc) won't necessarily match when you inspect the player directly, even if you're using the same ratings source and settings. I think that might be the issue. Not accuracy, but consistency between windows/views.

This is the issue I'm facing. I just want to know which one is my scout's 'actual' current opinion. Even if star ratings are not that useful, I'd just like a consistent answer.


On the topic of doing stars-turned-off playthoughs: How do you evaluate players overall? Do you have a system of "1 grade (5pts on the 20-80 scale) of contact is worth 2 grades of gap power", or something like that?