Stats Only?

[BKL]

Anyone play with stats only (no ratings). I’ve been playing that way for a while and it’s a lot of fun. But I’ve been thinking of turning the ratings back on. Wondering if I turn them on if I’ll focus too much on the ratings and not in the actual stats...

I find stats only really forces you to examine a players stats, history, and body of work.

Thoughts or suggestions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Calvert98]

Originally Posted by BKL

Anyone play with stats only (no ratings). I’ve been playing that way for a while and it’s a lot of fun. But I’ve been thinking of turning the ratings back on. Wondering if I turn them on if I’ll focus too much on the ratings and not in the actual stats...

I find stats only really forces you to examine a players stats, history, and body of work.

Thoughts or suggestions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use the 20-80 scale that the scouts use and I do not use the “stars”.

I do not use the “Stars”, because I think that gives the human player a bit of an edge.

For me, using that scale and no Stars, has really made a difference and is a lot more fun. I have found at least that this rating scale gives you a good indication on development and good context when working through the stats.

[hluraven]

I used to do stats only but stopped when I found it way too easy. It makes things a bit harder for me, but sadly everything that is harder for me is also significantly harder for the AI. With stats only I won 9 of the first 10 WS, then I turned ratings on mid career and didn't win once in the next 16 years!

If you have ratings on and either fairly vague (1-5 or stars), and especially with low accuracy, you will need to look at the stats a fair bit too. It's a decent balance.

[Rosco Peabody]

I do something interesting. I scout players in college a year before I project them to come out in the draft, using ratings. I shortlist the ones that I like (there will be a decent amount. Then when the draft gets close, I turn off OVR and POT ratings and only look at skill ratings. Then I go back to those players I like before and try to figure out which one I would like to draft at my position. I complete the draft like this, then turn ratings back on and see how I did (I also use normal to low scouting accuracy)

[TwinsGuy11]

I like the idea, but at the end of the day I don't have the time to really analyze the stats of every player to make transaction calls. And even with that, you're still assigning a value to a a player. Is rather just save the time and use the scouting system.

[Mr. Marlin]

Originally Posted by BKL

Anyone play with stats only (no ratings). I’ve been playing that way for a while and it’s a lot of fun. But I’ve been thinking of turning the ratings back on. Wondering if I turn them on if I’ll focus too much on the ratings and not in the actual stats...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a question only you and your style of play can answer. I play stats only and like it better. Because it is more work IMO.

Orcin & I had a discussion about is and he made a good point. The ratings are only a single source of data you have to consider. Stats are another, scouting evaluations, injury ratings, all of them are data sources. Relying on one to the exclusivity of other is like wearing an eye patch because it's more challenging to dive with diminished depth perception.

But having said all that I still like stats only because it made me think about the stats and what they actually mean. That in turn has given me a greater understanding and appreciation of real baseball games, and real baseball stats. So I stick with it.

If you like it then keep doing it. But don't hesitate to turn it off and try another way. It's not a religion. You can come and go as you please.

[pitch62]

I use 20-80 on current only. No potential and no stars. I'm also allowing myself one free agent purchase per year and one trade per year. Playing fictional, General Manager and not getting involved in the draft. I find this very challenging.