OVR & POT rating for pitchers borked?

[DodgerGEP]

I did a search but wasn't able to find if this was reported. I've noticed sometimes pitchers will have high ratings for stuff, movement and control but their overall rating is very low.

For example (Out of 100)

Curt Schilling is rated with a 73 stuff, 63 movement and 64 control but only a 29 overall rating by my head scout. He went 17-8 with a 3.50 ERA, 1.07 whip and 240 K's in 224 innings the year before.

I also noticed this with a dominating Sandy Koufax in another league. I'm using the Arod Garlon database. Could it be just an import issue or has this came up in fictional leagues as well?

[molarmite]

I've noticed this too.

[DodgerGEP]

Its funny because now 2 years later my head scout now rates him as a 52 current and 53 potential and my other scouts followed suit rating him in the early 50's.

[DodgerGEP]

NM...it was because he's now a middle reliever.

[Faroo6]

I have that issue with a dominating Johan Santana and his 33 out of 80 rating and potential.

[tysok]

My staff ace, having 20+ wins the last 5 seasons and 17 stuff, 18 movement, and 18 control, has a 28 overall rating...

Have no idea where the number is coming from, thought it may have to do with the problem with low endurance starters not getting their just due from the game (they weren't asking for much money which will be fixed), but another guy that fell in that category has a more accurate (to me) overall rating.... so no clue.

[Zeyes]

Well, the logical answer would be that your scout is severely overrating the rest of the league (making him think your stud starter is in fact below-average)...given how much I've seen scouts differ in their assessments even on obvious superstars, I'm not putting anything past these morons.

[jbsnadb]

This sounds more like a database issue than a bug.

[Exodor]

What is the OVR rating for pitchers based on?

It seems to be very accurate when rating position players, but when rating pitchers, well...

Here's the pitchers with the highest OVR rating in my recently completed 1986 league. As you can see, OVR doesn't seem to correlate very well with actual performance:



For every Bret Saberhagen on that list there are at least 5 Kimbros or Cowleys

The potential rating is also screwy for pitchers. Take a look at the waiver wire



Why is Bob Patterson a 79 POT given his 51/58/72 potentia?

This is with scouts OFF.

I love the OVR and POT ratings but I'm struggling to understand how they apply to pitchers.

[tysok]

I don't understand it either. My ace 20/20/15 with 12 endurance (ratings out of 20 scale) is 33 potential 33 overall... so I have no help to lend.

[OmahaBaseball]

Any insights from the "powers on high" because it sure does make it hard to know what to make of it all.

[kq76]

It does appear to be screwy, doesn't it? Even with scouts off. If the overall ratings are not a weighted average of Stuff, Control, Movement, then how are they calculated? Maybe it takes the secondary pitch ratings like velocity into account too, but even if it does I still think it's screwy because I see some players in my league that are clearly better in pretty much every pitching rating yet significantly lower in the overall rating. Maybe it's taking personality into account too.

I wonder how the batting ones are done too, but they do seem to be much more in line with what I'd make them.

[Zeyes]

You'll need to separate starters, relievers and closers. A random starter I just tried to change into a middle reliever saw his rating jump from 44 to 80. (As a closer he was a 64.)

[Exodor]

Originally Posted by Zeyes

You'll need to separate starters, relievers and closers. A random starter I just tried to change into a middle reliever saw his rating jump from 44 to 80. (As a closer he was a 64.)

Still, look at the first two relievers on that list - how could they possibly receive 80 OVR ratings? An 80 is the highest possible rating - I don't see how they could possibly be considered the best relievers in the game, given their poor ratings and performance.

The batting ratings are fine, and I expect some variation from year to year - but the ratings for pitchers look to be almost random.

[redmarkYankees]

Because (I think), a reliever's OVR/POT include endurance as a factor. The weighting of endurance in making up the OVR/POT appears to be too significant and/or not 'capped'. So, a SP-turned MR (endurance 60+) is getting too extreme a boost when converted to MR and therefore overated.

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by Exodor

Still, look at the first two relievers on that list - how could they possibly receive 80 OVR ratings? An 80 is the highest possible rating - I don't see how they could possibly be considered the best relievers in the game, given their poor ratings and performance.

I'm pretty sure performance doesn't matter for the OVR and POT ratings. And looking purely at their ratings, they do seem to have some of the best ratings among those listed as middle relievers. The sum total of the three skills for the first 20 MRs on your list:

168 (80)
170 (80)
168 (80)
169 (80)
163 (78)
152 (69)
150 (68)
154 (68)
154 (68)
165 (67)
148 (67)
153 (66)
153 (66)
163 (66)
147 (65)
154 (63)
145 (63)
140 (63)
148 (63)
141 (63)

Seems to correlate pretty well to me. I suspect the few guys who seem to break the pattern are either penalized for having a big deficiency in one skill (the 165->67 guy has ratings of 35/65/65, for instance), or it's a question of endurance being factored in.

edit: Beaten to the punch by RMY, as far as endurance goes.

[kq76]

I did some editing testing:

-changing to reliever does have a huge affect on increasing the ratings... which I guess IRL it should, but does OOTP really give a SP a boost in performance if used as a reliever? I doubt it does... even if just looking at players in the same role there's an obvious other problem... I'd really rather it not give pitchers a boost in the overall ratings based on their assigned role, based on their pitch ****nal (or more incorrectly as OOTP does it their endurance), fine, but not based on assigned role.
-interestingly, editing endurance from 100 to 1 has next to no affect, but going from 100 to 200 has a huge affect on increasing the ratings... I'd say this should definitely be looked at as I don't think it should have that much of an affect or at least it should really depend on your lg settings for pitcher endurance (high lg wide pitcher endurance should make an individual pitcher endurance practically meaningless as most everyone should be able to go at least 8 innings)
-lowering the GB% has a large affect on increasing the ratings and increasing it has an even more drastic affect the other way... if anything I'd say it should be the opposite, high GB% is usually better... I'd say this should definitely be looked at
-holding runners has next to no affect
-HBP has a fair (?) intuitive affect
-WP has no affect (??)
-Balks has no affect (??)
-Stuff and movement both have significant affects with control slightly less, but please note that this should depend on the lg environment (if you have a lg with a lot of homers, movement should have a big affect and vice versa) and I doubt it does
-no personalities have an affect... this is probably how most would want it, but I'd certainly give some an affect in my own head
-velocity has no affect (??)
-positional experience has no affect
-pitch ****nal has no affect

EDIT: That's a-r-s-e-nal above. Stupid filter.

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by kq76

I did some editing testing:

-changing to reliever does have a huge affect on increasing the ratings... which I guess IRL it should, but does OOTP really give a SP a boost in performance if used as a reliever? I doubt it does... even if just looking at players in the same role there's an obvious other problem

I'm not sure what you mean here. The increase in rating doesn't imply anything (certainly not an improved performance). It works exactly likes stars did in OOTP6 as far as I can tell, i.e. the rating is calculated by comparing the player to the positional average. The average reliever has worse ratings than the average starter, so the same pitcher will come out looking better as a reliever. That's all.

-lowering the GB% has a large affect on increasing the ratings and increasing it has an even more drastic affect the other way... if anything I'd say it should be the opposite, high GB% is usually better... I'd say this should definitely be looked at

That permeates the whole game though. Take a look at how the GB% affects the estimated pitcher ERA in the editor...high GB% = large ERA, low GB% = small ERA. So the OVR rating at least follows along with everything else in the game, even if the underlying model might be questionable.

-Stuff and movement both have significant affects with control slightly less, but please note that this should depend on the lg environment (if you have a lg with a lot of homers, movement should have a big affect and vice versa) and I doubt it does

I think this is automatically built into the calculation because it's based on the positional average. If League A has a lot more homers than League B, it stands to reason that the average League A pitcher has a lower Movement rating than the average League B pitcher, so a pitcher with good Movement should automatically be rated better in League A than in League B.

Of course, this assumes that the positional averages are calculated separately for each skill. If the game calculates an overall number for each pitcher, and then normalizes it to the league average, it won't work as I described it.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Zeyes

I'm not sure what you mean here. The increase in rating doesn't imply anything (certainly not an improved performance). It works exactly likes stars did in OOTP6 as far as I can tell, i.e. the rating is calculated by comparing the player to the positional average. The average reliever has worse ratings than the average starter, so the same pitcher will come out looking better as a reliever. That's all.

The problem as I see it is that it totally throws you off. They're the same person regardless of their assigned role, but if you see a player as a 50 as a starter, you think, "oh, he's not that good", but as a 70 or whatever as a reliever, you think, "geez, he must be pretty good". You're right, it's like the stars were with starters/relievers and that was crap. I say it's about time it get corrected. It's not the big problem we're seeing here, but it's still something I think should be changed. We can still tell ourselves, "oh, we can't compare pitchers with different roles", but I think we should be able to compare them.

Originally Posted by Zeyes

That permeates the whole game though. Take a look at how the GB% affects the estimated pitcher ERA in the editor...high GB% = large ERA, low GB% = small ERA. So the OVR rating at least follows along with everything else in the game, even if the underlying model might be questionable.

I see what you mean regarding ERA and that's scary! Isn't a lower GB% supposed to allow for a lot more home runs? Now sure, you could have a horrible infield defense which might make you not salivate over GB pitchers, but in general I'm pretty sure GB pitchers are favoured over flyball / home run serving up pitchers. Another thing is GB% seems to have no affect on HRAllowed when it most certainly should have an affect.

EDIT: Other factors like if you have a large outfield or low altitude will make flyball pitchers less of a factor, but it's still difficult to imagine favouring a flyball pitcher over a groundball one all else equal.

Originally Posted by Zeyes

I think this is automatically built into the calculation because it's based on the positional average. If League A has a lot more homers than League B, it stands to reason that the average League A pitcher has a lower Movement rating than the average League B pitcher, so a pitcher with good Movement should automatically be rated better in League A than in League B.

Of course, this assumes that the positional averages are calculated separately for each skill. If the game calculates an overall number for each pitcher, and then normalizes it to the league average, it won't work as I described it.

I'm pretty certain that is not how it works. You could import the same player with the same ratings from lg A to lg B with highly different settings and his ratings will stay the same, but his performance will be very different depending on the league settings. I don't believe league settings determine ratings, I'm pretty sure they only determine stats.

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by kq76

I'm pretty certain that is not how it works. You could import the same player with the same ratings from lg A to lg B with highly different settings and his ratings will stay the same, but his performance will be very different depending on the league settings. I don't believe league settings determine ratings, I'm pretty sure they only determine stats.

FWIW, my test league is an indy-type league set at Double-A level...I still get pitchers rated 80 on the OVR, even if the very best pitchers might only be rated 12/15/13 on the 20-point scale. So the league level is definitely considered. (It pretty much has to be, if the ratings are based off of the league average.) The only question is whether the league level is calculated separately for each skill. I would bet it is...I'll try some outrageous PCM changes and report back.