I still don't understand overall ratings

[Giants44]

If you have read many of my posts you know I am a gold certified fanboy of the game, but scouting and especially overall ratings are something I don't fully understand.

take this example

This prospect is 8/7/6 and his overall is 27





Matt Cain has almost identical ratings at 8/8/6 - basically one point higher in movement - and his overall is 74



Less you think I have poor scouting, I present my scout who is almost all 10's and I spend double the league average on scouting.




I don't understand how that 1 point in movement can take a player from a throwaway overall of 27 and turn it into a all star overall of 74.

this is not the only case, just one of the best examples.

Is this a bug?, am I overlooking something? can someone enlighten me.

[beorn]

My impression is based on OOTP9, but
1) Scouting inaccuracy is quite significant, even with ratings of 10, and 2)
2) Perhaps illogically, but inevitably, scouting inaccuracy is often inconsistent with itself, whereby overall evaluation does not seem like a reasonable conclusion based on its component parts

[tysok]

Could be the one guys extra pitch?
Plus that set of ratings is not all that goes into the overall score. He does get some credit for batting and fielding and probably some extra credit for being born in that particular year for all I know.

Cain has a better bunt for hit, sacrifice, hold runners, groundball%, and velocity...

What do their expected stats read in the editor?

[Dave Hansen]

MB is only 20 years old with no ML experience. His current AAA performance is nothing to brag about. He just hasn't been around that long and a 20 year old always has a lot of questions/uncertanities about him. The overall rating of 27 is probably closer to the truth than his basic pitching ratings. If these were "accurate", his minor league stats would be much better.

MC is 25 years old with big league experience. All his ratings tie out very nicely to the stats he is putting up. Scouts have a whole lot more to work with in making an accurate eval.

[daveawrit]

Could it also be that the first guy has never pitched in the major leagues, whereas Matt Cain had an ERA below 3 last year, and if your overall rating are heavily stats based, this could be the problem.

[NomarHits400]

Originally Posted by Giants44

If you have read many of my posts you know I am a gold certified fanboy of the game, but scouting and especially overall ratings are something I don't fully understand.

take this example

This prospect is 8/7/6 and his overall is 27



[Matt Cain has almost identical ratings at 8/8/6 - basically one point higher in movement - and his overall is 74

Less you think I have poor scouting, I present my scout who is almost all 10's and I spend double the league average on scouting.

[
I don't understand how that 1 point in movement can take a player from a throwaway overall of 27 and turn it into a all star overall of 74.

this is not the only case, just one of the best examples.

Is this a bug?, am I overlooking something? can someone enlighten me.

What are your evaluation %'s set at? Cain is going to be ALOT higher because of his past performance. To verify this, try setting evaluation at 100% ratings and rescout. If I am correct, Bumgarner will then be alot more similar to Cain....That's all I got.

EDIT:...Or basically what daveawrit said above....!

[kq76]

I think the only thing that could be the reason for overall ratings like this is that a change was made so that you need major league stats to get any kind of decent overall ratings. And if that is the case, that's totally bogus. You bring up guys like that and on average there is no way they are going to play that poorly. You can say, well, you just look at their component ratings and that's all well and good, but that completely defeats the purpose of having overall ratings for these guys at all which is to provide you a quick way to gauge how good a player is overall. Not all of us want to spend all day going through the component ratings for the 100+ guys in our organizations to see where they should be. You'd actually be better off having them blank because then it wouldn't be pointing you in the wong direction. Even if you don't bring them up to the majors, it's useful to have overall ratings to help you quickly get an idea of what level of minors a player should be. With that overall rating you'd probably just leave the guy in A ball when there's no way he should be anything less than AAA.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by daveawrit

Could it also be that the first guy has never pitched in the major leagues, whereas Matt Cain had an ERA below 3 last year, and if your overall rating are heavily stats based, this could be the problem.

That could very well be it.
I set up two pitchers to be exactly identical, in fact used those two from the OP and edited Bumgarner to match Cain.

I set AI to evaluate at 100% ratings and they were equal stars.
Set the AI to evaluate at 75% last year and 25% the previous and Bumgarner drops to a 1 star.
Didn't use scouts for that test. Interesting... I hadn't played with those things before.

[Pineapple]

The previous posters are right. The overall rating is weighted. Depending on how it is weighted, the overall rating will be different for two similarly attributed players. Here's the excerpt from OOTP9, which I am sure applies to OOTP X too.


AI Player Evaluation Options

These options control how the game's artificial intelligence evaluates players.



In OOTP 9, the computer considers both a player's ratings and his statistical performance over the past 3 years when evaluating players. By changing the values here, you can adjust the formula the computer uses to evaluate players.


In the example above, 30% of a player's evaluation will come from his ratings, 50% from his statistics in the current season, 15% from his statistics from last year, and 5% from two years ago.

[POKeefe]

Relievers are heavily skewed though. Some relievers have 70+ ratings with awful stats the previous season and awful ratings. It doesn't make sense.

[POKeefe]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. No scouts on, and here's this guys player card. Even in the Editor, he is clearly not an elite pitcher. Why the 80 rating? It does this with both relievers and closers.

[Giants44]

Originally Posted by Pineapple

The previous posters are right. The overall rating is weighted. Depending on how it is weighted, the overall rating will be different for two similarly attributed players. Here's the excerpt from OOTP9, which I am sure applies to OOTP X too.


AI Player Evaluation Options

These options control how the game's artificial intelligence evaluates players.



In OOTP 9, the computer considers both a player's ratings and his statistical performance over the past 3 years when evaluating players. By changing the values here, you can adjust the formula the computer uses to evaluate players.


In the example above, 30% of a player's evaluation will come from his ratings, 50% from his statistics in the current season, 15% from his statistics from last year, and 5% from two years ago.

I am aware of the AI settings, I never knew they were part of the scouting model - since it was labeled AI I assumed it only had to do with how the AI evaluated players, not how the scouts reported the overall rating.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by Giants44

I am aware of the AI settings, I never knew they were part of the scouting model - since it was labeled AI I assumed it only had to do with how the AI evaluated players, not how the scouts reported the overall rating.

I'm no expert, but I always felt quite certain of your original hypothesis. I always thought those adjustments relate to how the AI evaluates players, NOT how the scouts evaluate players. Scouts can vary because of their strategy preference settings, but I always thought those AI Evaluation settings don't affect a scout's appraisal at all. Would love to get that confirmed as there is obviously some confusion here, one way or the other.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

I'm no expert, but I always felt quite certain of your original hypothesis. I always thought those adjustments relate to how the AI evaluates players, NOT how the scouts evaluate players. Scouts can vary because of their strategy preference settings, but I always thought those AI Evaluation settings don't affect a scout's appraisal at all. Would love to get that confirmed as there is obviously some confusion here, one way or the other.

It's obviously confirmed that it is happening that way. The overall number will change based on how you have it set up for the AI to evaluate a player.

The question is, is that how it was intended? I was with you guys that I didn't know the overall/potential number from your scout would change based on those evaluation settings.

It does kinda make sense... although you end up with some odd looking behavior as we've seen here.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by tysok

It's obviously confirmed that it is happening that way. The overall number will change based on how you have it set up for the AI to evaluate a player.

The question is, is that how it was intended? I was with you guys that I didn't know the overall/potential number from your scout would change based on those evaluation settings.

It does kinda make sense... although you end up with some odd looking behavior as we've seen here.

Ok yeah, confirmed. I was getting strange results but I think it was because I wasn't pressing the Apply Changes Now button. My bad.

Yep, you guys are right. AI eval settings affects how the AI evaluates players in terms of lineups/roster moves, trades, etc. AS WELL AS how scouts evaluates players. Seems counterintuitive to me, but it is confirmed, as well as can be.

[kq76]

Guys, even with the AI weightings, which has been around for several versions (since OOTP5? although I think maybe 2006 didn't have them), I'm pretty sure there is something new going on here. It's as if being in the minors means a player automatically get severely downgraded when they shouldn't. For example, I've got a league where no players have played any games and with two fairly similar players, the player in the bigs has a proper overall rating and the guy in the minors has an overall rating in the 20s. I certainly don't recall that happening with OOTP9. The really bizarre thing though is I move to the very next player who is almost identical to the first guy (both in the minors) except for a 1 point (out of 20) increase to movement and this guy's overall rating is 10 points better. Nothing else is much different except one guy has a third pitch and that's the guy with the worse overall! Both have suggested roles of major league bullpen.

EDIT: There are plenty of players in the majors with awful overall ratings though so I don't know what's going on.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by kq76

Guys, even with the AI weightings, which has been around for several versions (since OOTP5? although I think maybe 2006 didn't have them), I'm pretty sure there is something new going on here. It's as if being in the minors means a player automatically get severely downgraded when they shouldn't. For example, I've got a league where no players have played any games and with two fairly similar players, the player in the bigs has a proper overall rating and the guy in the minors has an overall rating in the 20s. I certainly don't recall that happening with OOTP9. The really bizarre thing though is I move to the very next player who is almost identical to the first guy (both in the minors) except for a 1 point (out of 20) increase to movement and this guy's overall rating is 10 points better. Nothing else is much different except one guy has a third pitch and that's the guy with the worse overall! Both have suggested roles of major league bullpen.

How do they compare if you set it to 100% ratings? I'm beginning to think this might just be the best way overall now that it seems those settings affect scouts too. And don't forget to hit the Apply Changes Now button like I did.

It seems bogus to me too. It seems those AI eval setttings should be used for judging things like rostor moves, lineups, trades, etc. It seems scouts should just use ratings period. That's why I said it seems counterintuitive to me.

[ike121212]

There's nothing new going on here. It has nothing to do with the scout. It has nothing to do with the stats. 1 point can turn a SP from a 30 to a 70. It really is that simple.

If you don't believe me, simply turn scouting off and look at the draft pool. Markus has said that the current ML talent pool effects the overall ratings. Some years, there's only a point or 2 difference between a 20 and a 70. Other years it looks a little more appropriate. I still think that ratings need some work, but it was no different in v9.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

How do they compare if you set it to 100% ratings? I'm beginning to think this might just be the best way overall now that it seems those settings affect scouts too. And don't forget to hit the Apply Changes Now button like I did.

It seems bogus to me too. It seems those AI eval setttings should be used for judging things like rostor moves, lineups, trades, etc. It seems scouts should just use ratings period. That's why I said it seems counterintuitive to me.

No change. I normally like to use 50/29/14/7, but 100 made no change. This league has no stat history so I'm not surprised.

Originally Posted by POKeefe

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. No scouts on, and here's this guys player card. Even in the Editor, he is clearly not an elite pitcher. Why the 80 rating? It does this with both relievers and closers.

That's messed up! I'd really like to know what the story is behind this. I've seen so many posts about this now that I'm quite surprised it got through.

Originally Posted by ike121212

There's nothing new going on here. It has nothing to do with the scout. It has nothing to do with the stats. 1 point can turn a SP from a 30 to a 70. It really is that simple.

If you don't believe me, simply turn scouting off and look at the draft pool. Markus has said that the current ML talent pool effects the overall ratings. Some years, there's only a point or 2 difference between a 20 and a 70. Other years it looks a little more appropriate. I still think that ratings need some work, but it was no different in v9.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. Maybe I don't pay as close attention as some people, but 1 point out of 20 for one rating making the difference between a 30 and a 70 SP? I never ever saw that with OOTP9.

[ike121212]

Originally Posted by kq76

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. Maybe I don't pay as close attention as some people, but 1 point out of 20 for one rating making the difference between a 30 and a 70 SP? I never ever saw that with OOTP9.

I have tested it extensively and posted on it several times last year. If you don't buy it, go try it. The op is pretty good example.