Ratings or Stats?

Plutoro · 04-27-2003, 07:42 PM

I know both are important and I should look at both but which do you put more stock in.

If a player has say a 5 for hits, but bats .295 every year would you look at the 5 or the average?

Same thing if he has like a 4 for HR's but still belts 30 each year..

Steve Kuffrey · 04-27-2003, 07:45 PM

Both.

viper31631 · 04-27-2003, 08:38 PM

I say stats especailly if they are consistant over time

SSG Troyer · 04-28-2003, 10:54 AM

Unless you're playing with "Scouts Off," any ratings you see are through your scout's eyes. Even Lengendary Scouts get them wrong, just not by as much as Average ones. I use ratings as an initial guide, but stats are what make or break a player.

Gastric ReFlux · 04-28-2003, 11:14 AM

Yeah, there are cases where if you look at the stats you're going to wonder what hallucinogen your scout is taking.

I took over a team that had this vet pitcher the scout loved. Dominant. But for 8 straight years the pitcher's ERA had been at least 1 run above the league average.

Well at least I got a good prospect out of him.

Of course, knowing my luck, this'll be the year that pitcher puts it all together and wins a Cy Young.

suurimonster · 04-28-2003, 03:24 PM

I have too much faith in my scouts (they are such a nice bunch) - if they tell me a guy with poor stats is good, I assume they have seen how he fits into the overall dynamic of my team and I expect that he will become a League Leader as soon as he joins. Normally he does nothing all season, then his ratings drop to match his stats within a few years...but then I assume the coaches were still right and he was poisoned by local rivals.

Biggie Fries · 04-28-2003, 03:39 PM

For newer players, you have to rely at least in part on the scouts, but after that, I advise statistics. Here's why:
My model for how the game works is something like this. Each player has a "true" ability level. I put true in quotation marks first because this is something that I can't see, second because this true ability level has both systematic (e.g., aging) and random ("streaking," year-to-year osicllations around the aging curve) components. But it's there. Now, I have two basic measures of this true ability level. One is what the scout says. On average--that is, across a whole bunch of players--my legendary scout might be dead-on. But for any particular player he can be over- or under-estimating their ability. (A bad scout might systematically over-evaluate players.) My second basic measure is their performance. With enough observations, their statistics should be a better measure of their true ability. Or maybe I should be saying true performance, because that is what I want out of them, right?
It seems to me that this was also Bill James' key insight--that the statistics matter. He kept pointing to the fact that you were far better off assembling a team based on measured performance than on whether guys "looked like" baseball players, or conformed to the stereotypes of some low-IQ scouts and "baseball men" who "knew." Like Chuck Tanner batter Omar Moreno (sp?) lead off game after game. Which is (yet another) of the many things I love about OOTP--it's like real baseball. I keep looking--just like Bill James said to do all those years ago--for cheap ballplayers with low "ratings" who nonetheless generate good statistics. (I remember in the 1980s James pointing out that one of the most productive offensive players in the game was Gary Redus, whom people were giving away.) I find that this occurs most often when a player can post dynamite OPS stats from one side of the plate, but is on average not exceptional.

04-27-2003, 07:42 PM	#1
Plutoro Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 276	Ratings or Stats? I know both are important and I should look at both but which do you put more stock in. If a player has say a 5 for hits, but bats .295 every year would you look at the 5 or the average? Same thing if he has like a 4 for HR's but still belts 30 each year..

04-27-2003, 07:45 PM	#2
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	Both. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

04-28-2003, 10:54 AM	#4
SSG Troyer All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somewhere to the left of 2nd base Posts: 1,598	Unless you're playing with "Scouts Off," any ratings you see are through your scout's eyes. Even Lengendary Scouts get them wrong, just not by as much as Average ones. I use ratings as an initial guide, but stats are what make or break a player. __________________ MWT Did Tennesee Delaware Mississppi's New Jersey? Idaho ... Alaska!

04-28-2003, 03:39 PM	#7
Biggie Fries Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Bryn Mawr, PA USA Posts: 115	For newer players, you have to rely at least in part on the scouts, but after that, I advise statistics. Here's why: <p>My model for how the game works is something like this. Each player has a "true" ability level. I put true in quotation marks first because this is something that I can't see, second because this true ability level has both systematic (<i>e.g.</i>, aging) and random ("streaking," year-to-year osicllations around the aging curve) components. But it's there. Now, I have two basic measures of this true ability level. One is what the scout says. On average--that is, across a whole bunch of players--my legendary scout might be dead-on. But for any particular player he can be over- or under-estimating their ability. (A bad scout might systematically over-evaluate players.) My second basic measure is their performance. With enough observations, their statistics should be a <i>better</i> measure of their true ability. Or maybe I should be saying true <i>performance</i>, because that is what I want out of them, right? <p>It seems to me that this was also Bill James' key insight--that the statistics matter. He kept pointing to the fact that you were far better off assembling a team based on measured performance than on whether guys "looked like" baseball players, or conformed to the stereotypes of some low-IQ scouts and "baseball men" who "knew." Like Chuck Tanner batter Omar Moreno (sp?) lead off game after game. Which is (yet another) of the many things I love about OOTP--it's like real baseball. I keep looking--just like Bill James said to do all those years ago--for cheap ballplayers with low "ratings" who nonetheless generate good statistics. (I remember in the 1980s James pointing out that one of the most productive offensive players in the game was Gary Redus, whom people were giving away.) I find that this occurs most often when a player can post dynamite OPS stats from one side of the plate, but is on average not exceptional.

04-27-2003, 08:38 PM	#3
viper31631 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indiana Posts: 69	I say stats especailly if they are consistant over time

04-28-2003, 11:14 AM	#5
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Yeah, there are cases where if you look at the stats you're going to wonder what hallucinogen your scout is taking. I took over a team that had this vet pitcher the scout loved. Dominant. But for 8 straight years the pitcher's ERA had been at least 1 run above the league average. Well at least I got a good prospect out of him. Of course, knowing my luck, this'll be the year that pitcher puts it all together and wins a Cy Young.

04-28-2003, 03:24 PM	#6
suurimonster Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 64	I have too much faith in my scouts (they are such a nice bunch) - if they tell me a guy with poor stats is good, I assume they have seen how he fits into the overall dynamic of my team and I expect that he will become a League Leader as soon as he joins. Normally he does nothing all season, then his ratings drop to match his stats within a few years...but then I assume the coaches were still right and he was poisoned by local rivals.