We are go for Stats-Only

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Wait a minute, DCG. He's not chastising me, or if he is, I don't take it that way. He knows and I know that I have the right to "play it my way."

The Wolf likes to emphasize and re-emphasize his points (and perhaps have the last word ) but he is not being antagonistic toward me or anybody else in this thread. Yet.

Wolf, try this: Don't respond. Let it go.

Sorry, Bru, but people like that need to know how wrong they are.

[ashantewarrier]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Sorry, Bru, but people like that need to know how wrong they are.

Fellas, can't we all just get along?

Anyway, I've been thinking about doing stats only myself. I've been setting up feeders so I can have some historical stats to evaluate talent. With feeders I really do not see a need to have ratings. as produced stats should provide a baseline to evaluate talent.

[DCG12]

How was anything I said childish or inappropriate? You don't like when people respond to you with name calling so why do you do it?

If Bru wants to defend you that's fine but I still took it to be you "demanding" that he/or anyone not call it stats only.

If you would use those three letters IMO once in a while it would change the whole perception. If you said "IMO that's not stats only" everyone me included, would shrug and move on.

[Cras]

Well, in truth if we go literally, what I am gonna try to do isnt stats-only, because I am not only using stats.

I called it Diet Stats-Only because I am using the philosophy and intent behind stats-only, but watering it down or altering it a bit to fit how I think to better emulate the GM experience. If OOTP generates the results in the right way or even these little bit of ratings will throw it off, I will just have to wait and see. Maybe I should have called it Stats Lite. But I think when I called it what I did, most people understand what I was talking about, there is a logical progression there, if not making total literal sense.

[Sven Draconian]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

it gives you the nearest thing to a real-life GM experience you can have.

This is an absurd statement. A "real" general manager has the opportunity to go and see a player perform. He has a cadre of scouts who can go see a player perform. There is video and a well established system of scouting a player using the 20-80 system.

The vague scouting reports the game provides does not provide near the depth that a "real" GM has.

The most "realistic" in terms of scouting would be to have the 20-80 scale for overall/potential and 2-8 for each category as that is the system used by professional organizations. You can tweak the accuracy however you want.

If the goal is to make the game harder, play however you want. However, difficulty and realism are not the same thing. The whole alpha attitude of your posts is the only childish thing that has occurred in this thread.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by ashantewarrier

Fellas, can't we all just get along?

Anyway, I've been thinking about doing stats only myself. I've been setting up feeders so I can have some historical stats to evaluate talent. With feeders I really do not see a need to have ratings. as produced stats should provide a baseline to evaluate talent.

They do. You have to have feeder leagues so you can have stats to base your draft choices on.

In stats-only I've been getting what feels like an accurate number of first-round busts.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by DCG12

If Bru wants to defend you that's fine but I still took it to be you "demanding" that he/or anyone not call it stats only.

"Whites-only" meant no blacks. "Men-only" means no women. "Stats-only" means no ratings.

English - do you speak it?

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Sven Draconian

This is an absurd statement. A "real" general manager has the opportunity to go and see a player perform. He has a cadre of scouts who can go see a player perform. There is video and a well established system of scouting a player using the 20-80 system.

The vague scouting reports the game provides does not provide near the depth that a "real" GM has.

The most "realistic" in terms of scouting would be to have the 20-80 scale for overall/potential and 2-8 for each category as that is the system used by professional organizations. You can tweak the accuracy however you want.

If the goal is to make the game harder, play however you want. However, difficulty and realism are not the same thing. The whole alpha attitude of your posts is the only childish thing that has occurred in this thread.

You don't speak English either. Anyone can play any way they want, but it's not stats-only unless it IS stats-only.

I stand by my statement that stats-only is the closest thing that you can get to a real-life GM experience at this moment in the game. Real GM's do not have magic rating devices that can tell them if a .300 hitter is a true .300 hitter, or actually a .270 or .330 hitter. Not can they tell what a player's potential is. In stats-only you can't either.

[The Wolf]

Instead of jumping on me for being accurate, why don't some of you actually try stats-only? You might find yourself enjoying the game more.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Real GM's do not have magic rating devices that can tell them if a .300 hitter is a true .300 hitter, or actually a .270 or .330 hitter. Not can they tell what a player's potential is. In stats-only you can't either.

No, but they have people who tell them that they would score a player's hit tool as 5, or 6, or whatever. Those real-life ratings aren't infallible, and God knows that OOTP's scouts aren't either, without even taking into account random talent hits. You're setting up a strawman here of perfect information versus stats-only, whereas most people play somewhere in the middle. I too don't understand how having no rating information is "realistic" but I won't knock you for preferring a certain way of playing the game.

[Cras]

I am 0 for 2 now in threads it seems.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by Cras

I am 0 for 2 now in threads it seems.

0 for 2 ain't bad. Try 0-1260

[Sven Draconian]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

You don't speak English either. Anyone can play any way they want, but it's not stats-only unless it IS stats-only.

I stand by my statement that stats-only is the closest thing that you can get to a real-life GM experience at this moment in the game. Real GM's do not have magic rating devices that can tell them if a .300 hitter is a true .300 hitter, or actually a .270 or .330 hitter. Not can they tell what a player's potential is. In stats-only you can't either.

Where did I say he was playing stats only? I don't really know where anybody said he was playing stats only. He, in the opening post, talked about playing modified stats only with a description. You went on a couple of rants for no reason.

And yes, they do. They pay a group of people a relatively decent amount of money to translate ability to production. That is what scouts do.

As for not being able to tell what a player's potential is, that is absolute hog wash. We can argue about how accurately they can predict things, but to say that they can not predict potential is an utterly baseless claim. There are entire industries dedicated to exactly that.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Instead of jumping on me for being accurate, why don't some of you actually try stats-only? You might find yourself enjoying the game more.

I have tried stats only. Not a big fan. It made certain aspects of the game take way to long and I wound up bogged down. Not my cup of tea. I enjoy the diet-stats only approach (no real ratings, 2-8 scale).

[Honorable_Pawn]

[Rich Tiger Fan]

Originally Posted by Sven Draconian

This is an absurd statement. A "real" general manager has the opportunity to go and see a player perform. He has a cadre of scouts who can go see a player perform. There is video and a well established system of scouting a player using the 20-80 system.

The vague scouting reports the game provides does not provide near the depth that a "real" GM has.

The most "realistic" in terms of scouting would be to have the 20-80 scale for overall/potential and 2-8 for each category as that is the system used by professional organizations. You can tweak the accuracy however you want.

If the goal is to make the game harder, play however you want. However, difficulty and realism are not the same thing. The whole alpha attitude of your posts is the only childish thing that has occurred in this thread.

This is exactly what I was going to say. Indeed this is not stats only but neither is what a real GM deals with on a day to day basis.

There are tons of high school players who hit .400 every year, hit homers, drive in runs but does that make them a top prospect? There are so many other things that go into it and being able to visualize that is key.

I agree that the most realistic approach is the hybrid approach of using 2-8 or 20-80 potential only which is what you would get from your scouts in real life. Turn off stars. This is the way I usually play.

However yes I agree with Wolf that is not "Stats Only" but it is more realistic IMO.

I also agree that whether he meant it or not, Wolf did come off as pretty much telling people how to play the game even if the OP did not take it that way.

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by Sven Draconian

This is an absurd statement. A "real" general manager has the opportunity to go and see a player perform. He has a cadre of scouts who can go see a player perform. There is video and a well established system of scouting a player using the 20-80 system.

The vague scouting reports the game provides does not provide near the depth that a "real" GM has.

As someone that has just started to play the game on a regular basis, I use the ratings without the stars. You can go down to the field and can see first hand if the guy has a plus fastball or a 12 to 6 curve or, if you've watched Roy Halladay as of late, you'll see that he no longer has a fastball and no movement on most of his pitches (unfortunately for Phillies fans).

[Cras]

For those of you using a Diet variation on stats play, how are you going about your AI Eval Settings?

You giving any weight at all to ratings? My thinking is this still should be left at zero since you have no clue what the current ratings are, and only a rough glimpse of potential.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Well, here is where I differ from The Wolf.

I'm not so sure ratings should be at 0%. I think it should be given a little weight to simulate GM, scouts, and managers actually getting to see the players play in person.

Also, I do not think that current year stats should be weighted as heavily as many of us used to do. This causes the AI to overreact to a good year or a bad year. A proven veteran shouldn't be judged based upon just this current year. He has proven year-over-year with his entire body of work that he is solid player. But just beacuse he is in a slump and because current year is too heavily weighted it becomes too easy to cheat the AI looking to dump a stud because of a bad year.

Also, unproven rookies are given the same eval "eye" as a vet even though they have done nothing at all if prior year and prior plus one are not weighted enough.

In a "stats only" or a "diet lite stats" enviornment I would, personally, start with something like this:

R: 20
CY: 28
PY1: 27
PY2: 25

Maybe even:

R: 10
CY: 33
PY1: 30
PY2: 27

In an enviornment where ratings are on I use this and love the results:

R: 31
CY: 24
PY: 23
PY2: 22

[Honorable_Pawn]

And finally...I have been meaning to say this forever.


Everyone think favor prospects is the hardest setting. It's not! It's the easiest. You make the AI dump proven veterans for bump or lump prospects. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

If you want to make trading preference the most challenging it should be left at favor normal.

If you go to favor prospects it's too easy to fleece cheap veterans for 5-star rookie potentials that--most of the time--flame out. If you go favor veterans it's too easy to swindle top 100 prospects. Normal is most difficult.

[Cras]

Thanks. I think I will try the 10-33-30-27....

After posting I was doing some more thinking and I thought the same as you, that there should be something else there in terms of ratings...even if it is not ratings but more like...I know what this guy can do and remove some reactionary decision making.

After watching Adam Dunn in 2011 basically just make a fool of himself, he kept going back out there. If we go on stats only, then that would never happen, he would have gotten benched.