Playing Stats Only

[mbi]

How does everyone tweak their settings to their optimal level?

I'm coming over from OOTP12 (was so engrossed I just skipped 13) and I always go back and forth on how I like playing with my settings.

Right now splits look like this (ratings, this year, last year 2 years ago):

JAN: 40 30 20 10
FEB: 40 20 20 20
MAR: 40 20 20 20
APR: 40 0 40 20
MAY: 40 5 35 20
JUNE: 40 15 30 15
JULY: 40 25 25 10
AUG: 40 35 20 5
SEPT: 40 50 10 0
OCT: 40 30 20 10
NOV: 40 30 20 10
DEC: 40 30 20 10

I pulled these off some post from a few years ago, and sometimes I like what I see and other times I want to change it up because the AI seems to be playing the wrong players, and making player personal moves that make sense (such as optioning a 1B who hit .371/.441/.673 in 536 ABs his age 24 season to AAA for his age 25 season)


Really I made this thread to discuss everything stats only players do and discuss it all, since I couldn't really find a wiki type thread

[slugga27]

I use 0/67/22/11. The objective of stats-only is to force the AI (and yourself, really) to play without regard for the arbitrary ratings. Having ratings weight at 40 (as you have) defeats the purpose of stats-only, in my opinion.

[olivertheorem]

I usually do 60/30/10 or something similar when I play stats-only.

[mbi]

Originally Posted by slugga27

I use 0/67/22/11. The objective of stats-only is to force the AI (and yourself, really) to play without regard for the arbitrary ratings. Having ratings weight at 40 (as you have) defeats the purpose of stats-only, in my opinion.

In real life highly regarded prospects (Brandon Wood, Dallas McPherson, Cameron Maybin, etc) get more opportunities then the David Ecksteins of the world, so I feel ratings should have some role.

Then again, I've never considered going 0 ratings.

[Questdog]

Even with ratings set to 0, ratings are taken into account for prospects and players with little or no stats.....

[olivertheorem]

This is true, and why I strive to get everybody playing time.

[mbi]

Looks like I'm learning

[slugga27]

Originally Posted by mbi

In real life highly regarded prospects (Brandon Wood, Dallas McPherson, Cameron Maybin, etc) get more opportunities then the David Ecksteins of the world, so I feel ratings should have some role.

Then again, I've never considered going 0 ratings.

Still, there are no "hard-coded" ratings in real life. The 20-80 scales, which real scouts use, is only perceived and not actual. If you haven't considered playing 0 ratings, then you haven't even considered playing stats-only. Just saying.

EDIT: The David Ecksteins of the world get overlooked because of stature, not ability...

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by slugga27

Still, there are no "hard-coded" ratings in real life. The 20-80 scales, which real scouts use, is only perceived and not actual. If you haven't considered playing 0 ratings, then you haven't even considered playing stats-only. Just saying.

EDIT: The David Ecksteins of the world get overlooked because of stature, not ability...

But there are "hard coded" tools, if you will. The Ecksteins don't have nearly as much physical talent as the Maybins of the world. Have you ever watched Eckstein throw to first? Clearly he is lacking in physical talent compared to most other MLB players.

The Maybins of the world jump higher, run faster, throw harder, have quicker bat speed. That's what the ratings simulate. So to turn off the ratings entirely seems a bit extreme.

I say this as someone who thinks tools are highly overrated irl. I hate the BA obsession with toolsy guys who may run fast and throw hard but have no idea how to hit and most usually never learn.

But to act like tools have nothing to do with playing baseball is just as extreme and short sighted imo as acting like they're the only important thing. Toolsy guys who "get it" are the kind of players that turn into superstars.

There's a happy medium, recognizing that physical attributes exist and are important, but that they aren't all important.

So by all means, put the most emphasis on stats, but don't have the game completely ignore ratings either.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by slugga27

Still, there are no "hard-coded" ratings in real life. The 20-80 scales, which real scouts use, is only perceived and not actual. If you haven't considered playing 0 ratings, then you haven't even considered playing stats-only. Just saying.

EDIT: The David Ecksteins of the world get overlooked because of stature, not ability...

Oh yes there are. Miggy Cabrera can just flat out smack the ball. That's been obvious since day 1. No special skill required to see that.

[olivertheorem]

As someone who does put ratings to 0 when playing stats-only, I would like to say that I think that is a perfectly viable point of view, lukasberger.

[mouse001]

Someone explain this to me. Why play stats only?

If you have scouting enabled, those "ratings" you see aren't the real ratings, they are the scouts opinion of a player. His scouting report, numerically. In theory those playing stats only check those written scouting reports? At least for young players I assume? Well those numbers are just the numerical interpretation of the written reports. Same information, less obtuse.

Now, if a scout thinks a player has 80/80 power but his stats say he can't hit more than 5 homers a season, he isn't my cleanup hitter. In a sense, I'm playing stats only. But I'm watching those scouting numbers as a barometer. This guy should hit .300. This pitcher should have a lot of strikeouts. But in the end, it is all about performance.

So, why turn off those scout ratings? It makes things more obtuse, not really more difficult. Another way to make the game obtuse is to restart your computer every time you sim a day. Same thing happens in the end, just more time wasted.

And yes, I realize you can set scouting off and just see a players real ratings. This is not what I'm talking about. Although, again, just because a player has 80/80 power rating doesn't guarantee him 40+ homers a season. But this is not what I'm talking about.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by olivertheorem

As someone who does put ratings to 0 when playing stats-only, I would like to say that I think that is a perfectly viable point of view, lukasberger.

Sure, it's viable. I apologize if I made it sound like I didn't think so, that wasn't my intent. I simply think it's a little extreme for the reasons I explained.

As I alluded to, I lean heavily toward stats myself, but don't think that ratings should be completely ignored. The ratings to me represent the tools, the built in physical characteristics that each player has.

If you like playing that way though, go for it. I'm not criticizing, honest. Just adding a slightly different viewpoint.

[SetonHallPirate]

I do wish, and haven't said this for a while, if ever (primarily because I often forget about this board except during the run-up to release, I've purchased every version since OOTP3), that we could set a second set of splits, just for arbitration (the arbitration splits would be 0-100-0-0 for me).

[slugga27]

Originally Posted by mouse001

Someone explain this to me. Why play stats only?

If you have scouting enabled, those "ratings" you see aren't the real ratings, they are the scouts opinion of a player. His scouting report, numerically. In theory those playing stats only check those written scouting reports? At least for young players I assume? Well those numbers are just the numerical interpretation of the written reports. Same information, less obtuse.

Now, if a scout thinks a player has 80/80 power but his stats say he can't hit more than 5 homers a season, he isn't my cleanup hitter. In a sense, I'm playing stats only. But I'm watching those scouting numbers as a barometer. This guy should hit .300. This pitcher should have a lot of strikeouts. But in the end, it is all about performance.

So, why turn off those scout ratings? It makes things more obtuse, not really more difficult. Another way to make the game obtuse is to restart your computer every time you sim a day. Same thing happens in the end, just more time wasted.

And yes, I realize you can set scouting off and just see a players real ratings. This is not what I'm talking about. Although, again, just because a player has 80/80 power rating doesn't guarantee him 40+ homers a season. But this is not what I'm talking about.

Playing stats-only adds a "fog of war" to the game. Is Player X a perennial all-star or is he more like a Mark Fydrich (one-year wonder)?

At the end of the day, this is merely just my opinion--my take--on things.

[Neolithic]

I might try one last true Stats Only game tomorrow while I wait for Friday to get here. But I typically play with just Potential ratings on, sometimes with scouting, sometimes without. I do leave the "other" ratings on for defense/speed/etc.

I think that is a fair "fog of war" even real life players are given quantifiable "potential" ratings on everything about their game. I then turn to the stats to see if that player is living up to his potential, is he headed towards it, or is he just a bust, or has his hidden "current ratings" hit his potential, and he just will never produce the stats to back it up.

I look at potential ratings to be the things we can quantify arbitrarily about a player, even in real life.

Though I usually use the 2-8 scale, to not only be closer to reality, but to help with the vagueness.

[Cras]

I tried Stats only......then I did a thought experiment in my head and it just didnt make sense.


So I switched to 2-8 and just heavily favour stats, so there is still a scouting report, but the stats are needed to really get the full story. Mimics more real life I think, which to me is more important than the ultimate challenge.

[mouse001]

Originally Posted by Neolithic

I might try one last true Stats Only game tomorrow while I wait for Friday to get here. But I typically play with just Potential ratings on, sometimes with scouting, sometimes without. I do leave the "other" ratings on for defense/speed/etc.

I think that is a fair "fog of war" even real life players are given quantifiable "potential" ratings on everything about their game. I then turn to the stats to see if that player is living up to his potential, is he headed towards it, or is he just a bust, or has his hidden "current ratings" hit his potential, and he just will never produce the stats to back it up.

I look at potential ratings to be the things we can quantify arbitrarily about a player, even in real life.

Though I usually use the 2-8 scale, to not only be closer to reality, but to help with the vagueness.

Originally Posted by slugga27

Playing stats-only adds a "fog of war" to the game. Is Player X a perennial all-star or is he more like a Mark Fydrich (one-year wonder)?

But the scouting ratings don't show you what a player is going to do. They show what the scout thinks a player should do. Mark Fydrich was a one year wonder but after that one year scouts assumed he would do well, so they gave me high ratings. Did he ever repeat? No. Having those ratings on did nothing except tell the GM "Hey, this guy should be a good player" which his stats indicated anyway. Hiding a players true ratings gives a fog of war, yes, but not scout ratings.

For another example, let's say you have Player Y, perennial all-star and now a free agent at 34. Do you look at just his stats? His stats say he's great. But a scouting report (written or numerically) can tell you that he's lost some power, lost some speed, whatever. Again, that's the scouts opinion from scouting him. So maybe he still hits out 45 homers. Who knows. But it's more information to make a better decision on a player. Not hard-coded THESE ARE HIS RATINGS information but realistic, human-error-like scouting information.

Why ignore this information? To make it harder? The logical (though ridiculous) continuation of this would be to ignore his stats too and just sign players based on something arbitrary. That would make the game much more difficult but again, not anymore realistic or fun. In the end, scouting ratings never won a championship.

I should note I use 2-8 settings because I figure a there isn't a huge gap between a power rating of 42, 44, or 47 so I'd rather see simply a 4 or a 5. I obviously go by stats but this tells me what a player should be doing

[Questdog]

The reason I don't use scouts and ratings is that the scouts in OOTP can see things that no real scout ever laid eyes on......

Never, ever in the history of baseball has a scout, watching a player 27 years old who was hitting .400 at the All-Star break, turned in a report saying this guy is about to turn into Granny Clampett.....

No crystal balls allowed in my leagues....

If you want to use scouts, then turn off potential ratings and only allow current ratings....

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Cras

I tried Stats only......then I did a thought experiment in my head and it just didnt make sense.


So I switched to 2-8 and just heavily favour stats, so there is still a scouting report, but the stats are needed to really get the full story. Mimics more real life I think, which to me is more important than the ultimate challenge.

Pretty much what I do. Scouting on very low with AI Eval @ 25% across the board which is pretty much stat heavy.

Ratings on a 2-8 scale.

Since these settings (w/heavy favor prospects, trade very hard. Talent change = 200) I never seen a stupid roster move by the AI nor have I been able to dominate the league.