Stats Only v Ratings, A Compromise

[PSUColonel]

I'd still like to know if anyone tried these financial settings, and what results the may have yielded.

[PSUColonel]

I realize it has nothing to do with stats only, but the OP is right that the asking prices and contracts for upper their players aren't quite up to par.

[Mr. Baseball]

I hate ratings. I think it's tacky. You see so many people on here posting pictures of their league and their team wins their division every year and usually plays .600 plus baseball. Some people do that year, after year, after year. It doesn't make sense to me because I would just quit OOTP cold turkey if it were that easy. I haven't played with ratings on since OOTP 9 and I'm never going back (hence my signature). Scouting reports and stats. Turn your scouts on with 'very low accuracy' though so the scouting reports aren't very accurate. Good luck winning your division every year with this system.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Mr. Baseball

I hate ratings. I think it's tacky. You see so many people on here posting pictures of their league and their team wins their division every year and usually plays .600 plus baseball. Some people do that year, after year, after year. It doesn't make sense to me because I would just quit OOTP cold turkey if it were that easy. I haven't played with ratings on since OOTP 9 and I'm never going back (hence my signature). Scouting reports and stats. Turn your scouts on with 'very low accuracy' though so the scouting reports aren't very accurate. Good luck winning your division every year with this system.

It's not nearly as easy as you think with ratings and scouting on (version 9 was long ago)...but again, this thread really isn't about stats only vs ratings. It's more of a financial thread...don't know why the OP titled it the way he did.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by braunfullyaccused

I'm actually rolling w/ 1-20 w/ potential as Stars. Going to 2-8 would def. help my intended goal even more (by obscuring the ratings slightly more) but I've been playing 1-20 for so many years that I think I'd be tripping all over myself.

But def. something I want to try.

I have played 1-20 since 2007. I switched to 1-10 in 13 and thought the same thing as you. I adjusted quickly without all of the imagined worries. I can't bring myself to go to 2-8. I need a 1.

I'm late to the party.

[saturn2187]

Forgive me if this is obvious, but what is the appeal of 2-8 vs 1-20? Is it because this is the "real" system, or is it because it also makes evaluation slightly more difficult as the degrees of difference are less clear?

[snepp]

Originally Posted by saturn2187

Forgive me if this is obvious, but what is the appeal of 2-8 vs 1-20? Is it because this is the "real" system, or is it because it also makes evaluation slightly more difficult as the degrees of difference are less clear?

A combination of both for me. 2-8 simulates the 20-80 scale, while being quite a bit more difficult.

There's also the visual aspect, looking at single digits thousands of times over vs double digits can be a bit easier on the eyes.

[le receveur]

Originally Posted by saturn2187

Forgive me if this is obvious, but what is the appeal of 2-8 vs 1-20? Is it because this is the "real" system, or is it because it also makes evaluation slightly more difficult as the degrees of difference are less clear?

it gives a better idea where the rating sits, but probably because i am not used to the other number. i know a 6 (in 2-8) is one standard deviation above average...

i have no idea what a 13 is....

[MarkInCincy]

Originally Posted by le receveur

it gives a better idea where the rating sits, but probably because i am not used to the other number. i know a 6 (in 2-8) is one standard deviation above average...

i have no idea what a 13 is....

What he said 6 is 1 SD above avg , 7 is 2, 8 is 3 , so an 8 is in the top 2% approx, theres a MAJOR diff in in 8 vs 7 in 2-8, way bigger difference than 9 vs 10 in a 1 to 10, like a Barry Bonds to George Foster

[dcpcarmona]

now that makes sense!

[MarkInCincy]

Dark blue is less than one standard deviation from the mean. For the normal distribution, this accounts for 68.27% of the set; while two standard deviations from the mean (medium and dark blue) account for 95.45%; and three standard deviations (light, medium, and dark blue) account for 99.73%.

From 68?95?99.7 rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[saturn2187]

I get the whole standard deviation idea, but are we sure thats the way the ratings are shown? Is there some official link to this?

[MarkInCincy]

Originally Posted by saturn2187

I get the whole standard deviation idea, but are we sure thats the way the ratings are shown? Is there some official link to this?

Not a clue thats what i always thought it was since the 2-8 scale fits the bell curve.std dev thing, but then I could be wrong, would not be the first time (just ask my 3 ex-wives)

[le receveur]

Originally Posted by MarkInCincy

Not a clue thats what i always thought it was since the 2-8 scale fits the bell curve.std dev thing, but then I could be wrong, would not be the first time (just ask my 3 ex-wives)

this is what it is in RL scouting. does OOTP interpret it this way? not sure.