Player ratings question.

tyler · 07-13-2003, 05:22 PM

Just wondering what ratings type you guys use: Traditional or Reduced? I like reduced better, personally, because it seems a bit more realistic, not giving away as much of the players information. Anyway, just wondering what some reasons were that people would use traditional over reduced and vice versa.

-tyler

Kelric · 07-13-2003, 05:25 PM

I go with Traditional, as I find that to be more realistic. Funny how we both use different tools to get the same feel.

If I'm a scout, and I see a player's stats for the last five years and see he has hit 50 homers every year and 30 doubles, that is the same as seeing a 10 in homers and a 6 in doubles (or whatever the respective ratings may be) in Traditional. I don't just want to know the guy has power, I want to know if he can hit doubles or not, how often those triples are going to bang around the corners of Fenway, etc.

Plutoro · 07-13-2003, 06:11 PM

i use talents only

traditional is unrealistic because of the ERA rating.

couriers · 07-13-2003, 06:16 PM

I use:

Traditional in my State Leagues...

Reduced in my MLB and North American Leagues...

Talent Only in my Global League...

Nice mix for a different feel dependant on the style of play that each league dictates.

matskralc · 07-13-2003, 11:45 PM

I only use talent. Makes the game that much more difficult, as it forces me to rely more on statistics. I still use the star rating system to help me in making roster moves, but now I actually have to look at a player's stat history, and consider things like his home ballpark and what not, instead of just seeing 6-6-3-7-5-6, and knowing right away what I can expect. Talents are also rough indicators of ability, instead of exact measurements, so it's more difficult to determine if a guy is a bust/fluke/etc. Factor in that a scout being off one level on a talent could be 3-4 rating points, and there's a lot more room for error, which I think is a more realistic representation of baseball.

holyroller · 07-13-2003, 11:47 PM

Talent only exclusively.

Henry · 07-13-2003, 11:56 PM

Yep, talent (at least in my solo leagues). To me it seems a talent rating and his actual accomplishments are all I would know anyway.

07-13-2003, 05:22 PM	#1
tyler Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 24	Player ratings question. Just wondering what ratings type you guys use: Traditional or Reduced? I like reduced better, personally, because it seems a bit more realistic, not giving away as much of the players information. Anyway, just wondering what some reasons were that people would use traditional over reduced and vice versa. -tyler

07-13-2003, 06:11 PM	#3
Plutoro Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 276	i use talents only traditional is unrealistic because of the ERA rating. __________________ SMLB-San Diego Padres: Pre-season 2003, currently rebuilding (year 1 of 5). 15-22 now, Klesko and Burroughs are hot each hitting .325 plus, Bartosh and Keisler both making strong cases for RoY in the early season.

07-13-2003, 11:45 PM	#5
matskralc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,076	I only use talent. Makes the game that much more difficult, as it forces me to rely more on statistics. I still use the star rating system to help me in making roster moves, but now I actually have to look at a player's stat history, and consider things like his home ballpark and what not, instead of just seeing 6-6-3-7-5-6, and knowing right away what I can expect. Talents are also rough indicators of ability, instead of exact measurements, so it's more difficult to determine if a guy is a bust/fluke/etc. Factor in that a scout being off one level on a talent could be 3-4 rating points, and there's a lot more room for error, which I think is a more realistic representation of baseball. __________________ Well, they have a saying here in Texas ... but they probably don't have it in California, so never mind. OTBL - Pennsylvania Fightin' Amish ABC - Pittsburgh Puma OCHO - Pittsburgh Pirates EBU - Commissioner

07-13-2003, 11:47 PM	#6
holyroller Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: OTBL Forums Posts: 3,532	Talent only exclusively. __________________ Back to work, but not drawing a paycheck. TonyJ et. al.'s alias “I confused it with the chicken’s neck,” Mocanu, who was admitted to the emergency hospital in Galati, was quoted as saying. “I cut it ... and the dog rushed and ate it.”

07-13-2003, 05:25 PM	#2
Kelric Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Greater Boston Area Posts: 3,992	I go with Traditional, as I find that to be more realistic. Funny how we both use different tools to get the same feel. If I'm a scout, and I see a player's stats for the last five years and see he has hit 50 homers every year and 30 doubles, that is the same as seeing a 10 in homers and a 6 in doubles (or whatever the respective ratings may be) in Traditional. I don't just want to know the guy has power, I want to know if he can hit doubles or not, how often those triples are going to bang around the corners of Fenway, etc.

07-13-2003, 06:16 PM	#4
couriers All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Fort Lauderdale Fla Posts: 932	I use: Traditional in my State Leagues... Reduced in my MLB and North American Leagues... Talent Only in my Global League... Nice mix for a different feel dependant on the style of play that each league dictates.

07-13-2003, 11:56 PM	#7
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Yep, talent (at least in my solo leagues). To me it seems a talent rating and his actual accomplishments are all I would know anyway.