Additional Player Ratings

[FourSixThree]

There have always been three additional ratings that I'd like to see implemented into the game.

1. Clubhouse Rating: Recently I'd been forced to trade for a middle of the lineup bat. There were two players on my team who I was willing to deal and after comparing them, they were almost identical players. Both were young middle infielders who had been steadily improving. Both were making about the same amount of money. Both players had similar scouting reports and since the trade, both players, (the one I held onto and the one I dealt), have developed into similar players. In terms of local popularity, both players were again the same. The only attribute that I could not account for was each player's popularity among their teammates. I'd like to see a "Clubhouse Popularity" rating for this reason. If a similar trade opportunity presents itself and I'm able to differentiate between one player who is popular in the clubhouse and another player who isn't, I think it would add another element of realism to the game.

2. Clutch: I've never understood why games exclude this from player ratings. I think I remember playing an older NBA Live game that rated each player's ability to perform in the clutch. Throughout baseball's history some players have been regarded as "clutch" players. This rating would come in handy when, say your team is in need of a big bat off the bench for the postseason run, you could search for players who have proven they can handle tough situations.

3. Scouting Reports: I often have my scout send me reports about my players or other players I've shortlisted around the league and I often end up reading the same things over and over. Is there a way to make the scouting reports more in depth? For example, maybe a scout might look at a mediocre hitter and instead of just telling me "This guy has average contact ability. He's a .250 hitter," my scout might say something about how this guy matches up against lefties or righties, or how he's fared as a pinch hitter. Does anyone else have some ideas for ways to improve this function?

As always, thanks for taking our ideas into consideration.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

There have always been three additional ratings that I'd like to see implemented into the game.

1. Clubhouse Rating: Recently I'd been forced to trade for a middle of the lineup bat. There were two players on my team who I was willing to deal and after comparing them, they were almost identical players. Both were young middle infielders who had been steadily improving. Both were making about the same amount of money. Both players had similar scouting reports and since the trade, both players, (the one I held onto and the one I dealt), have developed into similar players. In terms of local popularity, both players were again the same. The only attribute that I could not account for was each player's popularity among their teammates. I'd like to see a "Clubhouse Popularity" rating for this reason. If a similar trade opportunity presents itself and I'm able to differentiate between one player who is popular in the clubhouse and another player who isn't, I think it would add another element of realism to the game.

That's what personality ratings are for. How would you measure this? Is it done irl?

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

2. Clutch: I've never understood why games exclude this from player ratings. I think I remember playing an older NBA Live game that rated each player's ability to perform in the clutch. Throughout baseball's history some players have been regarded as "clutch" players. This rating would come in handy when, say your team is in need of a big bat off the bench for the postseason run, you could search for players who have proven they can handle tough situations.

How do you measure clutch to apply a rating? It doesn't exist irl, so how would you propose to add it to the game?

[FourSixThree]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

That's what personality ratings are for. How would you measure this? Is it done irl?

I think it's most definitely accounted for in real life. Look at Milton Bradley's history as a clubhouse cancer and compare it to a guy like Torii Hunter who has always been considered a good teammate. I think it would have to also incorporate a "Team Morale" rating. This would be different than "Chemistry" which I don't believe exists. I think morale is real though as we've seen players in real life speak out against managers/ownership, especially when it comes to demanding trades because they're not happy with the way a team is being run or built.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

How do you measure clutch to apply a rating? It doesn't exist irl, so how would you propose to add it to the game?

This would simply be a tool for managers and it would really only apply to simulations. I've read a lot about proving or disproving "clutch". There are some arguments I agree with and some that I don't. I'm not saying that some players perform better in pressure situations, but I do think some players perform worse. The most celebrated argument claims that you can't use past performances to predict how a player will perform in the future given similar circumstances. I'm not sure I agree with this because all other aspects of baseball refute this argument. If Player X has a history of hammering left-handed pitchers, don't managers use this to predict how well said player might perform against a southpaw? If Player Y has performed exceptionally well against Pitcher Z in past matchups, won't a manager be more likely to use this player in a tough situation against this pitcher? I think a "clutch" rating could work similarly in this respect. If Player Z has historically performed well late in the game/in close games/in tied games/etc, perhaps this player's "clutch" rating would be a tic or two higher than a player who hasn't done as well. During a simulation, the computer controlled manager would then be more inclined to call on that player.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

There have always been three additional ratings that I'd like to see implemented into the game.

1. Clubhouse Rating: Recently I'd been forced to trade for a middle of the lineup bat. There were two players on my team who I was willing to deal and after comparing them, they were almost identical players. Both were young middle infielders who had been steadily improving. Both were making about the same amount of money. Both players had similar scouting reports and since the trade, both players, (the one I held onto and the one I dealt), have developed into similar players. In terms of local popularity, both players were again the same. The only attribute that I could not account for was each player's popularity among their teammates. I'd like to see a "Clubhouse Popularity" rating for this reason. If a similar trade opportunity presents itself and I'm able to differentiate between one player who is popular in the clubhouse and another player who isn't, I think it would add another element of realism to the game.

Popular in the clubhouse is part of the player personality ratings and is sometimes described on the player page in game. Would a popularity rating have any affect on in-game results?

I'm not enthusiastic about either the existing description in v15 or the specific rating you desire. It seems unlikely to me that player personality is 100% transferrable unchanged to every other clubhouse. That makes no sense. To be realistic club house popularity would have to be a variable complex interaction related to team composition, ethnicity, location, player performance and team success. I'm quite sure that many less popular players that perform well are accepted in many clubhouses in every sport where winning is the goal.

A realistic popularity module must include the risk of trading a supposedly unpopular player who then becomes the popular leader of another team. OTOH there should also be the risk that a popular leader from another team may turn out to be an unpopular jerk when traded to your team or to a poor or small market team. Realism would have to include a players popularity declining with poor performance and/or changing with time. Maybe a young unpopular hotshot becomes a respected veteran and a once popular veteran is disruptive as he ages. We know these things do occur.

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

2. Clutch: I've never understood why games exclude this from player ratings. I think I remember playing an older NBA Live game that rated each player's ability to perform in the clutch. Throughout baseball's history some players have been regarded as "clutch" players. This rating would come in handy when, say your team is in need of a big bat off the bench for the postseason run, you could search for players who have proven they can handle tough situations.

You said it above. Some players are regarded as clutch. That doesn't suffice to justify a rating. Statistical information that suggests clutch performance describes what happened in the past but cannot predict future performance reliably. You can't observe clutch and rate it like a physical attribute such as good contact or power for batters or pitcher stuff and command or pitch quality.

Check out clutch vs WPA over the last 3 seasons on Fangraphs.

Major League Leaderboards » 2014 » Batters » Win Probability Statistics | FanGraphs Baseball

The best clutch players are not always the best players. I would put more reliance on a consistently good player in any clutch situation.

Major League Leaderboards » 2014 » Batters » Win Probability Statistics | FanGraphs Baseball

Would you take Kyle Seager over the top 10 in the first list. Jose Reyes?

[Leo_The_Lip]

Good in the Club House = "broisterous off-field brosona"

Is Nick Swisher Done? | FanGraphs Baseball

I had read the above today prior to seeing this thread and started chuckling.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

This would simply be a tool for managers and it would really only apply to simulations. I've read a lot about proving or disproving "clutch". There are some arguments I agree with and some that I don't. I'm not saying that some players perform better in pressure situations, but I do think some players perform worse. The most celebrated argument claims that you can't use past performances to predict how a player will perform in the future given similar circumstances.

You are somewhat misrepresenting the argument here. Statistical analysis regarding clutch performance is not generally seen as reliable often due to small sample size or too much variability. Other statistical outputs where sufficient data is available and where the reliability meets certain criteria are absolutely used to predict future performance. I can guarantee that such analysis along with detailed skills anaysis is used to develop contract offers for FA and to predict how and when a prospect may be ready to move up on the depth chart.

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

I'm not sure I agree with this because all other aspects of baseball refute this argument. If Player X has a history of hammering left-handed pitchers, don't managers use this to predict how well said player might perform against a southpaw?

Of course they do. That's what platoon splits are for. Nothing to do with clutch though.

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

If Player Y has performed exceptionally well against Pitcher Z in past matchups, won't a manager be more likely to use this player in a tough situation against this pitcher?

Yes but statistically there is probably no evidence that the performance will continue to be good. As "The Book" says take 1500 random PA over 30 PA every time. I don't have a problem with this anyway. Human nature is irrational.

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

I think a "clutch" rating could work similarly in this respect. If Player Z has historically performed well late in the game/in close games/in tied games/etc, perhaps this player's "clutch" rating would be a tic or two higher than a player who hasn't done as well. During a simulation, the computer controlled manager would then be more inclined to call on that player.

As we said earlier how many PA would you consider enough to rely on any given performance? If a marginal player gets hot for a month and gets several "clutch" hits would his clutch rating be legitimately higher than an 8-10 year veteran with 5000 PA? Would you not have to consider how that performance came about. Who was the opposition, when in the season, the specific pitcher etc. I'd be more inclined to trust a less spectacular but consistent veteran than the flavor of the week.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Let us not forget that OOTP used to have a CLUTCH rating (I cannot remember the last version--not recently is all) and it was pretty much universally reviled. Thus it was removed.

There are late innings and RISP statistics on the players' screens, so if you'd like to make your own CLUTCH evaluations based on prior performance, the stats are there.

Good luck with that.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

Good in the Club House = "broisterous off-field brosona"

Is Nick Swisher Done? | FanGraphs Baseball

I had read the above today prior to seeing this thread and started chuckling.

That's pretty funny.

Interestingly the Kyle Seager extension just announced is an example of some advanced statistical work done by the Mariners to project his future performance. They are buying out 3 arb years and 4 or 5 FA years at a good price if he maintains his current average performance. If he improves and/or doesn't decline early this could be a real steal for the team since he would be very tradable depending on how it is backloaded.They are betting on him averaging at least 3 WAR for 7 or 8 years. Given that he is going into his age 27 season off a 5.8 WAR season its reasonable to say that he could average 4 WAR maybe 4.5 WAR for the next 5 years. Given contract inflation Seattle could get $100 million in value in the first 5 years of this contract. Very team friendly.

If his high clutch stats are maintained then that's icing on the cake.

Mariners, Kyle Seager Agree To Seven-Year, $100MM Extension ? MLB Trade Rumors

[FourSixThree]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

There are late innings and RISP statistics on the players' screens, so if you'd like to make your own CLUTCH evaluations based on prior performance, the stats are there.

Good luck with that.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here but what would those statistics be there for if not to consult them in specific situations?

Originally Posted by RchW

As we said earlier how many PA would you consider enough to rely on any given performance? If a marginal player gets hot for a month and gets several "clutch" hits would his clutch rating be legitimately higher than an 8-10 year veteran with 5000 PA? Would you not have to consider how that performance came about. Who was the opposition, when in the season, the specific pitcher etc. I'd be more inclined to trust a less spectacular but consistent veteran than the flavor of the week.

Obviously there's a difference between a proven hitter and a guy on a hot streak. I'm not saying I'd pinch hit for Mike Trout just because some 5th outfielder with 25 career ABs has a higher avg with RISP. I'm just saying that some statistics regarding pressure situations are recorded and they are recorded for a reason. Perhaps we don't need a CLUTCH rating in OOTP but maybe we could have access to each player's career numbers for situational hitting.

That said, I'm not sure why this thread turned into a "lesson" on "clutch" and whether or not it exists "irl." There are plenty of psychological case studies that prove that people respond to pressure differently. It's been scientifically proven. I'm not saying that this proves that a CLUTCH rating can be quantified and then implemented into OOTP but to suggest that everyone reacts to pressure equally is insane. Just because there's no article on FanGraphs doesn't mean it isn't worth considering.

I mean no disrespect and I'm glad to read other people's opinions on the matter, but it's my understanding that this board is for making suggestions to the game's developers for the next installment. I imagine that if a suggestion sounds good to the community, they'll show their support by "bumping" the topic or "thanking" it. Maybe the developers will see this and then think about ways to implement the idea.

What I don't understand is why so many people, when they see a suggestion that they dislike, feel the need to prove to the suggester that their ideas are stupid or inane or impossible to do or etc.

If you think an idea is stupid, why not just ignore it? Odds are the post will drop off the main page in a day or so. Why must some of us defend and explain ourselves?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here but what would those statistics be there for if not to consult them in specific situations?



Obviously there's a difference between a proven hitter and a guy on a hot streak. I'm not saying I'd pinch hit for Mike Trout just because some 5th outfielder with 25 career ABs has a higher avg with RISP. I'm just saying that some statistics regarding pressure situations are recorded and they are recorded for a reason. Perhaps we don't need a CLUTCH rating in OOTP but maybe we could have access to each player's career numbers for situational hitting.

That said, I'm not sure why this thread turned into a "lesson" on "clutch" and whether or not it exists "irl." There are plenty of psychological case studies that prove that people respond to pressure differently. It's been scientifically proven. I'm not saying that this proves that a CLUTCH rating can be quantified and then implemented into OOTP but to suggest that everyone reacts to pressure equally is insane. Just because there's no article on FanGraphs doesn't mean it isn't worth considering.

I mean no disrespect and I'm glad to read other people's opinions on the matter, but it's my understanding that this board is for making suggestions to the game's developers for the next installment. I imagine that if a suggestion sounds good to the community, they'll show their support by "bumping" the topic or "thanking" it. Maybe the developers will see this and then think about ways to implement the idea.

What I don't understand is why so many people, when they see a suggestion that they dislike, feel the need to prove to the suggester that their ideas are stupid or inane or impossible to do or etc.

If you think an idea is stupid, why not just ignore it? Odds are the post will drop off the main page in a day or so. Why must some of us defend and explain ourselves?

I did not criticize you in any way just the clutch idea. I argued against a clutch rating and presented evidence to support my position without any personal criticism. I did not use the word stupid. However I'm baffled by this comment from you.

but to suggest that everyone reacts to pressure equally is insane. Just because there's no article on FanGraphs doesn't mean it isn't worth considering.

I said no such thing. I actually used Fangraphs tables to show that clutch statistics have been collected but they are clearly not reliable or predictive. I see that as discussion not criticism. I made no reference to a Fangraphs article being needed to justify anything. Why put words in my mouth?

I added onto your personality idea by pointing out that if it is not done correctly (it's highly complex) it would not be realistic. You made the pitch on realism so I felt you would be happy with my support for realism. Did you read my comment? Does it make sense?

It's unfortunate that you were offended by an attempt to discuss OOTP. That was not my intent. I certainly can't promise to ignore comments or suggestions I don't think are realistic for the game. It's just my opinion and this is a board designed to exchange ideas and opinions after all.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by FourSixThree

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here but what would those statistics be there for if not to consult them in specific situations?



Obviously there's a difference between a proven hitter and a guy on a hot streak. I'm not saying I'd pinch hit for Mike Trout just because some 5th outfielder with 25 career ABs has a higher avg with RISP. I'm just saying that some statistics regarding pressure situations are recorded and they are recorded for a reason. Perhaps we don't need a CLUTCH rating in OOTP but maybe we could have access to each player's career numbers for situational hitting.

That said, I'm not sure why this thread turned into a "lesson" on "clutch" and whether or not it exists "irl." There are plenty of psychological case studies that prove that people respond to pressure differently. It's been scientifically proven. I'm not saying that this proves that a CLUTCH rating can be quantified and then implemented into OOTP but to suggest that everyone reacts to pressure equally is insane. Just because there's no article on FanGraphs doesn't mean it isn't worth considering.

I mean no disrespect and I'm glad to read other people's opinions on the matter, but it's my understanding that this board is for making suggestions to the game's developers for the next installment. I imagine that if a suggestion sounds good to the community, they'll show their support by "bumping" the topic or "thanking" it. Maybe the developers will see this and then think about ways to implement the idea.

What I don't understand is why so many people, when they see a suggestion that they dislike, feel the need to prove to the suggester that their ideas are stupid or inane or impossible to do or etc.

If you think an idea is stupid, why not just ignore it? Odds are the post will drop off the main page in a day or so. Why must some of us defend and explain ourselves?

You need to chill out a bit. I just read this entire thread (as short as it is) and nobody called your idea stupid or any of the other things you say. All they did was present arguments against the addition of a clutch rating.

While this section of the boards exists to make suggestions, it also exists for users to comment on those suggestions. If not for those comments, the dev crew would have no way of knowing what the community likes or dislikes.

[ghostrobot]

Hmm...

This thread has taken a turn it seems but rather than address that, how about this for a compromise:

Career statistics for RISP, Late inning, tied games, pinch hit abs/hits, etc....all of those additional splits we can see per season.

I don't like the idea of a clutch rating because of most of the points outlined earlier in this thread.

The original post asked for ideas about improving the scouting reports. Maybe this would be a place where some players could be called out or commended for how they respond to pressure. It could just be relayed under a MISC heading.

EX: "Ghost Robot has been known to buckle under pressure." or "Rob Lowe is regarded as a great clutch hitter."

How does this sound?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by ghostrobot

Hmm...


EX: "Ghost Robot has been known to buckle under pressure." or "Rob Lowe is regarded as a great clutch hitter."

How does this sound?

Sounds good but the comment must match the stats in question. If a player is poor in his first 4 years and great in the next 5 then when does the comment change.

[ghostrobot]

Originally Posted by RchW

Sounds good but the comment must match the stats in question. If a player is poor in his first 4 years and great in the next 5 then when does the comment change.

I'm not really sure how it would work.

Maybe along the same lines as the comments like "John Johnson is a quiet guy who likes to fish in the offseason." We can take our scout's word for it or we can ask for fishing statistics too. Haha.