Stats Only League Tips?

[Gai1997]

I want to do a 2015 MLB Quickstart but with stats only and no ratings. You guys have any tips for me?

Obviously turn off ratings, but any other settings that you think are good? Also, how would you go about judging prospects? Rankings? Listen to the scouting reports page? I see lots of top prospects suck in the minors but still end up panning out. I use potential ratings pretty much exclusively for prospects and it usually works out well. Now with stats only, that way of going about it is gone. So what do you think I should do there? A lot of times top 10 rated prospects will be 1-2 star potential and they often will fail, so it seems like with stats only it's going to be a crapshoot for me.

[Strasburger]

Hide currents but leave potential visible?

[SirMichaelJordan]

you can always leave potential on.

keep in mind that real life scouts grade like OOTP (2-8 scale, 20-80 scale) so it wouldn't be unrealistic to use ratings, just make the scouting very low accuracy.

[Gai1997]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

you can always leave potential on.

keep in mind that real life scouts grade like OOTP (2-8 scale, 20-80 scale) so it wouldn't be unrealistic to use ratings, just make the scouting very low accuracy.

Problem with that is I feel it's not foggy enough. With the 20-80 scale they aren't really that much different from 100% accurate to very low. Doesn't really cause any fog with the ratings. 2-8 as well.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Gai1997

Problem with that is I feel it's not foggy enough. With the 20-80 scale they aren't really that much different from 100% accurate to very low. Doesn't really cause any fog with the ratings. 2-8 as well.

even with low accuracy? Also if you use relative ratings it screws up the fog.

[Gai1997]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

even with low accuracy? Also if you use relative ratings it screws up the fog.

I set it to this and it caused some odd things. It said Didi Gregorius was a 50/70 contact, when on 100% accuracy he's a 50/50 contact without that relative rating.

On very low he's 50/70 on very low (with relative checked on) and 45/65 on 100% accurate (with relative checked on)

I'm assuming the game thinks he's a 65-70 potential contact guy since he hit .310 in AAA, right? Is this the fog you were talking about? Because I know he's never going to be a 65-70 guy and that's where the fog is I'm sure.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Gai1997

I set it to this and it caused some odd things. It said Didi Gregorius was a 50/70 contact, when on 100% accuracy he's a 50/50 contact without that relative rating.

On very low he's 50/70 on very low (with relative checked on) and 45/65 on 100% accurate (with relative checked on)

I'm assuming the game thinks he's a 65-70 potential contact guy since he hit .310 in AAA, right? Is this the fog you were talking about? Because I know he's never going to be a 65-70 guy and that's where the fog is I'm sure.

don't check "ratings relative to" it causes a problem where your scout and OSA rate every player the same. I feel this is a bug, and may in fact be revealing the real ratings, as opposed to the fogged ones.

[jaysdailydose]

The main advice you are going to get about Stats-Only is to not play MLB or historical games...

Most of the allure of stats-only is to take away foreknowledge of situations. Even without the ratings, you are going to generally know who your best players are -- in the majors at least.

Not that you CAN'T do a very fun league in historical or MLB games with stats-only, but the main reason for doing it is to put you on as even a footing as possible with the CPU, and you simply can't accomplish that in a game where you have prior knowledge of the players.

If you have specific questions, I'm more than willing to help, though. I have years of both rated and stats-only experience and am always willing to help.

[Dem Bums]

Here is a link to the stats only thread for OOTP 15. There is lots of good advice for settings/house rules etc.

[olivertheorem]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

don't check "ratings relative to" it causes a problem where your scout and OSA rate every player the same. I feel this is a bug, and may in fact be revealing the real ratings, as opposed to the fogged ones.

I know you usually check things like this out pretty thoroughly before making the claim, but I just checked my game and I get different ratings between OSA and my head scout with "ratings relative to" checked.

[PSUColonel]

It's possible this has been fixed...

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by olivertheorem

I know you usually check things like this out pretty thoroughly before making the claim, but I just checked my game and I get different ratings between OSA and my head scout with "ratings relative to" checked.

No, this still doesn't seem to be working correctly. Perhaps I should have been more clear. The issue is this: Despite obvious differences in individual ratings between OSA & your scout, the overall ratings, always match..regardless. I can't prove it, but I have a sneaky suspicion the overall ratings you see, could be actual ones.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

No, this still doesn't seem to be working correctly. Perhaps I should have been more clear. The issue is this: Despite obvious differences in individual ratings between OSA & your scout, the overall ratings, always match..regardless. I can't prove it, but I have a sneaky suspicion the overall ratings you see, could be actual ones.

Make sure you aren't viewing relative to one of your minors, which would produce near identical ratings with players from a higher level.

Regardless, if he's really trying to play stats-only none of this will matter as he will see exactly 0% of it.

[PSUColonel]

no I am not. It won't matter for him true...I am just pointing out this has been an outstanding issue for over a year now.