Default vs. Relative ratings mode: Pros, Cons, Bugs

[hjrrockies]

I am a fan of using Relative ratings mode, as it corresponds more closely to what the 20-80 scouting system is "supposed" to say. I like the idea that 50 = average, by definition. However, I have seen some bugs with using relative ratings mode, especially with overall ratings. For example, the scouting report tab often reports different values than are on the player profile in relative ratings mode. On top of that, sometimes the sortable stats and ratings pages will go completely bonkers, displaying different overall ratings for the same player depending on how the list is sorted.

Has anyone else encountered these bugs? Is there a good fix for them? I really think relative mode is the "ideal" ratings mode, and I hope future OOTP versions can tune the problems that they have.

[bigd51]

Not quite sure if you have the same settings as I do, but I've run into the problem w/ scouting reports not showing the same star ratings as the player profile/Rosters and Trans. Overview screens.

[PSUColonel]

Yes, this is a known issue, and is constantly being worked on.

[bigd51]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Yes, this is a known issue, and is constantly being worked on.

Is there a way to stop it from happening? Or does it happen no matter which settings you have chosen?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by bigd51

Not quite sure if you have the same settings as I do, but I've run into the problem w/ scouting reports not showing the same star ratings as the player profile/Rosters and Trans. Overview screens.

Not trying to hijack the thread and change the subject, but IMO, playing with stars turned off is much better. It forces you to look at the player's ratings and determine your own sense of the player's worth. And it eliminates the players that they AI tends to overvalue because they have high defensive ratings and speed ratings, but can't hit worth a lick. And it obviously solves the issue you mentioned with relative ratings.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Not trying to hijack the thread and change the subject, but IMO, playing with stars turned off is much better. It forces you to look at the player's ratings and determine your own sense of the player's worth. And it eliminates the players that they AI tends to overvalue because they have high defensive ratings and speed ratings, but can't hit worth a lick. And it obviously solves the issue you mentioned with relative ratings.

This!

[PSUColonel]

This will hopefully be fixed in OOTP 18. Early indications suggest it will be.

[dmoogie]

I’m having a similar issue with ratings not matching between the various screens, although I do not have the Relative Ratings option checked.

MyRoster screen = tool tip popups = Player Profile Summary Section. However, these ratings differ from theScouting Report (per OSA) and Development (per OSA) sub-tabs. I have Scouting OFF. Therefore, I was under the assumption thatall ratings (including OSA) would be actual/real/true ratings. Per the Manual:

If scouting is disabled, you will nothave a scouting director or a scouting budget. However, OSA will still providescouting reports on players. Player ratings shown on lists of players will bethe actual ratings for all players.

Am I misunderstanding this? Are the OSA ratings not accurate/true/actual even with Scouting OFF?

Also,on the Settings screen, I have “Show Potential < Actual” = YES. If I change this to “No, Adjust”, my Scouting Reports and Development ratings change to be very close to my Roster andProfile ratings, but there still exists a couple points discrepancy here and there. I am confused what this setting actually does. Per the Manual:

By default, OOTP limits ratings to thescale defined. However, if this option is enabled, there may be some caseswhere a player's potential ratings are lower than their actual ratings. This could be an indicator that the player's current performance is an anomaly.

For example, with “ShowPotential < Actual” = YES , one of my players shows Overall=67, Potential=31 on the Roster and Profile screens. However, on the Scouting Report/Dev screens it shows 67/51, a big difference. If I change to “Show Potential < Actual = No, Adjust”, he changes on all screens to 67/67. So, what does this mean? It seems in this case that this player’spotential rating (31) is lower than his actual rating (67)? So, does that mean his actual/real/truePotential is 67? And that the Potential=31is an “anomaly” and I should ignore it? If so, why would anyone want to choose “Show Potential < Actual” = YES if it gave you incorrect data?

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This will hopefully be fixed in OOTP 18. Early indications suggest it will be.

19, you mean And yes, hopefully things will be a lot better.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

19, you mean And yes, hopefully things will be a lot better.

yes, I meant 19

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Not trying to hijack the thread and change the subject, but IMO, playing with stars turned off is much better. It forces you to look at the player's ratings and determine your own sense of the player's worth. And it eliminates the players that they AI tends to overvalue because they have high defensive ratings and speed ratings, but can't hit worth a lick. And it obviously solves the issue you mentioned with relative ratings.

I like knowing which players are overvalued by the AI so I can trade them.

[Romagoth]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I like knowing which players are overvalued by the AI so I can trade them.

[Romagoth]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Not trying to hijack the thread and change the subject, but IMO, playing with stars turned off is much better. It forces you to look at the player's ratings and determine your own sense of the player's worth. And it eliminates the players that they AI tends to overvalue because they have high defensive ratings and speed ratings, but can't hit worth a lick. And it obviously solves the issue you mentioned with relative ratings.

Are you referring to specifically turning off stars, or any type of rating?

[hjrrockies]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

19, you mean And yes, hopefully things will be a lot better.

I would genuinely *love* to see some more good tweaks on ratings scales. I think it was a great call to go to 20-80 as default, and I think tweaking it so 50 = average for *every* rating (including speed & fielding) would be great.

Also, basing speed ratings off of the new Statcast data would be *way* cool.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Romagoth

Are you referring to specifically turning off stars, or any type of rating?

I would say any type of overall rating. At least for me, the overall rating made me a bit lazy, especially when looking at players outside my organization. Turning off the overall ratings forces you to look at the player on a deeper level than just being able to look quickly and see a four-star player or a 70 rating. Two players at the same position could have the same overall rating, but be vastly different players. Turning off the overall rating forces the user to see and understand those differences.

[ThePretender]

Yeah, stars, 20/80, it's incredibly misleading. I can't tell you how many 20 overall guys (or 1 star players) I had start and average 2-3 WAR per year for me, whereas I had 75-80 overall guys (5 star players) who were platoon bats at best.

Also I can't stand relative ratings. Default is much better, IMO.

[NoOne]

i used to be a stuanch absolute ratings opinion.. either '17 or '18 changed how relievers are shown under that setting and now it's untennable for me. i've switched and gotten used to it relative to position.

i definitely prefer it all relative to mlb / top league (if this says 'absolute' in game, that one - mixing verbage in head). otherwise it adds 1 extra layer of potential subterfuge to what you see (rounding errors etc - it's inevitable obscured a bit). that's also why i prefered non-relative to position in past.

in the end, like others have mentioned you shoudln't make any decision based upon overall or potential. nonetheless, it does correlate in a medium to strong way. especially with normal or better scouting accuracy.

even with low accuracy, it still puts as many or more viable options near top of draft list than sorting by any other *single rating. * - better methods than sorting by 1 ratings exist, of course, but does show it has some value.

i actually employ 2 different methods - 1 for 40+ potential, the other for under 40. with normal accuracy it was 25-29ish as the threshold in past - best guess. while they put some duds up at top, it will correlate more strongly at the top than the middle and below. a greater proportion of duds.

as far as FA or trading etc, again potenial and overall are not wise to use, but if you spend a healthy amount on mil scouting, it's again a strong correlation to future success (pot). aiding sorting in some way is smart, but not something to make a decisions based upon.

[bigd51]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Not trying to hijack the thread and change the subject, but IMO, playing with stars turned off is much better. It forces you to look at the player's ratings and determine your own sense of the player's worth. And it eliminates the players that they AI tends to overvalue because they have high defensive ratings and speed ratings, but can't hit worth a lick. And it obviously solves the issue you mentioned with relative ratings.

Yeah, I don't pay attention to the star ratings when evaluating or making moves. I generally just reference Ovr. and Pot. ratings as a baseline on who I want to add to my shortlist and disable AI promotion/demotion in my MiL system.

Currently, I shortlist and lock players w/ 3 1/2 to 5 star potentials and let the AI decide what to do w/ players rated 3 or below. If a 1 star makes a jump to 3 1/2 or a 5 star falls under 3, I can quickly spot that in the Rosters and Trans. overview and add/remove/lock/unlock instead of having to look at every single player's profile page before I do. With 160+ players in my minor league system, having to view each player's profile to see their potential's when deciding whether to shortlist/lock would simply be too cumbersome.

When making decisions on when to promote/demote players, though, I'll use their current ratings and scouting report progress as my guide.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Yeah, stars, 20/80, it's incredibly misleading. I can't tell you how many 20 overall guys (or 1 star players) I had start and average 2-3 WAR per year for me, whereas I had 75-80 overall guys (5 star players) who were platoon bats at best.

Also I can't stand relative ratings. Default is much better, IMO.

This is likely going to change. The relative ratings (in V. 19) should work as intended, and there shouldn't be discrepancies between the overall ratings on the scouting and profile pages.

If the relative ratings work as intended, there are a far better way to display scouting grades. It's a system where a "50" is average. This is exactly the system MLB scouts use. It is not difficult to understand either.

In this system, a 60 is plus, a 70 is plus, plus, an 80 is elite. Half grades are used as well, but there isn't much difference between say a 70 or 75....so think it deviations of ten.