OVR ratings seem weird

Rosco Peabody · 04-06-2018, 03:44 PM

At first, I thought the OVR ratings that were readjusted made sense, but I feel like the more I look, the less sense it makes.

My league has a bit more offense than the regular MLB and I figure maybe that has a little bit of an effect, but this seems crazy. A few of these guys seem like they should be rated way higher than they are...

Rosco Peabody · 04-06-2018, 03:45 PM

And POT ratings as well

chazzycat · 04-06-2018, 06:38 PM

My theory:
1) Your league having higher offense means there needs to be more players who are good hitters but bad at fielding. This naturally led to the 1B and Corner OF positions being very deep, since those are the natural positions for good hitters who are bad at fielding.
2) Your ratings are relative to position, and all four players are 1B/Corner OF.

Rosco Peabody · 04-06-2018, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chazzycat

My theory:
1) Your league having higher offense means there needs to be more players who are good hitters but bad at fielding. This naturally led to the 1B and Corner OF positions being very deep, since those are the natural positions for good hitters who are bad at fielding.
2) Your ratings are relative to position, and all four players are 1B/Corner OF.

Yes I figured this, but to be THIS SKEWED??? It seems pretty crazy. It's not like every single player has a 75 POW rating

NoOne · 04-06-2018, 10:55 PM

which one is underrated, i can't tell?

75 power with 50-60 contact isn't hat great of a player... he's goin to hit ~leavue average and his power numbers that much more volatile each year.

a 60/80 i sa good score, fwiw. it's not a hof player though.

i think it's lower for the "tweeners" this year, because they were overrrated in years past. that's why i tlooks low to your eye.

too many were rated near the top in the past.

overall and potential are the same equation -- so that's why it looks the same. it's just using potentials instead of current ability. -- except for maybe speed, that's goign to apply equally to both. it probably assumes "200" experience at their position too.

Timofmars · 04-07-2018, 07:15 AM

The game gives a lot of weight to defense and speed of the players in the overall score. Notice most of those guys are pretty terrible in both those categories.

That's also why you may see some highly rated SS whose batting just doesn't look impressive at all.

I primarily rank players based on batting ability, and I don't worry as much about speed and defense, so I'll often prefer lower overall rated players. I can get a lot of good free agency deals because of this.

PSUColonel · 04-07-2018, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timofmars

The game gives a lot of weight to defense and speed of the players in the overall score. Notice most of those guys are pretty terrible in both those categories.

That's also why you may see some highly rated SS whose batting just doesn't look impressive at all.

I primarily rank players based on batting ability, and I don't worry as much about speed and defense, so I'll often prefer lower overall rated players. I can get a lot of good free agency deals because of this.

Actually, I believe it rates by position. So for example a as with good defense and low hitting is more valuable. A RF is weighted more towards hitting ability. A 2b is probably a combination of the two. Defense is weighted far more heavily with catchers etc..

RightBack2 · 04-07-2018, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timofmars

The game gives a lot of weight to defense and speed of the players in the overall score. Notice most of those guys are pretty terrible in both those categories.

That's also why you may see some highly rated SS whose batting just doesn't look impressive at all.

I primarily rank players based on batting ability, and I don't worry as much about speed and defense, so I'll often prefer lower overall rated players. I can get a lot of good free agency deals because of this.

I actually found 19 doesnt rate speed and defense as highly in years past. Also i think 19 ratings are much more realistic. There are alot more player in the 55-65 range that would be 80/80 in previous verisons. In reality its extremely hard for players to be recieve 80/80 grades in real life and i appreciate that 19 has been rating players much lower. 70/80 and up should be reserved for only the best of the nest in the game. For example fangraphs top 100 prospect list only has one 70/80 prospect (Ohtani) and only five 65/80 prospects.

04-06-2018, 03:44 PM	#1
Rosco Peabody All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South of Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 1,092	OVR ratings seem weird At first, I thought the OVR ratings that were readjusted made sense, but I feel like the more I look, the less sense it makes. My league has a bit more offense than the regular MLB and I figure maybe that has a little bit of an effect, but this seems crazy. A few of these guys seem like they should be rated way higher than they are... Last edited by Rosco Peabody; 09-13-2018 at 10:47 PM.

04-06-2018, 10:55 PM	#5
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	which one is underrated, i can't tell? 75 power with 50-60 contact isn't hat great of a player... he's goin to hit ~leavue average and his power numbers that much more volatile each year. a 60/80 i sa good score, fwiw. it's not a hof player though. i think it's lower for the "tweeners" this year, because they were overrrated in years past. that's why i tlooks low to your eye. too many were rated near the top in the past. overall and potential are the same equation -- so that's why it looks the same. it's just using potentials instead of current ability. -- except for maybe speed, that's goign to apply equally to both. it probably assumes "200" experience at their position too. Last edited by NoOne; 04-06-2018 at 10:59 PM.

04-06-2018, 03:45 PM	#2
Rosco Peabody All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South of Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 1,092	And POT ratings as well

04-06-2018, 06:38 PM	#3
chazzycat All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 1,685	My theory: 1) Your league having higher offense means there needs to be more players who are good hitters but bad at fielding. This naturally led to the 1B and Corner OF positions being very deep, since those are the natural positions for good hitters who are bad at fielding. 2) Your ratings are relative to position, and all four players are 1B/Corner OF.

04-07-2018, 07:15 AM	#6
Timofmars Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 251	The game gives a lot of weight to defense and speed of the players in the overall score. Notice most of those guys are pretty terrible in both those categories. That's also why you may see some highly rated SS whose batting just doesn't look impressive at all. I primarily rank players based on batting ability, and I don't worry as much about speed and defense, so I'll often prefer lower overall rated players. I can get a lot of good free agency deals because of this.