Tatis Jr

[Bakedbaz]

Was he not a 97 overall 2 weeks ago?

He went +2 but now is a 93? Am i missing something?

My math says he should be 99?

[Lukas Berger]

No, he started as a 91 iirc. He's never been as high as 97 this yea, at least not that I remember.

[Bakedbaz]

He was 97 for the past 2 weeks?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Bakedbaz

He was 97 for the past 2 weeks?

We'll have to check on what might've happened there.

[Lukas Berger]

Actually it's pretty simple looking into it.

He declined the last two weeks. As of last update, he had a 1.226 OPS. Now he has a 1.063. So of course the card ratings will fall.

[Bakedbaz]

I was looking at the +2 on the card

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Bakedbaz

I was looking at the +2 on the card

That's based on the original, 91 rating. The +/- is always compared to the initial rating when the cards were first released.

[Bakedbaz]

thanks for the info.

I thought the stat updates were from the current rankings.

[vapodge]

Wondering how he finished as a 100 last season and has performed better this year and is lower despite sustained performance? I realized he dipped (ever so slightly) the last fortnight.
I know I'm biased as a Padres fan, but I can't wrap my head around this. Do you reset every year based on projections? Vlad Jr. entered as a perfect last year and has never been anywhere near the player and it took some time for him to drop last season. Does the algorithm take much longer to improve guys than drop them if they don't have much major league experience?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by vapodge

Do you reset every year based on projections?

Yes. So players are always starting from a different point. Plus, last year some young guys initial cards were actually created with the same ratings as for their Future Legends cards due to a glitch, which meant they were starting from the point of having much higher ratings, so had less far to go to get to 100.

[Bunktown Ballers]

Originally Posted by vapodge

Wondering how he finished as a 100 last season and has performed better this year and is lower despite sustained performance? I realized he dipped (ever so slightly) the last fortnight.
I know I'm biased as a Padres fan, but I can't wrap my head around this. Do you reset every year based on projections? Vlad Jr. entered as a perfect last year and has never been anywhere near the player and it took some time for him to drop last season. Does the algorithm take much longer to improve guys than drop them if they don't have much major league experience?

The algorithm prefers projections more than actual performance is what I can gather. More so than not actuall performance is ignored in order to PROJECT potential rookie stars over established stars. IE..Mike Trout (probably best player in baseball for years) cards are useless compared to players that have never played in MLB yet..IE Wander Franco and so many others. Favortism is a huge factor too Yes It seems like the rating system has to be directed at the cards to raise or lower. Older/Veteran players suffer projection upticks just because they're old is what I gather too. Unless the player plays for some developers favorite team. After watching and trying to figure out how rating are put forth for years it seems like more and more a preferential bias is used. Not all players a treated the same. It seems very much like a pick and choose situation.

Hey just my opinion but loys of others feel the same way. Look everyone has their favorite team & players and everyone wants them to be treated fairly throughout the game. BTW, players with major league experience suffer the worst

[Sipimi]

Originally Posted by Bunktown Ballers

The algorithm prefers projections more than actual performance is what I can gather. More so than not actuall performance is ignored in order to PROJECT potential rookie stars over established stars.

From my understanding of the PT algorithm, projections are weighted more heavily at the start of the season and the more the season advances, the more real stats are taken into consideration. At the end of the regular season, 100% of the ratings will be based on 2020 stats (just like it was 100% 2020 projection before the season started).

[dkgo]

Every live card starts based on projections, obviously, because that's all you have before the season. Then the performance from real games slowly makes up more weight over the course of the season. Yes, there are some bugs, which they usually tell us about. Also note that "performance" is based on what the ratings are actually based on, not "This pitcher went 3-0" or "This hitter had two grand slams and 12 RBIs."

The idea they are manually changing players just to screw over your favorite team is beyond idiotic conspiracy. You can't just say a bunch of factually wrong stuff then throw in "just my opinion" and think it makes you immune from people calling your post bull****.

Which leads me to: Your post is bull****.

[dkgo]

I don't really know how the gameplay has changed in 21, but Live Trout was everywhere in 20 and performed very well in perfect. Same with Yelich. Two of the best bang for your buck cards in the game.

This year seems like the engine is skewed even farther towards rewarding the high contact types and punishing high power high strikeout hitters. Great as Trout is he does strikeout a lot.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Sipimi

From my understanding of the PT algorithm, projections are weighted more heavily at the start of the season and the more the season advances, the more real stats are taken into consideration. At the end of the regular season, 100% of the ratings will be based on 2020 stats (just like it was 100% 2020 projection before the season started).

It won't be 100% real stats at the end of the year. More like 75% iirc, though I'd have to double check to make absolutely certain of that.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

It won't be 100% real stats at the end of the year. More like 75% iirc, though I'd have to double check to make absolutely certain of that.

And obviously that amount is only if they played the full time. Players who miss time to injury etc... won't have as much chance to move around.

[Sipimi]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

It won't be 100% real stats at the end of the year. More like 75% iirc, though I'd have to double check to make absolutely certain of that.

Thanks Lukas. Is the 25% left there to balance the fact that the player might been having a fluke year ?

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Sipimi

Thanks Lukas. Is the 25% left there to balance the fact that the player might been having a fluke year ?

Yeah, going 100% on stats is just a little too much to handle, so it's nice to still baseline it on the projections.

[chazzycat]

Originally Posted by Bunktown Ballers

The algorithm prefers projections more than actual performance is what I can gather. More so than not actuall performance is ignored in order to PROJECT potential rookie stars over established stars. IE..Mike Trout (probably best player in baseball for years) cards are useless compared to players that have never played in MLB yet..IE Wander Franco and so many others. Favortism is a huge factor too Yes It seems like the rating system has to be directed at the cards to raise or lower. Older/Veteran players suffer projection upticks just because they're old is what I gather too. Unless the player plays for some developers favorite team. After watching and trying to figure out how rating are put forth for years it seems like more and more a preferential bias is used. Not all players a treated the same. It seems very much like a pick and choose situation.

Hey just my opinion but loys of others feel the same way. Look everyone has their favorite team & players and everyone wants them to be treated fairly throughout the game. BTW, players with major league experience suffer the worst

what a bunch of hogwash

[bailey]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

what a bunch of hogwash

There is bias in the ratings. The most egregious example was in PT20 when Vlad, Jr.'s live card started at 100 before his first at bat.