A clarification about relative ratings

cbbl · 07-11-2021, 04:53 PM

I understand that "show ratings relative to..." a particular league establishes those ratings such that 50 is an average player. Assuming scouting off or at 100%, if this is true, then should there be an equal distribution above and below that #?

For example, a small league I just created has 120 players in it. With relative ratings on, I computed the average of the ratings. They were heavily skewed towards lower numbers, and actually averaged just below 35. Using 50 as a median point, only 8 of 120 players were rated above 50. 107 players were rated below 50, and 5 were exactly at 50. Does this seem correct? If so, can someone clarify the OOTP manual which says "If enabled, then ratings will be scaled to the average of the league, so that a player who is a 50 on a 20-80 will be exactly league average"

If important, it should be noted that these are initially created players on a league that has not yet had its first game.

pgjocki · 07-11-2021, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbbl

I understand that "show ratings relative to..." a particular league establishes those ratings such that 50 is an average player. Assuming scouting off or at 100%, if this is true, then should there be an equal distribution above and below that #?

For example, a small league I just created has 120 players in it. With relative ratings on, I computed the average of the ratings. They were heavily skewed towards lower numbers, and actually averaged just below 35. Using 50 as a median point, only 8 of 120 players were rated above 50. 107 players were rated below 50, and 5 were exactly at 50. Does this seem correct? If so, can someone clarify the OOTP manual which says "If enabled, then ratings will be scaled to the average of the league, so that a player who is a 50 on a 20-80 will be exactly league average"

If important, it should be noted that these are initially created players on a league that has not yet had its first game.

What are you ratings set at with your settings? I use the 20-80 scale and I think that is default so in that case you need to use 40 and not 50 for your analysis.

ptFri217 · 07-12-2021, 08:49 AM

Do you have minor leagues or reserve rosters? If you have reserve rosters full of half star players, then that could explain what brings down the average. Not saying this is “best”, but I think 50 is being used more of a benchmark than an exact calculation.

Anyway, what your league is displaying is similar to MLB, in that most players are of similar caliber, while the superstars are light years above. In fact, this is how most (and I say most because I mean every that I’ve looked at but have not looked at all) leagues and conferences in real sports look. They don’t follow a normal distribution, with equal numbers above and below average.

Maybe in order to show this and “fit” all players on the scale in OOTP, the true average must be below the 50 benchmark. Even so, it shouldn’t, as the increments of 10 on the 20-80 scale represent a standard deviation and not actual quantifiable skill. I’d be interested to see if they adjust after the season starts and recalculate based on active rosters rather than whole organizations (active plus reserve or spring training rosters). Let us know!

Syd Thrift · 07-12-2021, 08:57 AM

I think 50/80 is also the rating of the average starter, not just member of a team.

ptFri217 · 07-12-2021, 09:10 AM

That’s a good point! And I just thought of this... OOTP probably calculates 50 as the average of ratings behind the scene (in the player editor). So then the ratings displayed are relative to that, with many players being below the average that is pulled up by superstars skewing things. Calculating the average again from these already adjusted ratings which is what you did, will not get you 50. So things should be good. I’m sure a lot of us have an “average” below 50 in our games but haven’t noticed haha.

kriscolic · 07-12-2021, 02:59 PM

Most players are below average. This is why in WAR framework players are compared to replacement level and not average. A 2-WAR player is defined as an average regular and is, in the grand scheme of things, rather valuable.

cbbl · 07-13-2021, 03:09 PM

FWIW, as long as this distribution is as expected, all is fine.

To answer your questions:
1. It is a single unaffilated league (no minors or feeders)

2. The list was all players in the universe -- at this time, all players were FAs as the teams had empty rosters. Perhaps the game expected me to fill the rosters with the best players, such that the average of the actual rosters was 50. I'm not sure if this is right, but I could check. I don't think this has any bearing on the actual ratings, however.

3. The ratings are set to 100% accurate scouting, so while they are relative to the league (vs. absolute), the only way they'll change is if a player's talent changes over time, because, well the scouting ratings are perfect at this setting.

4. FWIW, if 50 is truly an average, then "most players [being] below average" doesn't compute -- half the players should be below average and half should be above...that's what average is. But, kriscolic, you're point is taken.

Anyway, I'll do another analysis of just players on the active roster and see if there's any difference, and include the difference between "relative" and "asbolute". Stay tuned.

Rain King · 07-13-2021, 03:34 PM

I'll reiterate what some others have posted, that if you are talking about the 50 rating on a 20-80 or 1-100 scale then 50 is not the "average of all players", but instead the expected rating of an average starting player.

Most players are definitely going to be less talented than an average starting major leaguer...even if you do not have any minor leagues.

cbbl · 07-14-2021, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain King

I'll reiterate what some others have posted, that if you are talking about the 50 rating on a 20-80 or 1-100 scale then 50 is not the "average of all players", but instead the expected rating of an average starting player.

Most players are definitely going to be less talented than an average starting major leaguer...even if you do not have any minor leagues.

This makes perfect sense, but if I may throw a wrench into it...

Looking at this simple, four team unaffiliated league (with no other leagues existing):

* The scale is 20-80, scouting accuracy 100%, relative to the only league

* 133 players exist in the universe, of which 56 are on team rosters. The remaining 77 are free agents

* For the 133 players, the mean OVR rating is 35.08 with a std dev of 11.9. The median OVR is 35.

* For the 56 players on the roster, the mean OVR is 42.2 with a std dev of 11.6. The median OVR is 40.

* For the 40 starters (note pitching is on 2 man rotation with no DH and traditional lineups (no R/L alternates), so 10 starters per team), the mean OVR is 43.5 with a std dev of 13.2. The median OVR is 45

So, we're getting closer. Seems like the data set is too small to really prove this out. When I have a moment, I'll dump a standard RL game with all 30 MLB teams and see how the averages compute.

Again, not having any impact on my game, just curious how much I can trust the "50 is average".

Stay tuned.

Syd Thrift · 07-14-2021, 07:19 PM

Yeah, I think it's the case that the median may be 45 instead of 50 and that an "average" being 50 would be something more like a weighted average based on PAs - you may have starters in your league who are 40s but it's doubtful that they're getting 650 PAs. How the game gets there, exactly, I'm not sure I can say. I know that IRL each 10 points is supposed to represent about a standard deviation (so that 2/3rds of the league should be between 35 and 55 if the median is 45) but I don't know if the game follows that.

PSUColonel · 07-14-2021, 07:27 PM

You shouldn’t really find too many 35 graded players at the MLB level…this grade is considered “organizational depth”.

Rain King · 07-15-2021, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

You shouldn’t really find too many 35 graded players at the MLB level…this grade is considered “organizational depth”.

If your injury settings are realistic then plenty of those guys should get some major league time.

07-11-2021, 04:53 PM	#1
cbbl All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,179	A clarification about relative ratings I understand that "show ratings relative to..." a particular league establishes those ratings such that 50 is an average player. Assuming scouting off or at 100%, if this is true, then should there be an equal distribution above and below that #? For example, a small league I just created has 120 players in it. With relative ratings on, I computed the average of the ratings. They were heavily skewed towards lower numbers, and actually averaged just below 35. Using 50 as a median point, only 8 of 120 players were rated above 50. 107 players were rated below 50, and 5 were exactly at 50. Does this seem correct? If so, can someone clarify the OOTP manual which says "If enabled, then ratings will be scaled to the average of the league, so that a player who is a 50 on a 20-80 will be exactly league average" If important, it should be noted that these are initially created players on a league that has not yet had its first game. Last edited by cbbl; 07-11-2021 at 06:54 PM.

07-13-2021, 03:34 PM	#8
Rain King Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 2,935	I'll reiterate what some others have posted, that if you are talking about the 50 rating on a 20-80 or 1-100 scale then 50 is not the "average of all players", but instead the expected rating of an average starting player. Most players are definitely going to be less talented than an average starting major leaguer...even if you do not have any minor leagues. Last edited by Rain King; 07-13-2021 at 03:36 PM.

07-12-2021, 08:49 AM	#3
ptFri217 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: Rounding 3rd Posts: 81	Do you have minor leagues or reserve rosters? If you have reserve rosters full of half star players, then that could explain what brings down the average. Not saying this is “best”, but I think 50 is being used more of a benchmark than an exact calculation. Anyway, what your league is displaying is similar to MLB, in that most players are of similar caliber, while the superstars are light years above. In fact, this is how most (and I say most because I mean every that I’ve looked at but have not looked at all) leagues and conferences in real sports look. They don’t follow a normal distribution, with equal numbers above and below average. Maybe in order to show this and “fit” all players on the scale in OOTP, the true average must be below the 50 benchmark. Even so, it shouldn’t, as the increments of 10 on the 20-80 scale represent a standard deviation and not actual quantifiable skill. I’d be interested to see if they adjust after the season starts and recalculate based on active rosters rather than whole organizations (active plus reserve or spring training rosters). Let us know!

07-12-2021, 09:10 AM	#5
ptFri217 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: Rounding 3rd Posts: 81	That’s a good point! And I just thought of this... OOTP probably calculates 50 as the average of ratings behind the scene (in the player editor). So then the ratings displayed are relative to that, with many players being below the average that is pulled up by superstars skewing things. Calculating the average again from these already adjusted ratings which is what you did, will not get you 50. So things should be good. I’m sure a lot of us have an “average” below 50 in our games but haven’t noticed haha.

07-12-2021, 02:59 PM	#6
kriscolic Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2020 Posts: 137	Most players are below average. This is why in WAR framework players are compared to replacement level and not average. A 2-WAR player is defined as an average regular and is, in the grand scheme of things, rather valuable.

07-13-2021, 03:09 PM	#7
cbbl All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,179	FWIW, as long as this distribution is as expected, all is fine. To answer your questions: 1. It is a single unaffilated league (no minors or feeders) 2. The list was all players in the universe -- at this time, all players were FAs as the teams had empty rosters. Perhaps the game expected me to fill the rosters with the best players, such that the average of the actual rosters was 50. I'm not sure if this is right, but I could check. I don't think this has any bearing on the actual ratings, however. 3. The ratings are set to 100% accurate scouting, so while they are relative to the league (vs. absolute), the only way they'll change is if a player's talent changes over time, because, well the scouting ratings are perfect at this setting. 4. FWIW, if 50 is truly an average, then "most players [being] below average" doesn't compute -- half the players should be below average and half should be above...that's what average is. But, kriscolic, you're point is taken. Anyway, I'll do another analysis of just players on the active roster and see if there's any difference, and include the difference between "relative" and "asbolute". Stay tuned.

07-14-2021, 07:27 PM	#11
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,089 Blog Entries: 37	You shouldn’t really find too many 35 graded players at the MLB level…this grade is considered “organizational depth”.