Which Ratings Scale Do You Use?

[PSUColonel]

Take this player here for example. My scout says he can likely be an everyday contributor at some point, but I am not really buying it, and just sent him back down, as he just isn't helping much right now. Will he be back up?...most certainly. I don't see him as an everyday player in the future however. I don't like his bat enough to start him in LF, and I don't like his defense enough to ever start him in CF.

So whoo is he? I see him as more than a bench player, but not quite a regular starter either. I see him as a highly versatile OF player who can play any of the three positions to either give a tired player a day off, or plug him in as a left handed bat some days against righty pitching. He is also a good defensive sub in LF on any day, and can certainly pinch hit in late innings while staying in the game if we have a lead.

So while this player may not be the most valuable player on any roster, he definitely has a role, and as I said, he's more than "just a bench player". This type of analysis is what makes OOTP so great, and fun!! I love player evaluation, scouting and development.

[ihatenames]

1-10. It used to be the default for Ootp back in the day and I’ve stuck with it. I find it leaves some room fog of war interpretation from stats.

[highandoutside]

I play with most ratings turned off and evaluate players purely on statistics.The game comes with enough advanced statistics that playing this way, to me, comes closest to real life and provides the best challenge.

However, for the ratings I do have turned on, I use the 2-8 scale, which is the most common scale used by baseball scouts.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by highandoutside

I play with most ratings turned off and evaluate players purely on statistics.The game comes with enough advanced statistics that playing this way, to me, comes closest to real life and provides the best challenge.

However, for the ratings I do have turned on, I use the 2-8 scale, which is the most common scale used by baseball scouts.

Yea...I get it, but most teams still have an good idea what tools a player has or doesn't. I think that's likely what maybe the most realistic way to do things might just be to turn off overall and potential ratings (stars or 20-80) and rely on the 20-80 scale for the individual tools. It gives you a good idea of a players strengths and weaknesses without revealing how the AI values them. Another way would be to only have potential ratings on...most scouting services I see only deal with potential ratings and not current....although I think it might be difficult to know when to promote players in the minors. Without overall ratings on, I think it's much tougher to figure out when players should be promoted....especially if you don't use relative ratings, which I don't as I don't think they are necessarily the most realistic. Most scouts will grade players on tools independent of the rest of any given league.

[PSUColonel]

there used to be an option to have the overall and potential grades based on the component ratings only, and it didn't allow for stats to enter into the equation. This was likely the most realistic as the overall grades you saw were based on your scout's evaluation of the player....of course under the hood, the AI still took stats into account....how much depended on your AI evaluation weights.

[timmermac]

I use 1-100. I grew up with scale in the sports games I played, so that makes the most sense to me. I wish overall and potential would use 1-100 as well.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by timmermac

I use 1-100. I grew up with scale in the sports games I played, so that makes the most sense to me. I wish overall and potential would use 1-100 as well.

Way too granular, unrealistic and Haney for me. YMMV as always though.

[Syd Thrift]

I've recently moved from 2-8 for "extra" ratings to 20-80 because I like the slightly added granularity. I still of course use ratings off for "major" ratings because 99% of the time I see ratings they're for established players and frankly, as I've stated many many times now I consider scouting for established players to be broken.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I've recently moved from 2-8 for "extra" ratings to 20-80 because I like the slightly added granularity. I still of course use ratings off for "major" ratings because 99% of the time I see ratings they're for established players and frankly, as I've stated many many times now I consider scouting for established players to be broken.

Yeah…I’ve always sort of been in the camp that scouting “grades” should more or less be for prospects. I realize there needs to be some way to assess established players…but I’d rather see a system other than grades. Not sure what actual scouts do in this situation (written reports based off of stats??) but I feel the grades should be reserved for prospects. That’s how it actually seems to be (I could be wrong though)


Edit,: I’d also guess analytics play a major role in scouting more established players.

[Dave Stieb II]

I use the 20-80 scale in increments of 5 because that is what the baseball industry uses IRL.
That way, when I visit a site like fangraphs, I don't have to mentally 'convert' my OOTP ratings to compare to theirs or vice versa.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Yeah…I’ve always sort of been in the camp that scouting “grades” should more or less be for prospects. I realize there needs to be some way to assess established players…but I’d rather see a system other than grades. Not sure what actual scouts do in this situation (written reports based off of stats??) but I feel the grades should be reserved for prospects. That’s how it actually seems to be (I could be wrong though)

Edit,: I’d also guess analytics play a major role in scouting more established players.

Real-life scouts put grades on established big leaguers just like they do prospects. The skills needed to play baseball - particularly speed, arm strength and defensive instincts - cannot be accurately portrayed or evaluated via statistics alone. And statistics by themselves can be misleading just like a scouting grade on its own can be misleading. For instance, guys who lead the league in outfield assists rarely have the best arms. Teams don't run on Joey Gallo or Larry Walker or Andre Dawson, who all have/had legendary arms. They run on guys like Pat Burrell, who have below average arm strength, but Burrell had high assist rates because he learned to get rid of the ball quickly and accurately, and it took time for teams to realize they shouldn't run on him, hence his 18 assists in his first year as a full-time outfielder.

Scouts also provide a lot of metrics that don't show up in a statistical a report, such as running time from home to first, POP time for catchers, a pitcher's delivery time to the plate from the stretch, and (of course) velocity. That's why the two tried and true scouting tools of a stopwatch and a radar gun will always be part of the game. They also see things like outfielders getting a bad jump or taking a bad route to a ball, or a baserunner getting bad jumps or taking bad turns around the bases. Those things all get written up in a report.

[Dave Stieb II]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Real-life scouts put grades on established big leaguers just like they do prospects. The skills needed to play baseball - particularly speed, arm strength and defensive instincts - cannot be accurately portrayed or evaluated via statistics alone. And statistics by themselves can be misleading just like a scouting grade on its own can be misleading. For instance, guys who lead the league in outfield assists rarely have the best arms. Teams don't run on Joey Gallo or Larry Walker or Andre Dawson, who all have/had legendary arms. They run on guys like Pat Burrell, who have below average arm strength, but Burrell had high assist rates because he learned to get rid of the ball quickly and accurately, and it took time for teams to realize they shouldn't run on him, hence his 18 assists in his first year as a full-time outfielder.

Scouts also provide a lot of metrics that don't show up in a statistical a report, such as running time from home to first, POP time for catchers, a pitcher's delivery time to the plate from the stretch, and (of course) velocity. That's why the two tried and true scouting tools of a stopwatch and a radar gun will always be part of the game. They also see things like outfielders getting a bad jump or taking a bad route to a ball, or a baserunner getting bad jumps or taking bad turns around the bases. Those things all get written up in a report.

For sure! Thank you for this post. Just to cite one example of many - during the run-up to any trade deadline, major league scouts are racking up air miles scouting any opposition player who might be under consideration for their own club. There is also advance scouting throughout the season. Analytics haven't rendered pro scouts meaningless quite yet.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by fuzzy_patters

I use 20/80. While everything PSU said is correct, I like it better when applied to components rather than the overall. If a guy has 50 outfield arm rating, for example, I know that is only average so he shouldn’t play right field. If it’s 70, then that’s about two levels above average and is extremely good, so RF would be a great place for him. If it’s 80, he’s the next Clemente or Bo Jackson.

'Scuse me while I make your list of two, a list of three, by adding Jesse Barfield to it. The man had an absolute rifle, and kept it low enough for the cutoff men. Saying someone is the best evah! is dumb, but Barfield is certainly in that conversation.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Yeah…I’ve always sort of been in the camp that scouting “grades” should more or less be for prospects. I realize there needs to be some way to assess established players…but I’d rather see a system other than grades. Not sure what actual scouts do in this situation (written reports based off of stats??) but I feel the grades should be reserved for prospects. That’s how it actually seems to be (I could be wrong though)


Edit,: I’d also guess analytics play a major role in scouting more established players.

I'd agree with BIG17EASY's post that scouts do put grades on established players too.

Even if scouts did not grade established players in real life I still think scouts should put grades on established players in OOTP. I would submit ....

OOTP is a game and no matter how much time we spend with our teams we can't see the players in action.

We can't see a batter make small changes to his swing that takes away a hole and results in higher contact. We can't see a P adjust something in his delivery that fixes how he was tipping his pitches and he now has better stuff. We see "generic" plays in the field, even if they are great plays they are still, canned animations. We don't see the fielder taking flyballs or grounders, and working on positioning that results in better range. etc. etc.
The scouting reports, for lack of anything else(?), give us this information. In a game world I think that is fine and does not make the game unrealistic. This is information we would be able to get through other means IRL.

There may be other ways to do it, some may list those ideas here, and who knows(?) maybe they would be better? But in the mean time I'm happy with the way OOTP does it now.

As to the original intent of the thread I use 20-80 increments of 5. When I first played OOTP I used the 1-20 scale as it matched up with other games I played and was a comfortable way to switch from game to game. Several years ago I made the switch and while it took a bit to get used to I like it better for OOTP. A little less granular and feels right for playing baseball. And also, as noted by Dave Stieb II, its much nicer when you go look at baseball stat sites and don't have to mentally convert.

[Dave Stieb II]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

'Scuse me while I make your list of two, a list of three, by adding Jesse Barfield to it. The man had an absolute rifle, and kept it low enough for the cutoff men. Saying someone is the best evah! is dumb, but Barfield is certainly in that conversation.

Jesse.
My all time favorite Jay.
That unbelievable arm and the raw power.
Sure, there were a few too many K's - okay, more than a few too many - but when he barrelled up and you heard that 'tock' sound the ball disappeared in an awful hurry.
I'm pretty sure I heard more than a few baseballs scream when he made contact.
Thanks for the memories.

[Pelican]

I want to return to the scouting “fog of war” concept for a moment. I have to admit, when I first saw the toggle or slider I guess it is for scouting accuracy, I figured what the kick, put it at “high” or “very high”. The game is hard enough, without bogus scouting reports. But in reading through this thread, I am coming to realize that IRL scouts make errors, or players overperform or underperform. Or as in the excellent scouting reports by Baseball Prospectus, younger players may have very high risk of variance. So, I have backed off on the scouting accuracy, and it clearly presents more of a challenge. Now I have many players whose stats simply do not match up with their ratings. When there is a big and unexplained deviation, I request an updated scouting report, but rarely is there any big change. These anomalous results make player development seem like a risky business at best, a crapshoot at worst. It’s pretty deflating to do everything right in scouting and nurturing a player, and have him fail to advance, fail to show up. Admittedly there are a few diamonds in the rough who are pleasant surprises. So, collective wisdom, is it better to disregard the reports of scouts with “average” accuracy, and to rely on the statistics at whatever level? In doing that, I feel like I am leaning in too far toward “MoneyBall” sabremetrics, and not getting the only kind of hands-on evaluations OOTP can provide. I guess it’s true that there is no substitute for actually sitting in the stands and watching every play. I hope the lockout ends in time for Sprint Training.