Player Evaluation Settings Affect Performance?

[BlackWatch]

I've searched through the forums and didn't see any discussion surrounding this topic, apologies if I missed it. But, I was wondering, do player evaluation settings affect anything other than how the AI evaluates a player for the purposes of transactions (ie. trades, drafts, waivers, DFAs, etc.)?

Is there any influence on actual, in-game performance of players by modifying the player evaluation settings?

Reason I ask is, and albeit could most certainly be just anecdotal evidence, but I have played with various settings from default, to stat heavy like 70/10/15/5, to balanced like 25/25/25/25, and what I noticed is my players seem to perform better in-game when favouring a rating oriented ratio.

Is there any truth to this? I could be suffering from confirmation bias. Any input is welcome.

[uruguru]

It could certainly affect their playing time.

[BlackWatch]

Originally Posted by uruguru

It could certainly affect their playing time.

Yes, for sure, by the AI. I'm referring specifically to human controlled teams/players non-simmed.

[Sweed]

From your post noting the different settings you've tried over the years you obviously understand the implications of heavy stats, or heavy skill ratings settings, so no reason to go over all of that. So my humble opinion about your question on whether results are affected by the evaluation setting...

How would they even code that, much less why would they even code that? The extra work to do that seems like, well extra work for no return to me.

The player has a skill set that runs through the engine, that spits out results. Clean and simple. Everything after that in evaluations is to try to make the AI behave in a "realistic" manner. Realistic being whatever each individual decides it is within their game. Other than the playing time mentioned by uruguru there is no affect. Results being affected by evaluations makes no sense, while confirmation bias does, IMHO. Which takes us back to "clean and simple".

My 2 cents.

My experience FWIW. I play out every inning of every game meaning I usually play two or three seasons per version and then import into the newest version. My game was started in v4 and continues in v25. With that in mind I've used the 25/25/25/25 setting for many seasons over many versions and my players have produced as I would expect them to produce.

[Rain King]

I think this probably comes down to that when you set things to more heavily weight the Ratings then you are likely getting a more accurate* "Current" view of the player.

Basically, you have better information, which will tend to lead to better results based on your choices that rely on those ratings.


*Of course, this is also dependent on your Scout's accuracy as well the overall accuracy setting you have selected.

[BlackWatch]

Appreciate the input everyone!

[OutS|der]

They shouldn't. They should change the displayed ratings but have no effect on the underlying ratings in the editor.
Day to day results are some sort of formula involving league totals, modifiers and editor ratings, so changing how ratings are viewed should have no effect on the overall totals of the league but may change how the players perform themselves due to how the AI evaluates their playing time

Or least that's how I've understood it.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

They shouldn't. They should change the displayed ratings but have no effect on the underlying ratings in the editor.
Day to day results are some sort of formula involving league totals, modifiers and editor ratings, so changing how ratings are viewed should have no effect on the overall totals of the league but may change how the players perform themselves due to how the AI evaluates their playing time

Or least that's how I've understood it.

I don't see how that would be. The AI evaluation settings are about how much weight the computer manager will give to ratings and statistics of various ages when making decisions about who is in the lineup and where they hit.

A human GM does the same sort of thing when scouting isn't 100% accurate by relying to various degrees on performance when it differs from ratings.