Overall Ratings

[PSUColonel]

not using AI evaluation...just based on ratings

[geisterhome]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It's a fault in the overall ratings system. If you are using relative ratings you will often notice your scout's opinion on the profile page vs the scouting report page can be wildly different. This is due to relative ratings not because no the default ratings. If you use the real ratings, these reports will agree with each other, but the ratings scale will be totally unrealistic. You will commonly see players with good individual ratings routinely rated poorly overall. So it's a case of picking your poison until this is sorted out, which won't likely be until version 19 (unless somehow Matt & Markus decided to switch ch over this summer)

I use relative ratings, and know the scout's opinion on the profile page is the right one, so I typically ignore the opinion in the scouting page. Sometimes the two agree, but very often not. A big issue I have with the overall rating on the profile page though...is it acts in real time and is dynamic for some reason. This defeats the purpose of receiving scouting updates for the purpose of overall ratings. (individual ratings work properly)

Edit: according big tobdevelopers this is a very close mother lex issue (as it's been present for years) and is going to require a re-design of some sort when it comes to ratings. I think it will involve making relative ratings the new default, but I don't pretend to know the mess lurking under the hood.

So if you are in MLB the differance btwn using relative ratings and not using them and is pretty much cosmetical? - in case you have an idea of what individual ratings are good in the MLB that is.

Example: by non relative ratings you look at a pitcher with 60 control, 60 movement, 60 stuff, 60 stamina, which is pretty high up on the 20-80 ratingsscale, and you think he is an ace, while you are unaware that there are plenty of better rated pitchers and that those ratings are only average in MLB. Now you switch to relative ratings and his ratings go to 50 across the board and get a better idea of the context.

Did I get this right so far?

[ThePretender]

The issue isn't relative ratings or not using relative ratings, it's the fact that the game overvalues specific skills and undervalues specific skills and thus the overall/potential system aren't accurate. I don't like using relative ratings and think it's a mistake for the game to head in that direction as the default.

[Rosco Peabody]

I have noticed in my current season the relief pitchers' ratings have all dropped. There used to be about ten to fifteen relievers at each level (on a 20-80 scale) of 70-80, 60-70, 50-60, and so on.

Now, once you go outside of the top ten or so, they're all rated under 40.

Is this related to what you guys are referring to?

I have the "All players relative to..." box unchecked, the "Overall rating based on AI evaluation" box checked, and "overall rating based on all players" box checked

[NoOne]

rosco, that's why i've switched to "relative" ratings...but, i'm thinking it may have been a mistake. i made that decision becuase of what i see and prefer to see vs. how it affects the AI. (no ideas on the latter, but i'm going to start paying attention)

an RP may look lower by overall, but if oyu don't use overall to find talent it's no big deal for a human... which is how i do it anyway. if having relative ratings and lower RP to the eye makes the AI handle their contracts better etc etc i'm all for it.


The problem isn't how they are handling the "relative" in use option -- fundamentally that's the same as it always has been, even if more pronounced for RP this year.. it's what they have done to the absolute ratings system for SP-RP.

these are not the same players based ontheir roles. you can't make their ratings relative because they don't represent the same thing nor calculate out to the same results... they are not the same and cannot be judged the same way... same reason you don't judge a First BAseman on their "Stuff" rating, it's irrelevant.

stamina is an example of this...

# of unique pitches for consistent success in that role is an example...

even stuff is calculated differently for rp, they get a little bonus, to represent that htey are throwing harder in shorter innings of work or something like that...

where a position player is on the field is 100% exclusive of their offensive talents... for pitching the role they play ont he field has a significant impact ontheir behaviour/results/ howver you want to look at it.

they should be rated as their own category at all times.. anythign relative for them should be between cl/su/mr/Loogy etc if any exists, which i don't think they do.

in summary, this setting should only have an effect on position players... no reason to apply it to pitching... it's like believing someone is reading the new commandments from 2 gold bricks in a top-hat that only he can see! (haha south park reference). "dumb, dumb..dumb, dumb, dumb"

i blame the forums for this... i've seen similar nonsense brought up in recent years about ratings and amatuers etc etc...

i also love the hubris of the conept that young amatuers lose talent (a perception carried over from real life)... when the more likely cause is merely poor scouting etc..(human error, being completely in the dark about what has a strong correlation with future success). it's not that we are wrong about them, it's that they fail or don't live up to the potential... lol... anyway in the game it represents it as people perceive it in real life.. meh... there shuold just be an insane amount of scouting innaccuracy for drafts, but then people wouldn't have fun failing as often as they do in RL

[Rosco Peabody]

So is this just something that has happened in OOTP18?

[NoOne]

as far as what you see with the RP, yes...

excluding any 'small' changes or tweaks they may have made regarding the other players and relative ratings... i cannot distinguish those with my eye, if they have occured... unliike the RP...

if they changed anythign else it's not as dramatic, at the least -- or it simply influenced RP more drastically than others... whatever the cause, we see the resutls... working backward has some open-ended possibilities. (for relative ratings)

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by NoOne

they should be rated as their own category at all times.. anythign relative for them should be between cl/su/mr/Loogy etc if any exists, which i don't think they do.

I can't understand why you'd want them relative to their "role". An 80 LOOGY is still a pitcher with subpar stuff. They could have 50 overall stuff but, say, 70 stuff vs LHH. It'd be more confusing if you make a pitcher relative to his role, because then a LOOGY could have better overalls than a SU guy, simply because the LOOGY is compared to LOOGY and the SU is compared to SU. If I'm understanding you correctly you could have a 65-65-65 loogy and a 60-60-60 SU guy, when in reality the SU guy is far better. To me that doesn't make sense to split them into role. I don't see the issue with having a SP and a RP having 80 stuff meaning the same thing, it's just a matter of recognizing that the SP will be able to maintain that strikeout rate over a longer period of time and facing batters multiple times through the order. And I don't need that 80 relative to the league, either. If it's green he's probably a 6-7 K/9 guy, if it's blue it's 8 or higher. I could get more specific on the K/9, but my league is different than yours so it wouldn't matter.

To be honest I think this relative ratings stuff is like bumpers in bowling. I think it's playing in easy mode in a sense. You don't need to have players rated relative to each other or the league to figure out how a player should perform.

For instance there was a player in a quickstart league who was 70-50-50 and then in relative ratings was like 50-20-20. It's like, did you really need relative ratings to realize the guy had terrible movement? The movement is yellow or red, it's pretty clear the guy is a terrible pitcher. I don't need to have it relative to the league to know this guy is a mop up pitcher at best.

I don't see the appeal to it, and I think it's a step backwards to use relative ratings. I'd recommend making the switch to stop using relative ratings.

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

I can't understand why you'd want them relative to their "role". An 80 LOOGY is still a pitcher with subpar stuff. They could have 50 overall stuff but, say, 70 stuff vs LHH.

I agree. I like ratings relative simply to Starter and Reliever (and maybe closer). It's just weird to see such few highly rated RP

[ThePretender]

I don't want relative ratings at all lol.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

I don't want relative ratings at all lol.

why on earth wouldn't you? The default ratings are indicernable from each other (mostly with pitchers) and will give great individual ratings to players, only to have the overall rating to be terrible.