Interpreting Player Ratings

[Bunktown Ballers]

Originally Posted by Thalion

Okay, as I mentioned in a prior thread, I'm pretty clueless in how OOTP actually "works".

I surf the AH all the time looking for upgrades to my players and find myself comparing a rating, say CONTACT from a player offered for sale to a player I have on my roster.

I understand the basics. Green is better than yellow. Blue Better that green. Red = Bad. Also Higher numbers are better than lower numbers. That much I get.

My question is how much of a difference an incremental difference between two ratings really are for people to decide that an upgrade is in fact an upgrade. Obviously, I'm looking at this from a cost-benefit situation.

For example, say one card has a 65 Contact and another has a 70 Contact. (Assume everything is on a 100 point scale because that's what PT discussions seem to revolve around).

Would there be a noticeable change in a player's performance based on the changes of 5 in contact?

What are people's thoughts and/or experiences?

RATINGS DONT MEAN ANYTHING


Over 3 seasons Nolan Arenado averages 12 HR a year for me while 2014 Jose Abreu Averages 32 HR a year for me. Now go compare their ratings and you will see that rating don't mean anything
Another example is Max Scherzer finally got his ERA below 5.00 for me in 3 years, right now it's at 4.71.


Maybe rating do mean somethig & just the name on the card is what is useless. I dunno....I'm just managing a simulation baseball game where my staff of studs are carrying my team to a present 56-85 record, but hey I'm 3rd in league in HR with 164

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Bunktown Ballers

Over 3 seasons Nolan Arenado averages 12 HR a year for me while 2014 Jose Abreu Averages 32 HR a year for me. Now go compare their ratings and you will see that rating don't mean anything
Another example is Max Scherzer finally got his ERA below 5.00 for me in 3 years, right now it's at 4.71.

Give me the stats for 1,000 each of Arenado and Abreu cards over a 25-year simulation and then you might have a meaningful sample. As it is, you might as well be analyzing the geological history of the planet based on the past decade.

[old timer]

Originally Posted by Whoofe

well this thread has been very informative

Agreed. I've been playing OOTP since 2002 and yet I've learned a lot of new things recently due to playing PT. I guess I've been trying to learn every little bit to squeeze out as much as I can with my limited PT budget, while in the solo game I never felt quite so constrained (even with low income teams).

[Sharkn20]

Nice thread, thanks guys

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Bunktown Ballers]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Give me the stats for 1,000 each of Arenado and Abreu cards over a 25-year simulation and then you might have a meaningful sample. As it is, you might as well be analyzing the geological history of the planet based on the past decade.

If I had played 1,000 seasons I would have given it, but as it is I've only played 3. All I got, so why is anyone else giving opines on 3 seasons worth of PT. According to you it's useless just like info you giving us. I just don't think rating are a way to judge the players. I've seen many people claiming Freddie Freeman card is useless & in my opinion....it sure is....So in closing until you can give 1000 years of samples from PT you shouldn't come down so hard on others opine

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Bunktown Ballers

If I had played 1,000 seasons I would have given it, but as it is I've only played 3. All I got, so why is anyone else giving opines on 3 seasons worth of PT. According to you it's useless just like info you giving us. I just don't think rating are a way to judge the players. I've seen many people claiming Freddie Freeman card is useless & in my opinion....it sure is....So in closing until you can give 1000 years of samples from PT you shouldn't come down so hard on others opine

I think you missed the point.