Which Player Rating Scale Do You Use?

[The Wolf]

1-10. It just feels right.

[Stinson]

I gave 2-8 a shot, but there didn't seem to be much variation between players, so I've gone back to 1-20. Although, I'd still like to use something more baseball-like, so I think I'll give 20-80 a try.

Hopefully something other than 1-20 will work out. I already get enough 1-20 from EHM and FM, so OOTP needs to be different... something more baseball-like; Something more great-American-past-timey

[gord]

Originally Posted by sdctitans

I use 20-80 because thats what the true scouts use so I wanted to be authentic. I also vary sometimes on using stars or not.

Exactly why I chose that. Stuck with it ever since 2006.

[TribeWarpath]

1-5
5 - Excellent
4 - Good
3 - Average
2 - Weak
1 - Poor

Just enough info to give me feeling on scouts opinions without fully knowing.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by sdctitans

I use 20-80 because thats what the true scouts use so I wanted to be authentic.

If it's good enough for the MLB scouts it's good enough for me

[Nez477]

Man, I love the idea of actuals off and 1-10 potential only. I think I may go with that when I start up my first OOTP13 league. That way you have to go by stats and age which is something I've always struggled doing in OOTP.

[Matt Arnold]

I use stars for the overall actual/potential.
No ratings for the detailed ones (contact, eye, etc...)
2-8 for the other ratings (speed, defense).

Gives me a good balance between knowing where my players stand (using the stars for potential and actual, I can tell at a glance who to target), but if I care about details, I need to actually dig into the scouting report and stats. I might switch to adding ratings for potential, since I basically already do that by reading the scouting report.

[ashantewarrier]

Ratings: 2-8
Potential: 2-8
Other: 1-5
Coaches: 1-5

I like to use the 2-8 scale that actual MLB scouts use. Just enough information to evaluate players with scouting. For a somewhat of a challenge, I like to use stats to supplement scouting and not have too accurate scouting.

[JMDurron]

Originally Posted by Ambermonk

I use 1-100 because I like to know exactly where I stand.

1-100 here as well. I want the best data available, even if that data has significant noise in it due to the inaccuracy of even the most accurate, well-funded scout.

In my historical league, where I have essentially scripted my player transactions already, I just want to have the best data available to see how the player performs relative to their ratings. So I turn off scouting and see the true ratings.

In my MLB league, I like tracking how my scout's evaluation of players track by comparison to the player's actual editor ratings, while trying to make the best decisions possible for my team's future. More detail on the scout's ratings makes that easier to track.

[Righty Groove]

I used to play 1-100 with Scouting on. But honestly, I think the scouting system in OOTP is too dicey, ratings change too quickly and, maybe, I wish I had an * in the ratings the scout wasn't, hmmm, sure of his read. But anyway...

I've always admired people who have "the guts" to play with ratings off, since I couldn't pull myself to do it. So I play 2-8 with scouting off (now, with 100% accuracy) for the fun challenge.

[MikeS21]

I use the 20-80 scale, because, as others have said, that what the real scouts use. Plus sometimes, I occasionally find actual real-life player scouting numbers for various skills in the 20-80 scale, and can tweak my OOTP ratings in EDITOR to match the real-life counterpart.

[CBL-Commish]

20-80. Industry standard, I switched to it years ago so now it just feels right. When I'm reading prospect reports from real life it's seamless.

Thinking about doing my evals for employees at work on the 20-80, too.

[John C]

20-80, though I'm considering going stats only.

I was a 1-100 guy, then a 1-20 guy. But I like 20-80. So I go with that.

[spleen1015]

Across the various online leagues I'm in, I think I end up using them all.

I use the default when I play solo. That is 1-20 I think? I pay more attention to the color of the numbers more than the numbers.

[Cras]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I pay more attention to the color of the numbers more than the numbers.

That is how I find myself too. When I see a guy with a bunch of blue numbers, I get very interested.

[thbroman]

I only use stats and my scouting descriptions.
Malleus Dei convinced me a long time ago that it was the most interesting way to play the game.
(I did keep fielding ratings for a while, but I've started familiarizing myself with some of the newer fielding stats to compensate for masking those, too)

[rjl518]

1-100...and 20-80...it just feels right for me.

[MizzouRah]

One thing I have switch to this year and I love it.

OVERALL/POTENTIAL ratings, I've switched from stars to the 20-80 scale. This allows me to get a much better picture of overall/potential ratings for players, the stars system seems a bit wonky at times.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

One thing I have switch to this year and I love it.

OVERALL/POTENTIAL ratings, I've switched from stars to the 20-80 scale. This allows me to get a much better picture of overall/potential ratings for players, the stars system seems a bit wonky at times.

If it's possible, could you expand on that? I'm actually thinking of finally doing the opposite and returning to stars instead of the 20-80.

[JimboJones]

Can someone explain why real scouts use a 20-80 scale? I need a better reason than just "because thats what the pro scouts do". Did we learn nothing from Moneyball??