I feel like I'm using ratings wrong

[chriskelly]

I use 20-80 ratings. I think I give too much value to the total rating and could use some advice.
-I know the ratings are dependent on my settings, stats vs ratings
-I know the scale doesn't tie to the MLB 80 point scale
-I know they are a bell curve (so a 50 is a whole lot better than a 40)
-I know they combine all aspects....hitting, fielding, running, etc. but I don't know what that really means.

When I look at hitters, for example, how much weight is given to defense and running? are they 2 of x number of skills that are all evenly weighted?

When I select to compare to position only, and not all players, what exactly changes? how do I then compare an C to a 3B?

Why do relief pitchers have such high numbers?

How do I factor age vs potential for prospects? If I have a 21 year old and a 26 year old that are both rated 20 / 40, for example, does that say the 21 year old has a better chance to develop?

How do I factor current rating for minor leaguers? I believe they are rated as compared to major leaguers. But, for the portion that is based on stats, how is that compared (since their stats are minor league vs majors)?

Thank you very much....any advice is welcome, excited about tomorrow!

[NoOne]

my biggest use of overall/potential is as a filter for long lists. for all the reasons you listed above... the fact it includes so much in one rating limits its use * especially if including stats because small samples sizes can cause innaccurate ovr/pot. i use X% stats in ai eval. exactly for that reason. so, don't read what i just wrote as a positive or a negative... it just is and can be useful from some perspectives. i like the simulated human error it institutes for ai gm decisions.

i believe the contact, avoid k's, power etc.. all are still based on your scout and those related settings on accuracy and whatnot, regardless of AI Eval including statistics. you can confirm this with player editor if unsure.

the scale you use will affect ai decisions, i assume. as well as limit what you can resolve (e.g. 1-100 shows you more than 1-5). anything after 10-20 is going to allow you to rank players better for various individual ratings.

the weights of overall/potential can just be ignored... you could flesh them out if you wanted. you will probably do a better job weighting individual ratings that are important to the role you intend for that player than overall will ever do.

compare to position will merely scale overall/potential to players ONLY of that same primary position (**think just over/pot -- not sure on other ratings). i'm sure there are some advantages to this, but i would not suggest using it. you can make better overall roster decisions when you know a batter's rating relative to all batters, not just SS or LF. it will be mostly inconsequential whichever option you choose - if it only applies to ovr/pot. i'd rather have a consistent scale and be extremely familiar with it regardless of position. that's just how i look at it.

with it on and you want to compare c ofense to 3b offense, you would have to peak at the editor or do some statistical analysis on the distribution of talent in the related positions. fun, huh? one more reason not to use it - actually ties into the braoder reason of roster decisions are easier without it on.

the whole development question is impossible to answer simply. the younger they are the more likely for their potential to change a greater amount by the time they mature. "Development" stops at age 27/28 (refer to manual). so, if they are 26 and still 20/40 they are less likely* to improve than the 21 year old that is 20/40. *not impossible, merely comparing two situations to give an idea. a HS is more likely to have an 78-80 potential than a college kid, in my experience, but less likely to make it to the MLB with the original POT when drafted intact. it's a bit of a tradeoff. a little more risk, a little more potential for a HS vs college kid draftee. i don't look at age too much during draft... i'll almost always ride a better prospect unless the difference is negligible.

minor league : again i'm certain the individual ratings are still based on scouts, not stats. i don't even look at over/pot in minors. you should worry less about results of stats in the minor leagues. they are lacking integrity and should be treated as such.

promotions should be based on minimum individual ratings you flesh out as bare minimums for the next promotion. the first few leagues i played i kept everything transparent and accurate. i fleshed out the best times to promot people based on their current ability. you can do this through normal play too, but it will take longer to learn initially.

e.g. i learned a ~.210-.220 average predicted in the profile editor was about the time most batters could succeed in AA. i then learned what ratings equate to that BA predicted in the editor (more sophisticated because an extremelely well-developed rating can overcome a deficiency somehwere else... etc). now, with scouting innaccuracy implemented and comissioner mode turned off, i can still make extremely good decisions when to promote prospects. if i learn my scout is wrong and they hit extremely poorly, and i mean really really bad, then i will demote them and remember my scout is off on that player.

i have a future first-ballot HoF on my team now, that never hit higher than .211 in his 2 minor league years. MiL statistics are meaningless, as long as they are not overmatched talent wise. only in extreme cases should you let stats control your promotion/demotion. all that you should focus on is whether ratings are increasing (complicated - involves considering personality and random talent changes)... anythign else is just entertainment.

basically you will have a learning curve. once you learn the nuances, you'll know what to do without thinking much - as far as prospects and promotions.

you can set ratings relative to a league. if it stays consistent as opposed to relative to talent, then it is just as good as leaving it pegged to the MLB. if it sways based on talent, it's that much more difficult to nail down when someone should be promoted. it would make your job more difficult. i am not sure which it is, though. so, i'd suggest just keeping it pegged to your top league. consitency in data allows for better decisions - for obvious reasons but also comfort level that you have with it. the more you see it and work with it the more you understand it.

The same pitcher gets a slight boost in ratings as an RP relative to that same player being an SP. a RP can pitch differently than a SP. in RL they typically throw a few mph harder etc... in game they don't get the boost to velocity, but they do get other improvements. group think, maybe? that adds with the benefit of not seing the lineup 2-3 times.

some tips:

go to Stats & AI (might be settings-players?). click the dropdown box in the top right to select a minor league. just look through settings til you find it or use the manual.

a new option appears when you have a MiL selcted: "Start potential over current ability" or somethign liek that. enabling that will cause your MiL manager to play people based on potential and not current ability. this ensures they will get the bulk of the playing time - how important that is ?? can't hurt anyway. i don't think players require a ton of playing time to improve in my experience. i wouldn't be surprised if there are negligible returns after soemthing as low as 1/2 the games.

do that for all your MiLs.

[chriskelly]

Thank you very much! I have to digest all this!