To The Wolf: How I learned to stop worrying and love stats only

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Verbal scouting reports say things like "elite offensive player, you can expect .300/.400/.600 in a given season". That's pretty easy to translate to ratings.

To me, stats only means only using stats.

Does it particularly matter? Wolf uses Scouting Reports, I use Speed and Fielding Ratings, Syd uses Potential Ratings... I feel like the core idea of Stats-Only is turning off the main POW/CON/EYE ratings. Anything beyond that is up to the individual.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Verbal scouting reports say things like "elite offensive player, you can expect .300/.400/.600 in a given season". That's pretty easy to translate to ratings.

To me, stats only means only using stats.

There's many levels of "stats-only". I find using scouting reports a good way to balance. Yes, it will tell me some things about potential I wouldn't get from stats, but I do find that the written reports are vague enough that it's not "cheating".

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Verbal scouting reports say things like "elite offensive player, you can expect .300/.400/.600 in a given season". That's pretty easy to translate to ratings.

To me, stats only means only using stats.

Set your accuracy to low, and then try relying on them.

You missed my point about not fighting over this, didn't you?

[The Wolf]

Stats Only means no ratings. That's all it means, and there's a lot of different ways to play with no ratings.

[Déjà Bru]

This is a good thread, which I am reading with interest. It's nice to see Wolfie getting some positive recognition here. This has been his baby for sure.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I think what Orcin is saying is that looking at the ratings and scouting reports are basically the same thing If you know the game well enough. You can pretty much know what a specific sentence means and can translate it to a number. Of course things get more accurate with ratings as you up the scale but if someone is using a 1-5 scale or 2-8 scale then its pretty much the same as reading scouts if you know how they translate.

But at the end of the day IMO its all about what immerse the player not about is a setting realistic or not.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

Does it particularly matter? Wolf uses Scouting Reports, I use Speed and Fielding Ratings, Syd uses Potential Ratings... I feel like the core idea of Stats-Only is turning off the main POW/CON/EYE ratings. Anything beyond that is up to the individual.

The point is that when your scout says something like "this guy looks like a .330 hitter" you know it's because the player has a very high CON rating. The statements map directly to ratings. That's why you get the (IMHO) immersion-killing effect of a statement like that combined with an overall assessement that the player has no future, because of a poor EYE rating or something. So there's really no practical difference between reading the scouting reports and using some lower-granularity rating setting.

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Stats only isn't for everyone. Vanilla isn't for everyone. Play the game however you enjoy it most. But let's not fight about it.

Wolfs right. Lets not fight about it, discuss not fight. It's like having a fight over which is your favourite colour, there are probably 1,000's of ways to play OOTP so you'll never get everyone to agree. I've actually gone through different phases, firstly with real rosters then historical followed by fictional and now I'm into fictional stats only. My final aim is to have a totally deep fictional world, names, cities all fictional playing stats only where I can be God, King, GM and manager even player.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Antonin

One thing I wish the game would do for those who want to play stats-only is put something in the player profile where ratings would be. I don't have OOTP14, but for previous versions, having all that empty space where ratings would be looks very strange.

Playing with stats only makes sense, and I could grow to love playing that way, if only the player profile didn't look so strange.

Just my 2 cents.

Heh. This post points to how alike we all are, despite our differences. This bugs me too, my friend! Why I don't know but it's akin to the need to occasionally sort my sock drawer.

Originally Posted by cody8200

The only thing that kills it for me is that you can't tell when a player loses his ability suddenly before making a big signing in the offseason. Or after an injury.

Cody, I respect what you say here but I agree with the others who said . . . that's [real] life!

Originally Posted by Orcin

The thing that kills stats only for me is that it is not realistic.

In real life, GMs have stats and scouts. Sometimes, they say opposite things. Part of the skill is sorting that contrary information and weighing which one is right.

I think a few others mentioned that it is true realism, looking at it your way, to have the scouts and a written scouting report. The numbers and bars thing is not realistic if you really think about it.

Originally Posted by UWHabs

Going with a combination of the written scouting report and the stats I find is a great mix that gives me just enough info to judge players, but not too much that I feel like I know exactly how they will do.

Agree, if SO is the way to go.

Originally Posted by soxfan34

When we in the forums refer to Stats-Only, we mean the non-use of ratings.

Yes! Let's not start that debate again!

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle

Stats Only saved the game for me. The ratings made the game way too easy and I had zero immersion. Whoever said it felt like Madden is dead-on. Personally, I use the reports still but I turn Scouting Accuracy to "low" so I'm made to trust them even less.

That's just me, though. I'm more likely to abandon a game I'm dominating than one which is dominating me. And when I do well with stats only--it is far more gratifying. I feel like a genuine baseball genius.

Nice summary of how one might feel who thinks the game is too easy and is looking for a greater challenge.

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

To each their own, but I find the opposite -- I feel like the scouting report provides an unrealistic hodge-podge of contradictory information that an actual scout would never provide. The ratings are more coherent, and can be as foggy or as specific as you want.

The scouting reports kill immersion for me in the same way that it seems like the ratings do for you.

Thank goodness the motto around here is "Play the game your way!" and they mean it!

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

I'm honestly confused by this idea that rating skills numerically is not "realistic." The 20-80 scale (or 2-8) is a modern scouting convention, isn't it?

Of course people should play how they want to in order to get the most satisfaction from the game. And if that means increasing the difficulty level in some way by removing scouted ratings, that makes sense -- though I think that effect is less than often claimed. But the idea that it's more "realistic" (and the perceived condescencion sometimes creeps in with that statement) seems bizarre to me.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle

That's just me, though. I'm more likely to abandon a game I'm dominating than one which is dominating me.

Heh, if the latter is true, then you'd never quit playing Race Into Space or its immediate predecessor Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space. The game is legendary for its degree of difficulty.

[Syd Thrift]

Actually, the unrealistic aspect of non-SO styles of play is that in OOTP the scouts provide their ratings based on what the player's actual hidden ratings are. There may be a modifier provided based on how good the scout is and how accurate the ratings are set to be in your league, but that's what they look at in the end. In real life, the scouts can't just look at a guy and decide he's a good player (although in the past you did actually have guys saying someone has "the baseball face"... no, seriously). They have to watch the guy they're scouting play, too, and make decisions based on that.

One way I think future iterations of OOTP resolve this is to literally make scouts "watch" players and make judgments based on a small - let's say 4 or 5 games - sample size. Maybe they'd be able to get more out of it than someone who sees a guy go 10 for 20, but it ought to be organic to the game. If a guy gets into several 10 pitch at-bats, that's a good sign he has a decent eye, regardless of walk totals. A guy who hits a lot of line drives should be rated better for contact and maybe power, regardless of whether or not those liners land for hits. Likewise, a pitcher's control and stuff ratings can be influenced by the secondary outcomes of an at-bat rather than just the primary ones. And maybe there can be a *little* bit of pure ratings thrown on top that the scouts glean from watching BP and the like, but I would tread carefully with that because the world is full of guys who look like beasts in BP but can't translate that into hitting major league pitching.

(I also think that scouts shouldn't be rating guys on gap power. Yes, I realize that that's a rating in the game, but so is BABIP and there is no direct scouting rating for that either. For that matter, I'd like to see scouts translate high-ish gap power ratings into good potential power ratings, as there is a pervasive idea (which actually may have some truth behind it) that young players who hit a lot of doubles can fill out and turn into in-their-prime players who hit a lot of homeruns).

In the end, yes, that still means you're basing current ratings in particular on performance. That's the way it should be. Real life scouts do not have the magical ability to assess a player's true abilities by looking at him. Potential ratings are a little tougher to justify but consider this:

- Fielding ability, particularly the non-experience aspect of it, comprises skills which are probably at or near a player's maximum ability when he enters the draft (talking about range and arm in particular).
- Gap power, as noted, is thought to translate into HR power.
- Relatively skinny guys are expected to fill out as they age; conversely, 5'8" 150 pound players who are not currently hitting for power are also generally not expected to hit for power in the future
- BABIP generally starts out as high as it's ever going to get or close to that point
- Scouts can grade how decent a player is *right now* at fouling off pitches, recognizing balls and strikes, and otherwise doing the things that get you deep into counts, but I'm not sure they have a way of saying "this guy draws 40 walks a year now but has the potential to draw 100".
- Likewise with strikeouts. I hear all the time about how Minor League C-Level Prospect X could be a great major leaguer if he didn't strike out so much, but you never hear "and I think in time he will learn to strike out less" from scouts either.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

You missed my point about not fighting over this, didn't you?

Nope, I didn't miss it. I am not fighting about it. I just disagree with you, so I am explaining my contrary point of view.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I think what Orcin is saying is that looking at the ratings and scouting reports are basically the same thing If you know the game well enough. You can pretty much know what a specific sentence means and can translate it to a number. Of course things get more accurate with ratings as you up the scale but if someone is using a 1-5 scale or 2-8 scale then its pretty much the same as reading scouts if you know how they translate.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Orcin]

The notion that we are "fighting" about this is just absurd.

I am not saying that your definition of stats only is wrong or bad. Of course, everyone is entitled to play the game the way they want.

However, Wolf and others continue to say, and I paraphrase, "real men play stats only", "stats only is more challenging", "the game is too easy with numerical ratings" etc. Those are assertions that I dispute.

The mere addition of numerical ratings, which are inaccurate compared to the real ratings, does not appreciably alter the difficulty for a veteran player.

If it is more immersive and more fun for you, then by all means do it. Just don't tell us that anyone playing with numerical ratings is using training wheels (again I paraphrase).

Ok, now that I have made my point, can we all just stop fighting about this?

[LeiterFanatic]

I wish I had never read past The Wolfs original post. Honestly. Thanks Wolf, for something to consider.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by cody8200

The only thing that kills it for me is that you can't tell when a player loses his ability suddenly before making a big signing in the offseason. Or after an injury. If there was some text dialog to help the stats only GM understand when a player is in for a decline, I would be on board. In real life you could just see the decline coming based on his pitch speed going down or looking bad at batting practice. Not the case in OOTP.

That's bogus.....no one ever could foresee a decline until the decline happens.....and in real baseball even when it is obvious that a player no longer is anything close to what he was, he will still get chances to play based on his name and the (stupid) hope that he will turn it around....

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Orcin

.However, Wolf and others continue to say, and I paraphrase, "real men play stats only", "stats only is more challenging", "the game is too easy with numerical ratings" etc. Those are assertions that I dispute.player.

No, these are opinions that you feel compelled to attack for some odd reason. We just disagree. There's no need to fight.

You want to play vanilla? Great. We don't. You think it's just as hard? Great. We don't.

Play the game any way you like.

[Barkingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Play the game any way you like.

That should be the take-away. It's a testament to the versatility of the game itself that we can have so many varied ways of playing it and that we each enjoy it differently. I think this is pretty much the best game I've ever played and I am not ashamed to say I'm a pretty huge dork and have been for a long time.

In all honesty, though--this game is way harder if you play it extremely drunk. I don't think anyone could argue with that.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle

That should be the take-away. It's a testament to the versatility of the game itself that we can have so many varied ways of playing it and that we each enjoy it differently.

Exactly. That should be the takeaway.

If Stats Only dors happen to intrigue you, though, I do encourage you to give it a try on your own.