I feel like I'm using ratings wrong

chriskelly · 03-18-2016, 09:39 AM

I posted this in the OOTP16 forum yesterday, and got 1 great answer; I think I'll post it here too to see if there are any thoughts relative to 17.

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. This is the part I am most interested in

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?

Why do relief pitchers have such high numbers?

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)?

I think I am going to test by turning scouts to 100% accurate and choosing 10 or so players with similar age and hitting skills, but differing levels of defense and speed, to see how much their overall 20-80 rankings differ.

DJP53916 · 03-20-2016, 12:52 PM

I use 20-80 myself. Honestly, I'm not sure that there is a "wrong way" to use this information, it is simply what you want to use it for.

For instance, when I am looking to trade an established player for minor leaguers, I focus more on the overall potential of the prospects I'm targeting, and I read the general scouting report of those players. If my assistant GM suggests I should ask for more in a trade, I look at individual skill sets and those potential ratings to try to snag a "throw in" with some under appreciated upside.

When I target international free agents, I look more to younger players who have high potential ratings in certain skills as opposed to just targeting overall or overall potential ratings. I generally play with Milwaukee, so I try to find ways to stretch out my available money as far as possible, since I have more limited funds available than most teams, and I need to develop my talent more than most teams to sustain success.

It really just comes down to how you want your organization to be built top to bottom.

Turning the scouting accuracy to 100% to get a feel for it is fine, although personally I would go for "Very High" or "High" accuracy ratings here. I like having scouts get some players wrong for a sense a realism.

03-18-2016, 09:39 AM	#1
chriskelly All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 738	I feel like I'm using ratings wrong I posted this in the OOTP16 forum yesterday, and got 1 great answer; I think I'll post it here too to see if there are any thoughts relative to 17. 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. This is the part I am most interested in 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? Why do relief pitchers have such high numbers? 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)? I think I am going to test by turning scouts to 100% accurate and choosing 10 or so players with similar age and hitting skills, but differing levels of defense and speed, to see how much their overall 20-80 rankings differ.

03-20-2016, 12:52 PM	#2
DJP53916 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 175	I use 20-80 myself. Honestly, I'm not sure that there is a "wrong way" to use this information, it is simply what you want to use it for. For instance, when I am looking to trade an established player for minor leaguers, I focus more on the overall potential of the prospects I'm targeting, and I read the general scouting report of those players. If my assistant GM suggests I should ask for more in a trade, I look at individual skill sets and those potential ratings to try to snag a "throw in" with some under appreciated upside. When I target international free agents, I look more to younger players who have high potential ratings in certain skills as opposed to just targeting overall or overall potential ratings. I generally play with Milwaukee, so I try to find ways to stretch out my available money as far as possible, since I have more limited funds available than most teams, and I need to develop my talent more than most teams to sustain success. It really just comes down to how you want your organization to be built top to bottom. Turning the scouting accuracy to 100% to get a feel for it is fine, although personally I would go for "Very High" or "High" accuracy ratings here. I like having scouts get some players wrong for a sense a realism.