Stars v. numerical ratings

kstepanian · 03-15-2017, 06:28 PM

I am wondering how best to interpret differences between the star ratings and the numerical summary ratings of players. Here is an example that illustrates my confusion (I've simmed one full season so these numbers may vary a bit):

Kyle Brodziak (33 years old) shows with 1.5 stars for both ability potential. His summary numbers are 13 for offense, 14 defense, 13 physical, and 15 mental.

Devin Shore (23) has 3.0 stars for both ability and potential. His summary numbers are 14 across the board.

Looking at the numerical ratings there doesn't seem to be a big difference between the two. Shore is a notch higher offensively and physically, but a notch below on the mental categories. Looking just at the numbers I'd think that Shore might be a 1/2 star higher, but in fact his rating is twice that of Brodziak.

How do the numerical ratings factor into the overall stars players are getting? Am I trying to relate two things that aren't anywhere near that linearly connected?

JeffR · 03-16-2017, 01:22 AM

There are a few factors involved. The individual attribute categories are weighted differently in the ratings, so that's part of it - Brodziak has good mental numbers, but that's the least-important category when calculating the overall rating, so Shore's advantages in offense and physical will put him ahead.

The star ratings don't have a straight-line relationship to the attributes, i.e. they're not just a simple total or average. They take into account the role the attributes suggest the player is capable of playing - Shore, by the end of the first season, probably has the scoring ability to play a top-6 role, but Brodziak can't effectively do that anymore.

The summary numbers can also cover a fairly broad range of totals, so if Brodiak's are on the low side of 13-14 and Shore's on the high side of 15, that could be enough to account for some more of the distance.

Shore's also young enough that there's probably still a little scouting error left in his evaluation (highlight the following blank space if you don't mind a spoiler about his development: I checked his numbers in the database, and he's very likely to top out at 2.5 stars - 3.0 is possible, but improbable, so the 3.0 may be exaggerated.)

03-15-2017, 06:28 PM	#1
kstepanian Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 51	Stars v. numerical ratings I am wondering how best to interpret differences between the star ratings and the numerical summary ratings of players. Here is an example that illustrates my confusion (I've simmed one full season so these numbers may vary a bit): Kyle Brodziak (33 years old) shows with 1.5 stars for both ability potential. His summary numbers are 13 for offense, 14 defense, 13 physical, and 15 mental. Devin Shore (23) has 3.0 stars for both ability and potential. His summary numbers are 14 across the board. Looking at the numerical ratings there doesn't seem to be a big difference between the two. Shore is a notch higher offensively and physically, but a notch below on the mental categories. Looking just at the numbers I'd think that Shore might be a 1/2 star higher, but in fact his rating is twice that of Brodziak. How do the numerical ratings factor into the overall stars players are getting? Am I trying to relate two things that aren't anywhere near that linearly connected?

03-16-2017, 01:22 AM	#2
JeffR FHM Producer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kelowna, BC Posts: 16,623	There are a few factors involved. The individual attribute categories are weighted differently in the ratings, so that's part of it - Brodziak has good mental numbers, but that's the least-important category when calculating the overall rating, so Shore's advantages in offense and physical will put him ahead. The star ratings don't have a straight-line relationship to the attributes, i.e. they're not just a simple total or average. They take into account the role the attributes suggest the player is capable of playing - Shore, by the end of the first season, probably has the scoring ability to play a top-6 role, but Brodziak can't effectively do that anymore. The summary numbers can also cover a fairly broad range of totals, so if Brodiak's are on the low side of 13-14 and Shore's on the high side of 15, that could be enough to account for some more of the distance. Shore's also young enough that there's probably still a little scouting error left in his evaluation (highlight the following blank space if you don't mind a spoiler about his development: I checked his numbers in the database, and he's very likely to top out at 2.5 stars - 3.0 is possible, but improbable, so the 3.0 may be exaggerated.)