Issue with how relievers are rated?

stealofhome · 05-18-2018, 11:48 PM

I know this has been brought up before but is there some issue with how relievers overall/potential is calculated in the game? What is the "official stance" on that? I've tried checking and unchecking the ratings based off all players box but still have 26 batters with 70+ overall ratings, 12 starters, and 29 relievers.

A whole bunch of them aren't even that great when you look at their ratings. Sure, the stuff is 80, but only so-so control/movement and not great stats either. Is it possible that their overall rating is too highly focused on their stuff or is this "working as intended?"

I see the same thing with the ratings calculated as normal, 100% ratings, and 100% stats. There's no way that an overall rating calculated purely on stats should put a reliever with 10 saves and 1.5 wins as a 75 overall and a starter with 5 and 7 WAR seasons back to back as a 65.

Matt Arnold · 05-19-2018, 11:01 AM

It was changed this year that relievers, starters, and position players would always be rated separately. So in the above case, the 75 reliever is not better than the 65 starter. If we ranked them all relative it each other, then no reliever would ever be above about a 55. Based on "value", even a guy like Kimbrell is only as valuable as an average 2nd or 3rd starter.

Also, due to sample size issues, we do factor in ratings more for relievers than the global settings. Otherwise their ratings would be too volatile that they are virtually worthless.

stealofhome · 05-19-2018, 04:39 PM

Awesome answer, thank you!

05-18-2018, 11:48 PM	#1
stealofhome Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 2,282 Blog Entries: 1	Issue with how relievers are rated? I know this has been brought up before but is there some issue with how relievers overall/potential is calculated in the game? What is the "official stance" on that? I've tried checking and unchecking the ratings based off all players box but still have 26 batters with 70+ overall ratings, 12 starters, and 29 relievers. A whole bunch of them aren't even that great when you look at their ratings. Sure, the stuff is 80, but only so-so control/movement and not great stats either. Is it possible that their overall rating is too highly focused on their stuff or is this "working as intended?" I see the same thing with the ratings calculated as normal, 100% ratings, and 100% stats. There's no way that an overall rating calculated purely on stats should put a reliever with 10 saves and 1.5 wins as a 75 overall and a starter with 5 and 7 WAR seasons back to back as a 65. Attached Images Last edited by stealofhome; 05-19-2018 at 12:03 AM.

05-19-2018, 11:01 AM	#2
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 14,143	It was changed this year that relievers, starters, and position players would always be rated separately. So in the above case, the 75 reliever is not better than the 65 starter. If we ranked them all relative it each other, then no reliever would ever be above about a 55. Based on "value", even a guy like Kimbrell is only as valuable as an average 2nd or 3rd starter. Also, due to sample size issues, we do factor in ratings more for relievers than the global settings. Otherwise their ratings would be too volatile that they are virtually worthless.

05-19-2018, 04:39 PM	#3
stealofhome Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 2,282 Blog Entries: 1	Awesome answer, thank you!