Stats versus ratings one opinion

[Biggio509]

I see the old stats only thread has been running for a while. I will admit I am far from an expert at OOTP. I have built more teams that were a disappointment than teams that were annual contenders. I have had some of those though.

Things to remember about ratings.
1. Scouts are never 100% accurate. The more time in your system, the better your scouts, and the more money you spend the better picture you get but you rarely if ever see the true ratings without turning off scouting or going to the editor.
2. Scouts are less accurate for free agents and players outside your organization. Anyone who has signed a hot free agent then saw his scouting ratings drop within a week or 2 has seen this. One of way thinking about this is when the player isn't in your organization you have a scouting report. When he is your organization you have manager feed back on where he is and how he is progressing. Socouting becomes as much as the minor league manager's input to current ability as it is to the scout.

Stats
1. You can't always trust low league stats. Sometimes players topped at a low minor league. Just because the guy hits .300 in SA doesn't mean he hasn't topped out and will never make it past low A ball.
2. Players have on and off years as in real life. The age of the player and the body of work must be looked at not just how he did last year. Don't believe just because he is young he will get better.

My approach is a balance.
A and below.
I rely heavily on my socuts at A and below to see who to start. I want to start my highest potential guys. If they are failing at rookie I tend to think my scout is off but give them a chance.

I use stats not ratings to promote to the next level though. If a guy's ratings look low for high A I still promote if his stats are good. My scout could be wrong.

For temporary promotions due to injury I often use ratings. I don't promote my good talent until the next season unless his stats and his ratings seem to indicate he can stay there. I will promote a back up career minor leaguer to back up the next level. Sometimes I will just sign someone to replace the injured player.

AA and AAA
Potential ratings mean little now. It is who can perform. If a guy has high potential and failing he probably needs to be in A ball. I still keep an eye on potential and current but remember at this level performance is most likely telling you more than ratings. Again for back up A versus back B I might go with ratings due to limited sample size.

By the Majors I tend to use almost stats only. I still catch my self peaking at ratings though. It is tempting to keep throwing a high rated or high potential guy out there to see if he can finally get the hang of it. Still if you have the options those guys are better suited to AAA. I do tend to look at fielding ratings more despite some nice fielding stats available.

I think my approach is ratings heavy for A and below. Balanced at AA and sometimes AAA but stat heavy at the MLB level. I have no idea if OOTP has hidden ratings or just gets real world randomness right but sometimes even a well scouted guy with high ratings never lives up to what you think he will.

[sandman2575]

Originally Posted by Biggio509

I think my approach is ratings heavy for A and below. Balanced at AA and sometimes AAA but stat heavy at the MLB level. I have no idea if OOTP has hidden ratings or just gets real world randomness right but sometimes even a well scouted guy with high ratings never lives up to what you think he will.

Biggio (totally off topic, but I have a soft spot for the Bigg not only b/c he was awesome but because he went to HS the town over from where I grew up ) -- a lot of good food for thought here. I'm making the transition to stats only pretty much for the reason you put your finger on here: the expectations created by the well scouted guy with stellar ratings.

I took a hiatus from OOTP14 for a few months and realized it was time to get back into it. I like to play with real MLB teams with fictional rosters, so I put together a league, did the fantasy draft, was pleased with the team I was putting together (SF Giants, for some reason).

But as the season was underway I had a realization: the expectations I have based on ratings was making the game more frustrating than enjoyable. Especially if you do an inaugural fantasy draft, where skill ratings are All Important, when my Ace and Franchise Players don't perform up to snuff, it starts to drive me crazy. I use the 20-80 scale, and those bright green (and blue!) bars start to become mesmerizing. "No, my pitcher has a 70 control -- why is he walking 4 batters?!?" "My 3B has a 65 Eye, why is he striking out so much?!?" On a rational level I know how childish this kind of thinking is -- nobody pitches flawless shut-outs one start to the next, and nobody gets on base with every AB. But for whatever reason -- I think it's those brightly colored bars! I must be a sucker for pretty colors, I guess -- with Ratings on, I find myself constantly unhappy when my stars under-perform, rather than happy when they perform pretty adequately.

Anyway, going to Stats Only has completely reoriented my perspective on the game. The player IS his stats. He is absolutely not "what the ratings say he's SUPPOSED to be." If nothing else, getting rid of the ratings bars makes it easier to remember this. It has completely shifted my expectations. Now I'm happy when guys perform well, rather than unhappy because they are 'supposed to be' the next Barry Bonds and Pedro Martinez. It has turned me from George Steinbrenner into Billy Beane.

...purely aesthetically, I do miss the ratings bars though. They really are pretty.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by sandman2575

Biggio (totally off topic, but I have a soft spot for the Bigg not only b/c he was awesome but because he went to HS the town over from where I grew up ) -- a lot of good food for thought here. I'm making the transition to stats only pretty much for the reason you put your finger on here: the expectations created by the well scouted guy with stellar ratings.

I took a hiatus from OOTP14 for a few months and realized it was time to get back into it. I like to play with real MLB teams with fictional rosters, so I put together a league, did the fantasy draft, was pleased with the team I was putting together (SF Giants, for some reason).

But as the season was underway I had a realization: the expectations I have based on ratings was making the game more frustrating than enjoyable. Especially if you do an inaugural fantasy draft, where skill ratings are All Important, when my Ace and Franchise Players don't perform up to snuff, it starts to drive me crazy. I use the 20-80 scale, and those bright green (and blue!) bars start to become mesmerizing. "No, my pitcher has a 70 control -- why is he walking 4 batters?!?" "My 3B has a 65 Eye, why is he striking out so much?!?" On a rational level I know how childish this kind of thinking is -- nobody pitches flawless shut-outs one start to the next, and nobody gets on base with every AB. But for whatever reason -- I think it's those brightly colored bars! I must be a sucker for pretty colors, I guess -- with Ratings on, I find myself constantly unhappy when my stars under-perform, rather than happy when they perform pretty adequately.

Anyway, going to Stats Only has completely reoriented my perspective on the game. The player IS his stats. He is absolutely not "what the ratings say he's SUPPOSED to be." If nothing else, getting rid of the ratings bars makes it easier to remember this. It has completely shifted my expectations. Now I'm happy when guys perform well, rather than unhappy because they are 'supposed to be' the next Barry Bonds and Pedro Martinez. It has turned me from George Steinbrenner into Billy Beane.

...purely aesthetically, I do miss the ratings bars though. They really are pretty.

Stats Only makes OOTP a whole new game.

[yawgmoth]

I play nearly identical to the way you do with real major leagues, fictional rosters. Even the way I promote/demote players fits. Rely on scouts early on and as they develop trust the stats. As an example, my starting CF in the majors has been rated as a one star current and one star potential his entire career even in the minors. He has put up decent stats for the past three seasons starting in the majors for me. I am not going to let the fact that my scout hates him deter that he is a plus defender that will average .275, .375 obp and swipe 25 bags every year.

Far too often I find that my prospects (or just random low end draft talent) will flourish until they get to AA or AAA. Major road blocks there especially for the pitchers. It doesn't make practical sense to me to keep promoting because my scout has a boner for some guy. It's a computer simulation but practicality has to be used every now and then. There also seems to be a good number of hitters that play phenomenally all the way through the minors and then can't hit over .100 in the bigs. I haven't figured that one out yet.

[Déjà Bru]

Interesting approach. I believe this is the first time that I have ever seen ratings/stats blended in this fashion. First of all, it's usually all one or the other according to who is talking. Those who do take a blended approach are usually referring to using ratings for one aspect of performance (like baserunning and defense) and stats for others. OP's idea blends ratings/stats by the level of player maturity, basically.

[OmahaReynolds]

Biggio, which rating scale do you use, and which scouting accuracy setting?

[farmkidD2]

I love the idea of a stats only league, but isn't it difficult to evaluate prospects? How do you manage the rookie draft?

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Interesting approach. I believe this is the first time that I have ever seen ratings/stats blended in this fashion. First of all, it's usually all one or the other according to who is talking. Those who do take a blended approach are usually referring to using ratings for one aspect of performance (like base-running and defense) and stats for others.

When you click on a player in game and bring up his scouting report, does it talk about running at all? I'm away from my game right now, and cannot remember. How do people that have scouting turned off get an idea of how fast a player runs? Stealing bases isn't always indicative.

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

I love the idea of a stats only league, but isn't it difficult to evaluate prospects? How do you manage the rookie draft?

Read some of the older threads regarding stats only. The short answer is you have to have feeder leagues so the players have some stat history. You can use that + some other information to make your selections. But there is no magic formula...the draft is pretty random with no ratings.

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

Read some of the older threads regarding stats only. The short answer is you have to have feeder leagues so the players have some stat history. You can use that + some other information to make your selections. But there is no magic formula...the draft is pretty random with no ratings.

Since I want stats only but not feeder leagues(to minimize upload time for my online league) would the best compromise have potential only ratings?

Is this a good compromise for those of you who might do stats only or do you guys think all or nothing is the best way to go?

[TribeFanInNC]

I don't think I would run with potential only, though I don't have any practical experience with it. At the ML level, the potential and the actual is so close that it would basically be like having ratings on again.

If you don't want to go full bore with stats only, I'd just reduce the rating scale to 1-5 or something like that. I have played that way and it makes it basically quasi-stats only.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

Since I want stats only but not feeder leagues(to minimize upload time for my online league) would the best compromise have potential only ratings?

Is this a good compromise for those of you who might do stats only or do you guys think all or nothing is the best way to go?

Or you could try going with 1-5 ratings and no ratings bars to keep a reasonable fog of war. It's up to you though. It's your game...Play it your way.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch by Tribe Fan In NC. Nicely done.

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Or you could try going with 1-5 ratings and no ratings bars to keep a reasonable fog of war. It's up to you though. It's your game...Play it your way.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch by Tribe Fan In NC. Nicely done.

I don't get what taking the ratings bars away does if you still have the rating numbers. How is that fog of war, the numbers are still displayed, aren't they?

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

I don't get what taking the ratings bars away does if you still have the rating numbers. How is that fog of war, the numbers are still displayed, aren't the?

Let's say you have someone rated a "3" in some category. On a 1-100 scale that could be anywhere from 50-69 and that might show up in the ratings bars (I don't know if it does because I don't play with them).

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Let's say you have someone rated a "3" in some category. On a 1-100 scale that could be anywhere from 50-69 and that might show up in the ratings bars (I don't know if it does because I don't play with them).

Oh, I see what you are saying. I guess I just always assumed that the rating bars correlated with the settings. IE, if you had 1-10, you couldn't have the equivalent of a 65 on the rating bar, it would either be 6/10 or 7/10 of the way across the screen.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

Oh, I see what you are saying. I guess I just always assumed that the rating bars correlated with the settings. IE, if you had 1-10, you couldn't have the equivalent of a 65 on the rating bar, it would either be 6/10 or 7/10 of the way across the screen.

That's why I said I'm not sure because I really don't know how the ratings bars are done. Somebody else might be able to chime in though.

[farmkidD2]

Wait, I actually just tried doing this in my game and found the ratings options in global setup, and saw how to turn them off, but how do you turn just the bars off but leave the numbers? Did I miss-understand your previous post, or is there a way to do this in one of the other menus. I looked through but must have missed it if it is there.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

Wait, I actually just tried doing this in my game and found the ratings options in global setup, and saw how to turn them off, but how do you turn just the bars off but leave the numbers? Did I miss-understand your previous post, or is there a way to do this in one of the other menus. I looked through but must have missed it if it is there.

I think it's under "preferences" which is on the first screen before you enter the game. You can choose whether you want them or not there.

[nebradska]

Originally Posted by farmkidD2

Oh, I see what you are saying. I guess I just always assumed that the rating bars correlated with the settings. IE, if you had 1-10, you couldn't have the equivalent of a 65 on the rating bar, it would either be 6/10 or 7/10 of the way across the screen.

This is correct.

[farmkidD2]

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

Read some of the older threads regarding stats only. The short answer is you have to have feeder leagues so the players have some stat history. You can use that + some other information to make your selections. But there is no magic formula...the draft is pretty random with no ratings.

Older as in OOTP 13? I did a couple keyword searches and this was the only thread I could find discussing this. Do you know where it is or what keyword I should search for?