How would you rate the ratings?

[Bobble]

I'm doing an Ambermonk-style excel spreadsheet (http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...06-post14.html) to analyze the inaugural draft of a massive 72-team league (http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...509-post9.html). I'm going to calc a weighted average of each player's ratings. I've got some opinions on what I think is important but I want to hear what you think.

Batters - If I were to give a batter's CON a value of 1.0, what value would you give the rest of his ratings?

CON - 1.0
GAP - ?.?
POW - ?.?
EYE - ?.?
K's - ?.?

What else would you put in there?

SPE - ?.?
STE - ?.?
RUN - ?.?
Bats Left - ?.?
Switchitter - ?.?
?????????? - ?.?
?????????? - ?.?
?????????? - ?.?


Same for pitchers. Assume STUFF is weighted 1.0.

STUFF = 1.0
MOV = ?.?
CON = ?.?

What else?

STAM = ?.?
Grndbl% = ?.?
?????????? - ?.?
?????????? - ?.?
?????????? - ?.?

[sc_superstar]

I would say:
Contact = Avoid K > Gap = Eye > Power

The handedness doesnt matter so much as the L/R splits, points should be deducted for players with a sizeable difference between ratings vs RHP/LHP

So maybe:
Contact/Avoid K - 1.0
Gap/Eye - 0.9
Power - 0.6
Speed - 0.7
Defense - 1 (combination of fielding ratings + pos experience)

I value power lower because i prefer 20/20 guys with a high avg/OBP to low avg homer machines in game.

Starters and relievers should have different formula's IMO

Starters

Stuff 1.0
Movement 0.9
Control 1.0
GB % 1.5 or 2.0 (only because it tops out at a certain point)
Stamina 1.0

Relievers

Stuff 1.0
Movement 0.7
Control 0.8
GB % 1.5

MOV/CON seem to matter less to relievers cause they can usually come in and throw in huge K numbers and get out that way

Maybe add in a small bonus for good personality traits?

[Bobble]

Avoid K more than EYE (albeit SLIGHTLY more)? Avoid K's seems like to me just fouling stuff off to stretch out the pitcher. EYE is walks, no?

I like the idea of penalizing a guy for vs. RHP/LHP differences .. although it presents a challenge with the way I've constructed my spreadsheet.

So, what you're getting at is that the whole span of normal GB% (roughly 40% to 70%) should be about equally weighted as stuff?

[saturn2187]

isnt this what the overall player ratings do? Cant you just look at those?

[endgame]

How are you accomplishing the data gathering? I didn't have any luck trying to csv the inaugural so I could take it to Excel and could only display the top echelon at each position. Are you exporting it all at once, or utilizing a workaround of some sort?

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by endgame

How are you accomplishing the data gathering? I didn't have any luck trying to csv the inaugural so I could take it to Excel and could only display the top echelon at each position. Are you exporting it all at once, or utilizing a workaround of some sort?

I did it with the .csv files. There's an option there to export your scout's assessment. I think that file comes with the real ratings, too but that's easy enough to delete. You also have to tie the data (player names, ages, etc.) from players.csv to your ratings but IIRC, they are both initially sorted by player ID so it was a simple copy/paste.

What I didn't have luck with was using the ingame reports sent to an external browser. Too much data that was only broken into pages.

What issues were you having with the .csv? It was only exporting SOME of the players?

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Bobble

I did it with the .csv files. There's an option there to export your scout's assessment. I think that file comes with the real ratings, too but that's easy enough to delete. You also have to tie the data (player names, ages, etc.) from players.csv to your ratings but IIRC, they are both initially sorted by player ID so it was a simple copy/paste.

What I didn't have luck with was using the ingame reports sent to an external browser. Too much data that was only broken into pages.

What issues were you having with the .csv? It was only exporting SOME of the players?

The external browser certainly was a problem, and it may have been the extent of the difficulties in my memory. Still, I recall a vague notion that the csv files were either incomplete or lacking some vital info I was after. Oh well, if it's working for you, good deal. My draft is behind me now, but I will revisit it when the ammy draft rolls 'round.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Bobble

Avoid K more than EYE (albeit SLIGHTLY more)? Avoid K's seems like to me just fouling stuff off to stretch out the pitcher. EYE is walks, no?

I don't see that at all. Avoid K to me is a guy who makes outs by not striking out. These can be productive outs, moving a runner via GB or FB.

Edit

I value that equal to or maybe more than eye.

[ezpkns34]

Originally Posted by sc_superstar

I would say:
Contact = Avoid K > Gap = Eye > Power


I value power lower because i prefer 20/20 guys with a high avg/OBP to low avg homer machines in game.

If you value high obp, you should probably start valuing eye more

[injury log]

OOTP ratings don't work linearly, so you could never use a weighted average of them to get a good evaluation of player ability. For example, there's a huge difference between a pitcher with a 1 Control rating and a guy with a 100 Control rating (on the /200 scale). But the difference between a 100 Control guy and a 200 Control guy is not nearly so big.

The OVR rating (stars or out of 80) already accounts for that non-linearity, so I guess I don't understand the purpose of weighted averaging the ratings.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by injury log

OOTP ratings don't work linearly, so you could never use a weighted average of them to get a good evaluation of player ability. For example, there's a huge difference between a pitcher with a 1 Control rating and a guy with a 100 Control rating (on the /200 scale). But the difference between a 100 Control guy and a 200 Control guy is not nearly so big.

The OVR rating (stars or out of 80) already accounts for that non-linearity, so I guess I don't understand the purpose of weighted averaging the ratings.

You could do a simple interim calculation to account for that non-linearity. Cumbersome maybe, but simple.

Maybe I'm obstinate and ignorant but when I look through the OVR ratings, I frequently don't agree. The spreadsheet (aside from being fun for me) let's me evaluate the players the way *I* want to.

[robc]

Originally Posted by injury log

OOTP ratings don't work linearly, so you could never use a weighted average of them to get a good evaluation of player ability. For example, there's a huge difference between a pitcher with a 1 Control rating and a guy with a 100 Control rating (on the /200 scale). But the difference between a 100 Control guy and a 200 Control guy is not nearly so big.

The OVR rating (stars or out of 80) already accounts for that non-linearity, so I guess I don't understand the purpose of weighted averaging the ratings.

I never new that. Thanks.

[sc_superstar]

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

If you value high obp, you should probably start valuing eye more

I do value eye, and OBP but like others have said sometimes outs can be productive and lead to misleading stats

Joe Torre said it best in his book, not quoting verbatim, leadoff guy gets a double, next batter grounds out and advances the runner, next batter grounds out and the runner scores. One guy is an RBI machine while the other gets looked at as a bum who cant hit with RISP if this gets repeated 30x per season. But its all good baseball.

It's all about relative value. in 2012 Yadier Molina posted a .373 OBP Miguel Montero posted a .391 OBP, and walked 28x more, but also struck out 75x more, so with those 75 extra balls in play Molina was able to hit more hits and more extra base hits at that. Valuing just one stat has to assume all else being equal. While I do value OBP, the guy not striking out can do a whole lot more with his at bats, even if he walks less. The only time I might value Eye over Avoid K is in my leadoff hitter who needs to get on base more than he needs to make productive AB's

Besides assuming all else is equal what player do you want

.250 AVG .370 OBP, 125k
or
.300 AVG .370 OBP, 50 k

both players have solid OBP's but assuming power/speed is equal, we know which one is more likely to be the more productive player

[snepp]

I've always placed a very, very low value on avoid k's. All else being equal, of course you take the guy that strikes out less often, but I would never do it at the expense of walks, or power.

[goalieump413]

Originally Posted by snepp

I've always placed a very, very low value on avoid k's. All else being equal, of course you take the guy that strikes out less often, but I would never do it at the expense of walks, or power.

You should probably place a higher value on Avoid K's, since it only affects how likely a player is to strike out. Strikeouts are non-productive outs, with the rare exception of the strikeout-WP/PB.

So if I had to choose, I'd opt for a better avoid K's rating than the Eye/Discipline rating. Eye helps a batter draw a BB, but according to Markus' manual, has no direct effect over strikeout or batted ball in play possibility, whereas Avoid K's effectively produces more at bats with balls in play.

In the real game, where the steroid era has now passed, and pitchers have figured out how to get batters to swing at pitches off the plate, if there is any correlation to this and the game design, Avoid K's should be a more productive rating to look for.

[Questdog]

You think I'm gonna give you my super secret ratings rating formula?......how will I dominate online if everyone knows my tricks.?....fat chance!.....

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Bobble

You could do a simple interim calculation to account for that non-linearity. Cumbersome maybe, but simple.

Maybe I'm obstinate and ignorant but when I look through the OVR ratings, I frequently don't agree. The spreadsheet (aside from being fun for me) let's me evaluate the players the way *I* want to.

I'm not meaning to discourage you from evaluating players according to whatever criteria you like. My only point is that, mathematically speaking, a straight weighted average method will never achieve what you want it to achieve.

[struggles_mightily]

Originally Posted by snepp

I've always placed a very, very low value on avoid k's. All else being equal, of course you take the guy that strikes out less often, but I would never do it at the expense of walks, or power.

Me too. It's all situational, anyway. With a runner on second/third and fewer than two outs then, yes, I'd prefer a groundout or deep flyout. With a DP in order, I might very well prefer a K. With two outs or the bases empty obviously it doesn't matter.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by struggles_mightily

Me too. It's all situational, anyway. With a runner on second/third and fewer than two outs then, yes, I'd prefer a groundout or deep flyout. With a DP in order, I might very well prefer a K. With two outs or the bases empty obviously it doesn't matter.

Reaching on errors is possible with two outs or the bases empty.....

[ezpkns34]

Originally Posted by sc_superstar

Besides assuming all else is equal what player do you want

.250 AVG .370 OBP, 125k
or
.300 AVG .370 OBP, 50 k

Well yeh, if the guy w/ the higher avoid k rate is gonna be handed another 20 or so points in contact, I'd probably be more inclined to go with the Ichiro type batter too in that case