Player Profile vs. Scouting

[Dave2554]

Is there a reason why I would see different ratings on the player profile page from what I see for the same player in his scouting report?

I have attached screen shots as an example.

I triple checked that they are both from my scout.

This is a player I am scouting for the upcoming amateur draft, but I know I have seen this with minor league players I have scouted as well.

If this is by design, then as a GM, which data should I be relying on when trying to project a player?

[thechadanator]

I try not to get a lopside player...until the late rounds...all my picks are as even as possible. But with the above player your scouting I would go with Stuff, Control, the Movement.

[Dave2554]

Thanks. I appreciate the advice.

What I am getting at here though is the difference between what the profile of the player says are his current and potential ratings and the scouting evaluation says are the current and potential ratings of the player.

Why is one different than the other? Which is an accurate representation of the actual current and potential attributes?

Is this a bug? Or a feature? And if its a feature, what is it I am supposed to make of the differences between the two?

Again ... these are values based on the same scout.

[NoOne]

this isn't new. i don't even think they know why it occurs, or if they do it's too complicated for a simple fix. i'm just glad i don't notice, lol.

i could have sworn a save/backup caused my visible ratings to change after clicking 'okay' when done with the backup... could be wrong, but might be the cuase if so. you'd have different profile ratings vs last report -- without a new report causing it. (roster and trans. screen with mlb and all mil teams listed, saw some names shift around with same sorting by potential - peripheral vision, so just maybe)

either it's an updated rating or a re-application of scouting accuracy etc etc... whatever touches that stuff can be a cause. these things don't happen without being told to display that way.

turn comissioner mode on and see if it's accurate to the editor #s. if still off, then it's something related to inaccuracy, i'd guess.

[waittilnextyear]

This is a known issue...


https://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boa...d.php?t=301281


And there are those of us who have submitted this exact thing in the bug forum going back at least 2 versions of the game. They just have not fixed it.

My advice to you if it bothers you would be to uncheck the "ratings relative to MLB" box in your game settings. This will at least make your scouting data match the player profile data.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by waittilnextyear

My advice to you if it bothers you would be to uncheck the "ratings relative to MLB" box in your game settings. This will at least make your scouting data match the player profile data.

This worked, thanks. Why is that, do you know?

EDIT: I wonder if this is another side benefit: Below are before and after turning off that option. It seems to rationalize the Stuff rating which looks more reasonable given the low to so-so quality of his pitches. I wonder if this works in other situations, such as somebody being rated highly at 1B despite low defensive ratings.Opinions?

[waittilnextyear]

I don't really understand the mechanics of what's going on here. But, it does appear to me that unchecking the 'ratings relative to MLB' box generally results in higher ratings being displayed. And of course, the player profile is then consistent with the scouting reports. It's almost like the relative to MLB thing overestimates the talent level of MLB and then nerfs ratings accordingly.

The stuff rating is the weirdest one, though, because it always seems to display stuff on the scouting report as if the relative rating box were unchecked.

The only thing I dislike about unchecking the relative ratings to MLB box is that players in lesser leagues and minor leagues seem a bit overrated. Because I think their ratings are then specific to their own leagues rather than one league to rule them all (MLB).

Matt Arnold has commented on this a little bit, but I'm still not sure I follow what is happening here.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by waittilnextyear

I don't really understand the mechanics of what's going on here. But, it does appear to me that unchecking the 'ratings relative to MLB' box generally results in higher ratings being displayed. And of course, the player profile is then consistent with the scouting reports. It's almost like the relative to MLB thing overestimates the talent level of MLB and then nerfs ratings accordingly.

The stuff rating is the weirdest one, though, because it always seems to display stuff on the scouting report as if the relative rating box were unchecked.

The only thing I dislike about unchecking the relative ratings to MLB box is that players in lesser leagues and minor leagues seem a bit overrated. Because I think their ratings are then specific to their own leagues rather than one league to rule them all (MLB).

Matt Arnold has commented on this a little bit, but I'm still not sure I follow what is happening here.

I'm as in the dark about this as you are but I can point out that the MLB is the only league in my game. It stands to reason, then, that unchecking the option should have had no effect. Yet, I show the above as proof that it does and, I am thinking, it might mean not only properly matching ratings but better ratings as shown here.

While I am looking forward to seeing whether this is a consistent result, I am troubled that this option appears to be broken. Remember, the MLB is the only league and theoretically, nothing should happen in my case whether it is turned on or off.

[panda234]

It would be nice if a dev could clarify this as player ratings are pretty much central to the game.

[Matt Arnold]

Relative ratings on or off will have an effect, even if you only have 1 league.

With relative ratings off, you always see the raw ratings. So whether your league average hitter has a power rating of 100 (internally on the 1-200 scale), 50, or 150, with relative ratings off, you always see things with the raw values. With relative ratings on, a player with a power rating of 100 will change depending on the league average values. So for the Paquette example, there, with relative ratings on, it shows him with slightly above average stuff, and with relative ratings off, he shows as below average. So basically, in that case, your league average stuff rating is probably below 100.

Which one you like more? That's a personal decision. Sometimes it can be annoying to see everyone clustered with all low stuff ratings and can be hard to distinguish, but then at other times, relative ratings may exaggerate differences.

As for the initial point, no, the profile ratings should not differ that much from the scouting pages. Trust me, if we knew how to fix it, it would be fixed. The only times it should differ are if you have him set as a reliever and he was scouted as a starter (or vice versa), or you are viewing relative to other leagues than he was scouted as. There's just so many combinations of settings, values, when guys get scouted, when things change and update internally, etc... that it just happens to be some saves have more troubles than others at staying in sync.

[Argonaut]

Originally Posted by DéjÃ* Bru

I wonder if this works in other situations, such as somebody being rated highly at 1B despite low defensive ratings.Opinions?

The most important attribute for 1B rating is actually height. You'll see most 6'3" guys playing a good first base, with someone like 6'5" Joey Gallo being a monster gold glove candidate.

Yeah extra height is good for reach and catching throws, but it seems a little excessively weighted in OOTP. I have a suspicion the devs do this to balance out the ratings so that left-handed guys can play 1B.

[waittilnextyear]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Relative ratings on or off will have an effect, even if you only have 1 league.

With relative ratings off, you always see the raw ratings. So whether your league average hitter has a power rating of 100 (internally on the 1-200 scale), 50, or 150, with relative ratings off, you always see things with the raw values. With relative ratings on, a player with a power rating of 100 will change depending on the league average values. So for the Paquette example, there, with relative ratings on, it shows him with slightly above average stuff, and with relative ratings off, he shows as below average. So basically, in that case, your league average stuff rating is probably below 100.

Which one you like more? That's a personal decision. Sometimes it can be annoying to see everyone clustered with all low stuff ratings and can be hard to distinguish, but then at other times, relative ratings may exaggerate differences.

As for the initial point, no, the profile ratings should not differ that much from the scouting pages. Trust me, if we knew how to fix it, it would be fixed. The only times it should differ are if you have him set as a reliever and he was scouted as a starter (or vice versa), or you are viewing relative to other leagues than he was scouted as. There's just so many combinations of settings, values, when guys get scouted, when things change and update internally, etc... that it just happens to be some saves have more troubles than others at staying in sync.

I think this is probably the most comprehensive explanation I've seen. Thanks.

I've decided to leave the 'relative ratings' box unchecked now that I know about how that works. The discrepancy between one screen and another screen was the thing that bothered me most--did the guy have 65 stuff or 79 stuff? I just like the consistency whether 65 or 79 is the "right" one.

If it turns out that this is a fixable problem, then I might switch back.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by waittilnextyear

This is a known issue...


https://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boa...d.php?t=301281


And there are those of us who have submitted this exact thing in the bug forum going back at least 2 versions of the game. They just have not fixed it.

My advice to you if it bothers you would be to uncheck the "ratings relative to MLB" box in your game settings. This will at least make your scouting data match the player profile data.

I’m noticing this is actually a problem. When you uncheck this box, it causes certain players to have overinflated overall ratings. Example: a backup catcher rated 80/80.

I actually suggest keeping relative ratings on to prevent this. This wasn’t happening with earlier versions of 20. Often when they “tweak” something
Things like this happen as an unintended consequence.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Relative ratings on or off will have an effect, even if you only have 1 league.

With relative ratings off, you always see the raw ratings. So whether your league average hitter has a power rating of 100 (internally on the 1-200 scale), 50, or 150, with relative ratings off, you always see things with the raw values. With relative ratings on, a player with a power rating of 100 will change depending on the league average values. So for the Paquette example, there, with relative ratings on, it shows him with slightly above average stuff, and with relative ratings off, he shows as below average. So basically, in that case, your league average stuff rating is probably below 100.

Which one you like more? That's a personal decision. Sometimes it can be annoying to see everyone clustered with all low stuff ratings and can be hard to distinguish, but then at other times, relative ratings may exaggerate differences.

Matt, very valuable information, thanks.

EDIT: This really made the light bulb go on, considering my league is just entering the 1902 season (very low stuff/strikeouts era):

So for the Paquette example, there, with relative ratings on, it shows him with slightly above average stuff, and with relative ratings off, he shows as below average. So basically, in that case, your league average stuff rating is probably below 100.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Argonaut

The most important attribute for 1B rating is actually height. You'll see most 6'3" guys playing a good first base, with someone like 6'5" Joey Gallo being a monster gold glove candidate.

Yeah extra height is good for reach and catching throws, but it seems a little excessively weighted in OOTP. I have a suspicion the devs do this to balance out the ratings so that left-handed guys can play 1B.

it's a definite boon to the defensive rating at 1b. you can still find a guy who has too low of range and gigantism with a bad rating, though.

[Déjà Bru]

Okay, I get this! The part about "player ratings displayed relative to MLB," that is.

Take a look at this fellow, and realize that it's 1902 (very few home runs and most of those few were "inside the park"). A monster man, eh?



But it's 1902! How can this be?

It turns out that this fellow is quite a weakling, really. 23 Power on a scale of 1-250:



But the thing is, in this era, the vast majority of hitters have single-digit power so this guy does look like a monster man in comparison to them!

So here is how he looks with that relative to MLB option turned off:



As Matt mentioned, this differential with such low numbers in general is hard to detect. Yet, two things:

1. Regardless, "Monster Man" is never going to hit a lot of home runs in this era. 5 in a season would be an over-achievement for him.
2. It is misleading to have such high ratings for Power in an age when nobody is hitting for power very much. I prefer to see the actual "raw" ratings rather than filtered through a lens.

The decision: Off.


Matt, thanks again for yet another "Eureka" moment. They keep coming after more than 10 years with this game.

[jimmysthebestcop]

What does it look like on real live universes?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Okay, I get this! The part about "player ratings displayed relative to MLB," that is.

Take a look at this fellow, and realize that it's 1902 (very few home runs and most of those few were "inside the park"). A monster man, eh?

Attachment 619755

But it's 1902! How can this be?

It turns out that this fellow is quite a weakling, really. 23 Power on a scale of 1-250:

Attachment 619756

But the thing is, in this era, the vast majority of hitters have single-digit power so this guy does look like a monster man in comparison to them!

So here is how he looks with that relative to MLB option turned off:

Attachment 619757

As Matt mentioned, this differential with such low numbers in general is hard to detect. Yet, two things:

1. Regardless, "Monster Man" is never going to hit a lot of home runs in this era. 5 in a season would be an over-achievement for him.
2. It is misleading to have such high ratings for Power in an age when nobody is hitting for power very much. I prefer to see the actual "raw" ratings rather than filtered through a lens.

The decision: Off.


Matt, thanks again for yet another "Eureka" moment. They keep coming after more than 10 years with this game.

I think there is a big however when you turn it off. You will see players who should never be rated 80/80 overerall rated as just that.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I think there is a big however when you turn it off. You will see players who should never be rated 80/80 overerall rated as just that.

Perhaps, but for now though, and in my situation (Dead Ball Era and only one league, not counting affiliated minors), this works. As I advance toward modern times, I will consider flipping it back on.

[waittilnextyear]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I’m noticing this is actually a problem. When you uncheck this box, it causes certain players to have overinflated overall ratings. Example: a backup catcher rated 80/80.

I actually suggest keeping relative ratings on to prevent this. This wasn’t happening with earlier versions of 20. Often when they “tweak” something
Things like this happen as an unintended consequence.

I play with overall ratings off, so this isn't a concern for me.