player eval AI settings

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I was doing 0/67/22/11 but was not enamored with the AI swapping out guys based on one semi bad season so I changed things to 0/34/33/33. Way too early to tell if the results are better…

Have you tried switching on “incorporated stats” option on? That turns the ratings section of the evaluation to the scout’s opinion based on their own evaluation preference.

So for example, 50% ratings will now be weighted 50% of the scout’s opinion who are taking this year, last year and 2 years ago into consideration.

[progen]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Have you tried switching on “incorporated stats” option on? That turns the ratings section of the evaluation to the scout’s opinion based on their own evaluation preference.

So for example, 50% ratings will now be weighted 50% of the scout’s opinion who are taking this year, last year and 2 years ago into consideration.

It's the only way that I play the game. For a long time didn't use that, probably just didn't pay attention. But after reading threads posted here on ways to play the game, it makes sense to me.

And not trying to push "stats only" because I've read too many "heated" threads on that subject, but for me, it makes me slow my pace down in the game, really look at ERA+, WHIP, etc., even as far as setting up spreadsheets to follow players, especially for the draft. And "stars", never. Lazy man's way to play the game, but to each his own, and it's the reason I stopped purchasing FHM since you can't turn them off. Ever seen a scouting report with stars, lol.

[ezpkns34]

Originally Posted by progen

Ever seen a scouting report with stars, lol.

I mean, is pretty common to see the 20/80 rating system used on baseball prospect scouting reports at least

[progen]

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

I mean, is pretty common to see the 20/80 rating system used on baseball prospect scouting reports at least

Agree with you there, obviously, and when I play this way, I do use the 20/80 system, but just for "other ratings", which includes fielding/speed/steal/baserunning for batters, and stamina/hold runners/fielding for pitchers. Been playing since OOTP4, and the different ways to play are starting to dry up for me, so this is just one of the ways I enjoy playing.

[PSUColonel]

So I have been looking at this again, (surprise) and I am now seeing some really bad deals with 25/25/25/25. bad in that the AI will accept slop for say a "50" rated starting pitcher on the trading block.

I tried 40/30/20/10 & essentially got the same results. It wasn't until I went 55/25/15/5 that the AI really toughened up and tightened it's belt.

So I am beginning to conclude you really do need a ratings heavy distribution. How heavy is the question.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Have you tried switching on “incorporated stats” option on? That turns the ratings section of the evaluation to the scout’s opinion based on their own evaluation preference.

So for example, 50% ratings will now be weighted 50% of the scout’s opinion who are taking this year, last year and 2 years ago into consideration.

I have it on but I was under the impression that all that does is include stuff like “Marco Polo has the ability to hit .300” and the like…

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I have it on but I was under the impression that all that does is include stuff like “Marco Polo has the ability to hit .300” and the like…

If you turn it on, you’ll notice scouts now have their own evaluations similar to the GM and manager. Their evaluations are only broken down as current, last and 2 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

I mean, is pretty common to see the 20/80 rating system used on baseball prospect scouting reports at least

It is, but IMO the whole paradigm of how scouts work in the game are off. If you accept that there are ratings that produce statistics (amidst a bunch of other factors of course), scouts can’t ever know the “ actual” ratings of a player. They can look at that player play and come to conclusions but there will always be cases where a guy had the flu the weekend the scout was in town to look at him, or caught someone’s attention by raking in BP, or - and this is probably my biggest gripe - found their bat speed slowing but found other ways to compensate (so a scout might say “his Avoid Ks is now only 40/80” based on the perceived bat speed loss but he’s actually still doing just fine).

Those ratings really should be inaccessible and yet for the players where this arguably matters most - veterans who may or may not be at the end of their rope - we not only have the most accurate information on them but we know in advance of actual statistical shortfall when a guy is “losing it”.

In real life, the Angels kept Pujols on their roster for like 6 years when in OOTP terms he had clearly declined. Why? Sunk cost fallacy definitely played a part, but if you were to convert this to OOTP terms, people in the front office weren’t convinced that his ratings had irretrievably dropped. Maybe he’d get the power back if he was healthy, and maybe once the power came back he’d be more selective… it’s easy to see why you’d hope that Pujols could be that guy he used to be and how that hope turns into “let’s just keep kicking the tires here and see”.

There’s no way to simulate this in OOTP I don’t think except to go stats only and put yourself in that “no info” position. I have to say that now that I do this, I do get guys like this, both in the sense that a team I’m managing sticks with them for too long and also that sometimes I’ve cut bait on a player who I thought lost it but actually did not.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

So I have been looking at this again, (surprise) and I am now seeing some really bad deals with 25/25/25/25. bad in that the AI will accept slop for say a "50" rated starting pitcher on the trading block.

I tried 40/30/20/10 & essentially got the same results. It wasn't until I went 55/25/15/5 that the AI really toughened up and tightened it's belt.

So I am beginning to conclude you really do need a ratings heavy distribution. How heavy is the question.

What was the trading difficulty? Maybe the answer is turning up the trade difficulty and leaving the ratings at 25?

In any case for me, in my solo game, I'm in control of the trades I make. I would rather the AI make good roster decisions on all 25's than make poor decisions so it could try to keep me from fleecing it. Fleecing is not a part of my game and, maybe it's the way I approach a trade, I don't think it ever comes up.

Sure, like others, I get crap offers from the AI that are immediate no brainers. The good ones I get have been pretty well balanced.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

It is, but IMO the whole paradigm of how scouts work in the game are off. If you accept that there are ratings that produce statistics (amidst a bunch of other factors of course), scouts can’t ever know the “ actual” ratings of a player. They can look at that player play and come to conclusions but there will always be cases where a guy had the flu the weekend the scout was in town to look at him, or caught someone’s attention by raking in BP, or - and this is probably my biggest gripe - found their bat speed slowing but found other ways to compensate (so a scout might say “his Avoid Ks is now only 40/80” based on the perceived bat speed loss but he’s actually still doing just fine).

Those ratings really should be inaccessible and yet for the players where this arguably matters most - veterans who may or may not be at the end of their rope - we not only have the most accurate information on them but we know in advance of actual statistical shortfall when a guy is “losing it”.

In real life, the Angels kept Pujols on their roster for like 6 years when in OOTP terms he had clearly declined. Why? Sunk cost fallacy definitely played a part, but if you were to convert this to OOTP terms, people in the front office weren’t convinced that his ratings had irretrievably dropped. Maybe he’d get the power back if he was healthy, and maybe once the power came back he’d be more selective… it’s easy to see why you’d hope that Pujols could be that guy he used to be and how that hope turns into “let’s just keep kicking the tires here and see”.

There’s no way to simulate this in OOTP I don’t think except to go stats only and put yourself in that “no info” position. I have to say that now that I do this, I do get guys like this, both in the sense that a team I’m managing sticks with them for too long and also that sometimes I’ve cut bait on a player who I thought lost it but actually did not.

I should mention that incorporated stats also changes the individual ratings (aside from speed, etc) based on stat production. I’m not sure how drastic it changes and how it varies based on accuracy but this is a thing. I also thing that the feature is still a “work in progress”.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Sweed

What was the trading difficulty? Maybe the answer is turning up the trade difficulty and leaving the ratings at 25?

In any case for me, in my solo game, I'm in control of the trades I make. I would rather the AI make good roster decisions on all 25's than make poor decisions so it could try to keep me from fleecing it. Fleecing is not a part of my game and, maybe it's the way I approach a trade, I don't think it ever comes up.

Sure, like others, I get crap offers from the AI that are immediate no brainers. The good ones I get have been pretty well balanced.

For me I use highly favor prospects and trading difficulty on the highest. I’m not too experienced with any other settings and it’s results.

[RubeBaker]

IMHO, you can go with the default AI settings or my personal preference which is 50/25/15/10. I think the 50/25/15/10 setting provides the most realism from what I have seen so far. Some have suggest 40/30/20/10 if you're feeling really adventurous which I haven't done yet, but most likely will in the future.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Sweed

What was the trading difficulty? Maybe the answer is turning up the trade difficulty and leaving the ratings at 25?

In any case for me, in my solo game, I'm in control of the trades I make. I would rather the AI make good roster decisions on all 25's than make poor decisions so it could try to keep me from fleecing it. Fleecing is not a part of my game and, maybe it's the way I approach a trade, I don't think it ever comes up.

Sure, like others, I get crap offers from the AI that are immediate no brainers. The good ones I get have been pretty well balanced.

Most difficult

[PSUColonel]

The big problem I have run into using 25/25/25/25 is with trading. Many times the AI will overvalue clearly weak prospects and accept them in trades. This happens very often when shopping players, or making the trade work now.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, there really is no correct answer. Believe me, after this many years, I wish there were. The key I think is to find an AI eval setting which does the best job covering up deficiencies the AI has. That's why I have lately been advocating 55/25/15/5. It clearly values ratings ( and is subject to the "Reggie Jackson" problem mentioned above) but also leaves room for stats on a reasonable level. When using this setting I rarely ever (never really) see the AI ask for a low level (rookie or DSL) player who obviously isn't going anywhere, but has some good stats.

[One Post Wonder]

I play stats only and go 0/70/25/5. There are occasions where the AI will swap out a guy who has a bad couple of months but that's true IRL as well. I will also swap out a guy who is batting .160 in June and then he shows later on that he hasn't lost it. It's part of the game. It's interesting to me.

In any event I know damn well the AI is still using ratings behind my back to at least some extent. I let my assistant handle the draft because if I draft using stats, even with feeder leagues that play 162 games a year, I will get destroyed. I also often see managers make a guy the ace or bat someone in a key position who has nowhere near the stats to back that up, but then the player does better than I'd project.

It's alright though because I'm letting the AI do most of the hands on with my own team, too, so no-one is getting an edge.

[PSUColonel]

I might experiment with 50/20/20/10 & 45/25/20/10

[PSUColonel]

One thing some may have overlooked...if you are playing with international leagues enabled, ratings should also maybe play a larger overall role. I realize reputation ratings are in place, but if you are going stats heavy (perhaps too stats heavy) it could be an issue in that some players are over or underated.

[PSUColonel]

I’m also going to experiment with 55/20/15/10.

[PSUColonel]

Here are some observations:

One thing I have learned is I think the bulk of the weight needs to go to ratings. Something else I feel we all may have overlooked, is the "two years ago" slot doesn't get enough love. I'm not saying it should be on par with "this year", or "last year", but I think the idea of it only getting 5% all of this time in most equations is likely too low.

I have been running tests with the three mentioned above...and really like them all. There isn't a lot of difference between them but there are a few.

I think which I will ultimately end up using will depend on what I might want.

The first thing I notice is that trading is tighter (in terms of a tougher AI) with 55 as the ratings weight. Not between AI teams though. (as some commonly mistake) I am talking about negotiations between the player and the AI.

Now, moving from here, I find the more stats you implement, the better the AI is at contracts, lineups, pitching rotations (bullpen) and other transactions. The one exception can be the waiver wire. I find 55 ratings weight not only helps with human vs AI trades, but also helps the AI with choosing what players go on waivers.

Another observation is that last year also needs some more love. Now, when I say this, you have to take in context. What I mean by this is:

let's say I choose 55 as my ratings weight. Now, everything else becomes relative.

if I were to choose 55/25/15/5...2 years ago and last year jest aren't getting enough representation. ratings in this case are 11x more important than 2 years ago. Last Year is 3x more important than two years ago, and ratings are 3.6x more important than last year. This year is 1.6x more important than last year. (which isn't bad) Ratings is 2.2x more important than this year. (not bad either). To me the issue is that ratings are 3.6x more important than last year, and 11x more important than two years ago.

if I shift the ratings around a little, to say 50/20/20/10 it makes a bit of a difference. In this case, the first and most obvious thing we all see is a 50/50 split between ratings and stats. That's nice, but it's not the reason I like it. The reason I like it, is the weights. I believe "This Year" & "Last Year" need to be very close in valuation. In this case they are obviously identical. Ideally I might like to have "This Year" slightly higher, but I don't think this is too bad. Clearly those two combined account for 40% of the valuation...but they are both only 2x more important than 2 years ago. Ratings are now 5x (as opposed to 11)more important than two years ago, and 2.5x more important than "This Year, and "Last Year".

If you take the example of 55/20/15/10...you get some pretty good results also. Like I said, with this setting, Human vs AI trading and waivers are helped out a bit more.

Last year is weighted 1.5x more than "Two Years Ago". "This year is weighted double two year ago (2x) and 1.3x more important last year.

Ratings are now 5.5x greater than two years, and" 3.6x. greater than last year. They are also weighted 2.75 times more than this year.

So, in conclusion, The ideal setup to me is either 55/20/15/10 or 50/20/20/10.

Both work well. The only difference is. little minute difference in trading and waivers AI. 55 just seems to be that threshold for some reason.

[PSUColonel]

I forgot to mention that 45/25/20/15 was very good in that it realistically handled contracts for players still performing well, even if there was a slight ratings decline...but was definitely a bit worse in terms of waivers and trade challenge from the human perspective.

I don't think it would be wrong or ill advised to use any of these (or any other setting that floats your boat..hey it's your game) but I think these might be the closest to reality and challenge at the same time. Perhaps the best thing to do is split the difference and go 50/20/20/10