I don't understand the ratings system

[Painmantle]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Not true. A realistic scouting/grading system is paramount.

The problem with this statement is, if a player is preforming as he should then his ratings are correct regardless of the numbers you see. And define realistic? Scouting is subjective and what one person thinks is a realistic rating can be totally different from another's. Which is why this thread was created in the first place. The bottom line is, it's the statistics that matter, not one persons view of how a player should be rated and/or weather it is "realistic". The proof is in the play. I know you have been one of the biggest critics of OOTP scouting and biggest advocates for change and that's a good thing, but it would be impossible to create a system that everyone would describe as realistic, the only way to know if it's working is to look at the stats.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Painmantle

The problem with this statement is, if a player is preforming as he should then his ratings are correct regardless of the numbers you see. And define realistic? Scouting is subjective and what one person thinks is a realistic rating can be totally different from another's. Which is why this thread was created in the first place. The bottom line is, it's the statistics that matter, not one persons view of how a player should be rated and/or weather it is "realistic". The proof is in the play. I know you have been one of the biggest critics of OOTP scouting and biggest advocates for change and that's a good thing, but it would be impossible to create a system that everyone would describe as realistic, the only way to know if it's working is to look at the stats.

Both things are important. If someone uses scouting and ratings in their league and, for example, every rating and potential rating were all the exact same then that would obviously be unacceptable. Obviously that's an extreme case but I'm using it to point out that stats are not all that matters if ratings are going to be part of the game.

[Spritze]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Not true. A realistic scouting/grading system is paramount.

No it is not. I suspect I might hate your version of realistic scouting/grading. I think OOTP should use mine. It's got sprinkles.

[injury log]

It's obviously crucial the ratings produce realistic stats.

It also needs to be true that the ratings need to be 'playable' - you have to be able to tell who's good at stuff and who's bad at stuff. And I think most users expect the ratings to 'look right'. You wouldn't want to import Ozzie Smith and see him rated 5/10 at shortstop, even if that was the best rating in the game.

There is such a thing as 'realistic scouting'. Scouts measure players on a standardized scale, the 20-80 scale, where 50 is league-average, and the ratings fall on a bell curve. OOTP models that now with its "relative ratings" system, at least for the main batting and pitching ratings. If you use that system, the ratings are forced into a bell curve, so if you use the 20-80 scale, 50 is average, and the absolute best guys in your league will get 80s, even when the 'true' ratings are not at the top of the scale used by the game engine. That's essentially how real scouting works. Now, whether that system is what users would like is a separate question - I suspect it would be easier to understand (you wouldn't need to learn that 50/100 is average for some ratings, but 60/100 is average for others), but some might not like that ratings cluster around the middle.

[Huckleberry]

^^^ That's exactly why I use the 20-80 in all my solo leagues. Not only is it what's used in real life but I like that if a guy is the best in tar particular game universe then he'll have a high rating. Being compared to your peers in your era is what baseball arguments have always been about.

[Painmantle]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

^^^ That's exactly why I use the 20-80 in all my solo leagues. Not only is it what's used in real life but I like that if a guy is the best in tar particular game universe then he'll have a high rating. Being compared to your peers in your era is what baseball arguments have always been about.

Actually,I would say many more arguments have been about comparing players from different era's And the OOTP system is very good at supporting that. If you look at Pitchers from the Dead Ball era's ratings they pale in comparison to guys in the current era, and those are the ratings that produce the proper statistics for the era, what everyone needs to remember is that all these things work together to produce imo by far the best , most versatile Baseball Simulation on the planet and it's realistic statistics. And the bottom line is pretty simple, if the numbers aren't right statically speaking, it really doesn't matter what the ratings are.

With any playing time in ootp most people come to understand whatever ratings system they choose to use regularly, I personally use 1-20, originally I used 1-100 and all the arguments for a new, better, more realistic system are purely medicinal imo. The system isn't perfect, but it isn't broken either. And there are as many preferences as there are people who play OOTP, so no matter what happens there will be someone who wants it to be different based on their preference.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Painmantle

With any playing time in ootp most people come to understand whatever ratings system they choose to use regularly, I personally use 1-20, originally I used 1-100 and all the arguments for a new, better, more realistic system are purely medicinal imo.

Let me propose a few situations to you:

- you sign a minor league free agent, or draft a college bat in the amateur draft. Can you tell, looking at his ratings, if he'd be overmatched in A-ball?

- your starting LF has a 65/100 rating in LF. Can you tell if that is above average or below average in your league, for starting LFs? I'd bet if asked to guess the average LF rating for starting players in a league (or asked the average rating in categories outside the core categories), most users would be off by ten points.

- you join an online league which perhaps uses some unusual settings, or create your own league the same way. Without doing a lot of work, can you tell if your batters have good Eye ratings or not?

You may not face these issues because of the way you play, which is fine, it means these issues don't need to concern you. But other users face these kinds of issues and dozens like them all the time. Relative ratings solve all of these problems (or would if they could be applied to every rating). I'm not sure what meaning you intend when you use the word "medicinal", which usually means something is good, that it cures something (which from your phrasing I don't think is what you meant). We are talking about finding solutions to genuine problems; we aren't advocating purely cosmetic changes that have no real gameplay consequences.

[sprague]

A difference I see this year is that the ratings of players are a bit lower than in ootp 17. Now a 132 contact is very goof. Last qs you needed say 142 to be good.
This is fine if the new draft generated players, when the qs gets fictional stay at a lower threshold, we just get used to slightly lower player ratings. But if the generated players come in with ratings like 17 then the current qs players will become useless very quickly
My take on it.

[X3NEIZE]

Originally Posted by Painmantle

The problem with this statement is, if a player is preforming as he should then his ratings are correct regardless of the numbers you see. And define realistic? Scouting is subjective and what one person thinks is a realistic rating can be totally different from another's. Which is why this thread was created in the first place. The bottom line is, it's the statistics that matter, not one persons view of how a player should be rated and/or weather it is "realistic". The proof is in the play. I know you have been one of the biggest critics of OOTP scouting and biggest advocates for change and that's a good thing, but it would be impossible to create a system that everyone would describe as realistic, the only way to know if it's working is to look at the stats.

I agree with this statement, but only if the sample is big enough (2-3 seasons minimum)

[Painmantle]

Originally Posted by injury log

Let me propose a few situations to you:

- you sign a minor league free agent, or draft a college bat in the amateur draft. Can you tell, looking at his ratings, if he'd be overmatched in A-ball?

- your starting LF has a 65/100 rating in LF. Can you tell if that is above average or below average in your league, for starting LFs? I'd bet if asked to guess the average LF rating for starting players in a league (or asked the average rating in categories outside the core categories), most users would be off by ten points.

- you join an online league which perhaps uses some unusual settings, or create your own league the same way. Without doing a lot of work, can you tell if your batters have good Eye ratings or not?

You may not face these issues because of the way you play, which is fine, it means these issues don't need to concern you. But other users face these kinds of issues and dozens like them all the time. Relative ratings solve all of these problems (or would if they could be applied to every rating). I'm not sure what meaning you intend when you use the word "medicinal", which usually means something is good, that it cures something (which from your phrasing I don't think is what you meant). We are talking about finding solutions to genuine problems; we aren't advocating purely cosmetic changes that have no real gameplay consequences.

By Medicinal, I mean they make people feel better. And your other points made I don't ever have. Maybe it's because I have a lot of experience with the system I prefer. So I pretty much know with little doubt who is probably ready for what level, and there is simply no substitute for statistical output. It's the only way to truly know. Just because a players ratings suggest he's ready for a higher level doesn't mean he actually is. if you are the type of person who likes everything black and white and wants to know simply by ratings how good a player is, that's fine. I prefer a little mystery. I'm not opposed to some other form of ratings/scouting so long as it is an option along with what is currently available and not a replacement of it.

Everybody has their own preferences and I am one who thinks the system works just fine as is!