Ratings differences

[da commish]

I am trying to set up a new fictional league, 24 teams, 4 levels of minors, consisting initially of players 17-22 years old, all from Minnesota. To do this, I would set up the league then delete the 23 and older players from the inaugural draft pool. But the current setup of 24 teams and minors inaugural draft pool was too small (and not very deep in talent) after deleting the older players. So I experimented with 96 team, 112 team and 128 team leagues inaugural draft pools, deleting the 23 and older players, to come up with a decent sized and talented pool of 22 and younger players.

So I took the players.dat file from the 24 team league setup and replaced it with the players.dat file from the 112 team league, then deleted all the 23 and older players. But something changed in the overall/potential ratings for the individual players (I'm using 100% accurate scouting with the OSA scout to minimize scouting variances). The 112 league pool had 67 players with potential of 70-80 (20-80 scale) but putting that same database of players into the 24 team league setup results in just 23 players with potential of 70-80. Similar thing for players with potential 60-69: decreased from 97 to 11.

I checked the ratings editor for players in both setups and nothing changed. Their individual ratings (e.g., contact, stuff, etc.) didn't change but their overall and potential ratings did change, pretty much all being much lower after being dropped into the 24 team league setup. E.g., C. Hanson, 3B, 33/69 in the 112 team league setup dropped to 20/33 in the 24 team league setup; B. Simmons, MR, 52/68 dropped to 20/25. But nothing changed for either of them in their ratings editors.

Could the ratings differences be due to the change in the league size? Would the 100% accurate scouting ratings change because of this? I checked every thing I could think of and couldn't find any dfferences in the setups of the 112 vs. 24 team leagues.

The inaugural draft with this new pool doesn't hold much interest since about 98% of the players have potential ratings of 20-22.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

[Fyrestorm3]

Overall and Potential ratings are based on the players' skill relative to all the players in the league, whereas their skill ratings are a simple numerical representation. So, in the 112 team league, the players were being ranked based on how they compared to the enormous amount of other players in that league, whereas in the 24 team league, they're only being compared against each other.

Since you have scouting on, ratings won't update automatically after you delete the older players. Try running a manual re-scout of both leagues and see if the OVR/POT ratings don't match up better.

[da commish]

That makes sense. But initially the players in the 24 team league had lower ovr/pot than what they had in the 112 team league. I had tried rescouting several times but nothing changed. Then I quit OOTP and restarted the game and now the same players have extremely high ovr/pot, many 80/80 players when before there were none. So now it looks like they are being compared to just themselves which results in some very high ratings. I think I'll go back to the drawing board and try some more variations on league setups (i.e., # of teams) to try and get a reasonable # of players with reasoanble ovr/pot ratings. Thanks.

[byzeil]

Instead of creating your league then deleting anyone that is older than 23 you should create the league with the "Created Players Age Minimum" and "Created Players Age Maximum" set to your minimum and maximum ages.

These are set on the 'League Setup'-->'Options' page in the league setup menu.

If the league is already set up you could delete all of the players, set the age min and max and then use the 'Full Teams with Fictional Players' function. There is also a function to schedule a fantasy draft after creating these players.

When you create the league the game engine generates the players based on setup parameters and if you do this with no ages parameters then delete the older players the talent distribution will most likely be messed up.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by da commish

That makes sense. But initially the players in the 24 team league had lower ovr/pot than what they had in the 112 team league. I had tried rescouting several times but nothing changed. Then I quit OOTP and restarted the game and now the same players have extremely high ovr/pot, many 80/80 players when before there were none. So now it looks like they are being compared to just themselves which results in some very high ratings. I think I'll go back to the drawing board and try some more variations on league setups (i.e., # of teams) to try and get a reasonable # of players with reasoanble ovr/pot ratings. Thanks.

One other thing - there's an option under Global Setup that allows you to have "overall rating based on all players, not positions." If that is unchecked, that could be part of the explanation as to why you're seeing so many 80/80 players. It's unchecked by default, and results in players only being compared to their own positions when being given an overall rating. That could add to the disconnect you're seeing.

Thing is, having 80/80 players doesn't really mean a thing. They're not necessarily going to be superhuman just because they have a max overall rating. It's on a sliding scale: if the average players in the league hit 25 homers a year, a 40 home run guy will be given a high rating. But if the average power is, say, 10 home runs a year, then suddenly a 25 home run guy will have a near-perfect rating. It's completely up to you; if you don't like seeing a bunch of 80/80 guys, then sure, go back to the drawing board. But it shouldn't actually affect the game much at all.

[da commish]

Originally Posted by byzeil

Instead of creating your league then deleting anyone that is older than 23 you should create the league with the "Created Players Age Minimum" and "Created Players Age Maximum" set to your minimum and maximum ages.

These are set on the 'League Setup'-->'Options' page in the league setup menu.

If the league is already set up you could delete all of the players, set the age min and max and then use the 'Full Teams with Fictional Players' function. There is also a function to schedule a fantasy draft after creating these players.

When you create the league the game engine generates the players based on setup parameters and if you do this with no ages parameters then delete the older players the talent distribution will most likely be messed up.

Thanks, I tried this, but it creates way too many fully developed players. I want a league with 18-22 year-olds who are undeveloped or not very far along, just as they normally be at that age.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by da commish

Thanks, I tried this, but it creates way too many fully developed players. I want a league with 18-22 year-olds who are undeveloped or not very far along, just as they normally be at that age.

Ok, then doing it the way you are probably makes most sense. Since the 'Star' ratings rate a player compared to the rest of the league you will end up with some 'odd' star ratings since you will have deleted most of the developed players. You will have to judge players based on their current/potential ratings and not their star ratings.

[da commish]

Originally Posted by byzeil

Ok, then doing it the way you are probably makes most sense. Since the 'Star' ratings rate a player compared to the rest of the league you will end up with some 'odd' star ratings since you will have deleted most of the developed players. You will have to judge players based on their current/potential ratings and not their star ratings.

Yeah, it definitely has some odd player quality dispersion. There will be alot of raw players - it will be interesting to see what the games in the first year are like. I was trying to get a league with just young players to see how they all develop competing against just players their age. Of course, this will only really be in effect for a few years (say 10 or so) before these players are all fully developed and it's like a regular league. We'll see.