Rating Scale Poll

cbbl · 07-18-2006, 11:58 AM

Curious to see what the most common rating scale is. Does it matter to you? Is 1-5 too concise? 1-100 too specific? (And while we're at it where did 20-80 (or 2-8) come from?)

Add your opinion!

jaywalk85 · 07-18-2006, 12:23 PM

I miss being able to turn off just batting ratings, personally. I liked having potential as a rough guideline and then having to analyze players through stats alone.

plannine · 07-18-2006, 12:33 PM

Without having "Stars" for a guideline, I need to see a wider range (1-100), since i do not like spending a lot of time scouting. (I'd rather play the games!)

SSG Troyer · 07-18-2006, 01:00 PM

I use 2-8, because that's what real scouts use.

Boozie1580 · 07-18-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbbl

And while we're at it where did 20-80 (or 2-8) come from?

The 2-8 system is apparently the system that real scouts use for rating player's talents/abilities. A 5, obviously, corresponds with average talent/ability.

The 20-80 is just a made-up, more detailed version of that.

scefalu · 07-18-2006, 01:15 PM

I like the 1-10 range. There's enough variation within each level to surprise me sometimes, but it's specific enough to allow me to make quick decisions if I'm in a hurry.

Plus, 10 is such a nice round number.

MrRazor16 · 07-18-2006, 01:31 PM

The scouting system used by professional scouting reports is "20-80" scale, in increments of 5 (i.e. 55 hitting, not 53).

That being said, the 1-100 seems to be the best in my opinion for this game.

<Pion> · 07-18-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boozie1580

The 20-80 is just a made-up, more detailed version of that.

It's not made-up since some teams in the MLB use it.

catcher24 · 07-18-2006, 03:07 PM

I prefer 1 to 100. I think it gives the most accurate rating because of the wider range.

chaerulez · 07-18-2006, 03:13 PM

I like 1-10 because that was what the older versions of OOTP used and I just got used to it.

Syd Thrift · 07-18-2006, 03:14 PM

I like 1-20 because of FM.

HolyCow98 · 07-18-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaywalk85

I miss being able to turn off just batting ratings, personally. I liked having potential as a rough guideline and then having to analyze players through stats alone.

Me too...I totally agree. That is a very fun way to play. I loved having to determine how developed a player is through just stats, and thus translate his production into what I believe his current ratings would be. For me..something about it felt more realistic. I could picture my scouts and minor league manager sending me info on a player in terms of how they see this guy talent wise....but you never know that a guy is "hard" number as far ratings go in real life because there aren't any ratings. There are scouting reports though that use numbers...they just aren't always spot on.

Syd Thrift · 07-18-2006, 04:19 PM

"

Any way this (turning off all ratings except potential) could make it into a patch?

Boozie1580 · 07-18-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <Pion>

It's not made-up since some teams in the MLB use it.

I didn't know that, I was under the impression that MLB teams used 2-8 and Markus just multiplied it by 10 for a more detailed version. My bad.

KBLover · 07-18-2006, 05:49 PM

I like 1 to 100. The player performances I'm getting are so widely random enough that having a "detailed" view seems right.

If I saw some semblance of consistency with performance from year to year, no ratings would be interesting - but I'm getting too many players that bat .180 then .325, then .220, then .280 - I couldn't deal with no ratings. I'd be too frustrated.

Hellion9 · 07-18-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyCow98

Me too...I totally agree. That is a very fun way to play. I loved having to determine how developed a player is through just stats, and thus translate his production into what I believe his current ratings would be. For me..something about it felt more realistic. I could picture my scouts and minor league manager sending me info on a player in terms of how they see this guy talent wise....but you never know that a guy is "hard" number as far ratings go in real life because there aren't any ratings. There are scouting reports though that use numbers...they just aren't always spot on.

I go with 1-5 for this reason. It provides the most ambiguity possible for my play. Not as much fun for me to know too well how 'good' a player is based on ratings but...to each their own!

AllTheBest · 07-18-2006, 11:41 PM

I've read about MLB and NFL teams using a scale from 2.0 to 8.0. Generally with everything rounded to the nearest 0.5. So 20-80 is just a version of that without the decimal place.

Beach23BoyP · 07-19-2006, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSG Troyer

I use 2-8, because that's what real scouts use.

Me too!

MidKnight · 07-19-2006, 12:37 AM

Major League Scouts use the 20-80 system, but generally only go by 5's.

Tycobbler · 07-19-2006, 12:53 AM

I like the 2-8

View Poll Results: Which rating scale do you prefer?
1 to 5	1	0.88%
2 to 8	12	10.62%
1 to 10	31	27.43%
1 to 20	13	11.50%
20 to 80	14	12.39%
1 to 100	42	37.17%
Voters: 113. You may not vote on this poll

07-18-2006, 11:58 AM	#1
cbbl All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,179	Rating Scale Poll Curious to see what the most common rating scale is. Does it matter to you? Is 1-5 too concise? 1-100 too specific? (And while we're at it where did 20-80 (or 2-8) come from?) Add your opinion!

07-18-2006, 12:33 PM	#3
plannine All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 572	Without having "Stars" for a guideline, I need to see a wider range (1-100), since i do not like spending a lot of time scouting. (I'd rather play the games!) __________________ Good pitching will always stop good hitting and vice-versa - Casey Stengel

07-18-2006, 01:00 PM	#4
SSG Troyer All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somewhere to the left of 2nd base Posts: 1,598	I use 2-8, because that's what real scouts use. __________________ MWT Did Tennesee Delaware Mississppi's New Jersey? Idaho ... Alaska!

07-18-2006, 01:15 PM	#6
scefalu Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 355	I like the 1-10 range. There's enough variation within each level to surprise me sometimes, but it's specific enough to allow me to make quick decisions if I'm in a hurry. Plus, 10 is such a nice round number. __________________ Shawn

07-18-2006, 12:23 PM	#2
jaywalk85 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 39	I miss being able to turn off just batting ratings, personally. I liked having potential as a rough guideline and then having to analyze players through stats alone.

07-18-2006, 01:31 PM	#7
MrRazor16 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 30	The scouting system used by professional scouting reports is "20-80" scale, in increments of 5 (i.e. 55 hitting, not 53). That being said, the 1-100 seems to be the best in my opinion for this game.

07-18-2006, 03:07 PM	#9
catcher24 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 48	I prefer 1 to 100. I think it gives the most accurate rating because of the wider range. __________________ "You see, you spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." J. Bouton

07-18-2006, 03:13 PM	#10
chaerulez Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 32	I like 1-10 because that was what the older versions of OOTP used and I just got used to it.

07-18-2006, 05:49 PM	#15
KBLover All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 580	I like 1 to 100. The player performances I'm getting are so widely random enough that having a "detailed" view seems right. If I saw some semblance of consistency with performance from year to year, no ratings would be interesting - but I'm getting too many players that bat .180 then .325, then .220, then .280 - I couldn't deal with no ratings. I'd be too frustrated.

07-18-2006, 11:41 PM	#17
AllTheBest Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 18	I've read about MLB and NFL teams using a scale from 2.0 to 8.0. Generally with everything rounded to the nearest 0.5. So 20-80 is just a version of that without the decimal place.

07-19-2006, 12:37 AM	#19
MidKnight Major Leagues Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 396	Major League Scouts use the 20-80 system, but generally only go by 5's.

07-19-2006, 12:53 AM	#20
Tycobbler All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 20 minutes from Comerica Park Posts: 1,956	I like the 2-8