Which Ratings Scale Do You Use?

[The Game]

I have played OOTP since 11 and i almost always use 1-10. For a RD league i am playing now i am using 1-100.


What is the best scale?


Can someone dumb down 20-80 for me?

[Brad K]

There is no best scale. I use 1 - 20. I started off using 1 - 100 but with experience decided less accuracy was appropriate but 1 - 10 wasn't enough for me. 20 - 80 makes no sense to me.

[PSUColonel]

I use 20-80. In this scale 50 is considered MLB average...but what it really means is a player is able to be an everyday contributor at the MLB level. A 45 is a weak starter or a good bench player. A 40 is a below average bench/bullpen contributor.

A 55 is a solid everyday player, while a 60 or 65 may be an all-star. Players with a 70 or 80 grade are under discussion for the Hall of Fame.

[Syd Thrift]

No current/potentials, 2-8 for "other" (which are fielding/baserunning/strategy ratings).

[fuzzy_patters]

I use 20/80. While everything PSU said is correct, I like it better when applied to components rather than the overall. If a guy has 50 outfield arm rating, for example, I know that is only average so he shouldn’t play right field. If it’s 70, then that’s about two levels above average and is extremely good, so RF would be a great place for him. If it’s 80, he’s the next Clemente or Bo Jackson.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by fuzzy_patters

I use 20/80. While everything PSU said is correct, I like it better when applied to components rather than the overall. If a guy has 50 outfield arm rating, for example, I know that is only average so he shouldn’t play right field. If it’s 70, then that’s about two levels above average and is extremely good, so RF would be a great place for him. If it’s 80, he’s the next Clemente or Bo Jackson.

Right. I use 20-80 for both the individual tools and the over all. You have to sort of read them differently though. I described how to read the overall grade above....and this is correct for the tools.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

No current/potentials, 2-8 for "other" (which are fielding/baserunning/strategy ratings).

I need to try this in my main league where I already know every player. How do i enable this? screenshot if ya can, thanx.

[The Game]

How accurate or how foggy would you say 1-10 is? I am just so used to it. Using 1-100 in my RD league has thrown me off a biut. I know typically real players defensive ratings are lower then fictional players but it baffles me how bad my defense rating are compared to my Delgado Tigers team. I have
1b Anson
2b Marwin Gonzalez
3b keith Moreland
SS Dunston
LF Yelich
Cf Conforto
Rf Bo Jackson
C Darrell Porter


Some players are resting this game.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by The Game

How accurate or how foggy would you say 1-10 is? I am just so used to it. Using 1-100 in my RD league has thrown me off a biut.

Accuracy depends on your settings. The difference between 1-10 and 1-100 is how granular the ratings are. In other words, on the 1-10 scale, a guy who is a five could be anywhere from a 45 to a 54 on the 1-100 scale. So there's more "foggy-ness" in the 1-10 scale.

[stl jason]

using 1-100 in my current Beer league.... always get a chuckle out of the players that show up with a contact potential of 1 and in my head I hear Patches O'Houlihan as a color commentator when that guy comes to the plate: "He couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat"

[Reed]

From fangraphs

The invention of the scale is credited to Branch Rickey and whether he intended it or not, it mirrors various scientific scales. 50 is major league average, then each 10 point increment represents a standard deviation better or worse than average. In a normal distribution, three standard deviations in either direction should include 99.7% of your sample, so that’s why the scale is 20 to 80 rather than 0 and 100. That said, the distribution of tools isn’t a normal curve for every tool, but is somewhere close to that for most.

MLB average is 50 or 5 using a 2-8 scale. Normally only 1 player has an 80 rating in each category. For instance A. Judge might be the only player with an 80 rating for power.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Accuracy depends on your settings. The difference between 1-10 and 1-100 is how granular the ratings are. In other words, on the 1-10 scale, a guy who is a five could be anywhere from a 45 to a 54 on the 1-100 scale. So there's more "foggy-ness" in the 1-10 scale.

I guess i like the fogginess then. i noticed in this RD league that I have a RP with a STA of 2 (1-100) Seems that is 0 was an option in 1-10 it would be 0 there. He did give me 1.2 IP though. 32 pitches. thanx.

[jimpx131]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

No current/potentials, 2-8 for "other" (which are fielding/baserunning/strategy ratings).

I want to try playing with current/potentials off, but sometimes the ratings throw me off. For instance, I'm looking at a player with grades around 50-55 in all batting categories, is around 27 y/o and a solid defensive player. But his overall is in the 30's and potential in the 40's. So naturally I wouldn't be willing to sign him or play him. What am I missing?

[RchW]

2-8 for me forces a focus on stats without going to the false construct of stats only.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by jimpx131

I want to try playing with current/potentials off, but sometimes the ratings throw me off. For instance, I'm looking at a player with grades around 50-55 in all batting categories, is around 27 y/o and a solid defensive player. But his overall is in the 30's and potential in the 40's. So naturally I wouldn't be willing to sign him or play him. What am I missing?

Can you provide a screenshot of the player or the exact ratings? There isn't really enough information here to know what you might be missing.

[billyray1984]

Originally Posted by jimpx131

I want to try playing with current/potentials off, but sometimes the ratings throw me off. For instance, I'm looking at a player with grades around 50-55 in all batting categories, is around 27 y/o and a solid defensive player. But his overall is in the 30's and potential in the 40's. So naturally I wouldn't be willing to sign him or play him. What am I missing?

His overall and overall potential don't inform anything in the game engine. They ony serve as a rough guide to sort players (maybe the trade AI takes them into consideration, I do not know). Players with low overall ratings and low potential can and do serve a purpose on many of my teams, especially in the bullpen or as a DH.

For example, in my current save, I have Rick Honeycutt in my bullpen to serve as a swingman. Why ? Because he has 80 stamina, 70 movement and 55 control (along with 30 stuff, lol). My scout rates him as 30/30 as a sp and 40/40 as a rp. Still, he is very reliable, will not mess up too much and can go in very deep if we are in front a lot or down a lot, all for the league minimum and not bitching about being in the rotation and that's very much worth it to me.

Same thing with DH. You can usually find guys with an amazing eye, not too bad of a split and decent contact for cheap because they have terrible ovr/pot due to not having a defensive position. Stick these guys at DH if you don't have a true DH and have them as a leadoff. Bam 380+ obp for probably nothing.

You need to construct your roster on stats and tools you actually need for the role you want that player to have. Ovr and pot should not factor into this.

[jcard]

One thing to keep in mind is that no matter which scale you select for display, they are based on underlying 1-100 ratings given by your scout. This means that you have to accept the fiction that your scout sees all players in one rating group of your displayed scale as the same, regardless of where they fall within that scale. For example, using the 1-10 scale, if your scout has rated three players as 50, 51, and 60, you will see ratings of 5, 6, and 6, respectively. So, even though the second player is seen by your scout as essentially the same as the first, he reports that he is more similar to the third because they fall within the same bucket. That requires some allowances on your part. It reduces the value of good scouts relative to more average ones because there is no way for the good scout to tell you that he sees the player as a borderline player between two categories. If a player is rated 50 and your scout is accurate to +/- 1, what he tells you isnÂ’t going to be any more accurate than a scout who is +/- 9. Similarly, say a player has a real rating of 68. One scout has him rated at 61 and another has him rated at 71. Who will give you a more accurate rating if you use the 1-100 scale? How about if you use the 1-10 scale.
These situations are not necessarily that important. What I DO, however, find detracts from my enjoyment of using less precise scales is that every time your scout reports a rating change, you have to question whether it really is significant. Again, if you use the 1-10 scale, then a scout is going to report a change in perceived value from 51 to 70 the same as a change from 60 to 61- and the latter are very common. You can check this by playing a game on the 1-100 scale and letting it progress to where you have some player development report information. You will see how many of those changes are insignificant. When you then switch to a less precise scale, you will see that the number of player development report entries is much smaller, but that a good number of those remaining are no more significant in magnitude than those changes that are no longer shown- the former changes just happened to occur right at the boundaries between ratings arbitrarily set by your chosen rating scale (in other words, your scout is no less inclined to report an insignificant change just because it will give the appearance of a meaningful change based on the rating scale that you have chosen).
Again, these are just considerations of which to be aware. I am not suggesting that I think that they should necessarily prove prohibitive to anyone else when it comes to choosing a less granular scale.

[krownroyal83]

1 to 100 with ratings that can go past the max.
For example you have two players that may seem the same and have a 100 rating in something but having ratings go past the max can sometimes give you a clearer picture. Such as the first player have a 100 rating but the second player having a rating of 120. Big difference. A difference you'd never see if you didn't have rating that can go past the max selected.

[AdequateRandomGaming]

I use 1-100 because I don't like a scale where everyone feels rated the same (even if deep down I know and understand that it's more elaborate than that). The 1-100 scale is only going to be as efficient, accurate and useful as your scouting settings anyway.
In my historical save I leave it as is.
In my fictional universe, I started on year one (I don't sim ahead for a history like many do) and had all ratings on to start to give me an idea since there are no stats, but then turned all ratings off after year one and playing stats only.

[Rain King]

Technically, the underlying ratings are 1-255 (but I think over 200 is extremely rare), with the game's 1-100 scale essentially halving those numbers.