Overall Ratings

[smiller]

If you use stars for overall ratings, do pitchers only go up to four stars and batters to five? Also which is best for overall ratings -- stars or 1-20 or 20-80?

[krownroyal83]

Both pitchers and hitters can be up to 5 stars. 20-80 scale us better because it’s more precise.

[MathBandit]

Stars has 10 'notches'. 20-80 has 13 'notches'. 1-100 has (unsurprisingly) 100 'notches'.

Your mileage may vary as to whether you want the ratings to be more or less granular, as well as if you care about the scale matching your familiarity with FM (stars), EA/Madden/TheShow (1-100), or real life MLB grading (20-80).

[Pelican]

I'll make a pitch for the 0-100 scale; unless you are a present or former MLB scout who would understand the curious (anachronistic) 20-80 scale. Or a mathematician who favors the standard distribution approach.

The risk of 0-100 is that it conveys a false sense of precision. These are scouts' estimates, that may, or rather, will change over time. And 10 should thus not be regarded as significantly different from 11. (Of course, this is equally true of 20 versus 21 on the traditional scale.)

But if you happen to have grown up with the decimal system, 0-100 will be easier to use and understand. Plus it manages to capture the truly bad ratings under 20, and the truly exceptional ratings over 80, rather than lumping everybody together.

Also, minor point, I always set ratings as relative to MLB, not to the level on which the guy is playing. An absolute scale, in other words, not a relative one. That is because the number one question I need to answer is can this dude help my (MLB) team? The number two question, if he can't right now, is what is his potential? Two clicks, and you have his potential.

[OutS|der]

A guide to how 20-80 scouting works

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/scouting...couting-scale/

[Brad K]

I started using 1-100 (I think that was a good choice as a newbie) and later switched to 1-20 where I remain.

[Dave Stieb II]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I'll make a pitch for the 0-100 scale; unless you are a present or former MLB scout who would understand the curious (anachronistic) 20-80 scale. Or a mathematician who favors the standard distribution approach.

The risk of 0-100 is that it conveys a false sense of precision. These are scouts' estimates, that may, or rather, will change over time. And 10 should thus not be regarded as significantly different from 11. (Of course, this is equally true of 20 versus 21 on the traditional scale.)

But if you happen to have grown up with the decimal system, 0-100 will be easier to use and understand. Plus it manages to capture the truly bad ratings under 20, and the truly exceptional ratings over 80, rather than lumping everybody together.

Also, minor point, I always set ratings as relative to MLB, not to the level on which the guy is playing. An absolute scale, in other words, not a relative one. That is because the number one question I need to answer is can this dude help my (MLB) team? The number two question, if he can't right now, is what is his potential? Two clicks, and you have his potential.

And I'll weigh in as being in favor of the 20-80 scale. I mostly play modern games and it's nice to compare prospects' ratings in OOTP to real life sites like fangraphs. Not to mention comparing their ratings as they develop - or regress - through the minors and into - or not - the majors.
But, hey, that's just me and to each their own.
OUtsider has provided al link (above) to how the 20-80 scale works if anyone is interested.

[KRSW]

Several times OOTPD has explained that the 20-80 scale in OOTP and the 20-80 scale in the real world are two very different things.

I think the developer said somewhere that the real-world potentials represent the estimated average reach, while the OOTP potentials represent the upper limit of reach.
There is no comparison between the real world and OOTP.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by KRSW

Several times OOTPD has explained that the 20-80 scale in OOTP and the 20-80 scale in the real world are two very different things.

I think the developer said somewhere that the real-world potentials represent the estimated average reach, while the OOTP potentials represent the upper limit of reach.
There is no comparison between the real world and OOTP.

Yes, this is true…but at one point (usually upon release of a new version) this can get out of hand. It seems to get fixed up as the weeks and months go by.