help with ratings

[CubsSox]

I want to make some changes with rosters, but I need some sort of guidelines with the ratings system. In the 1-100 ratings scale would 50 be considered the average? What about the 2-8 talent rating system? Is a 4 considered average talent?

Such as 50 in contact would end up being around a .270 batting average 50 in power would be somewhere around 20 home runs a season.

For the pitching ratings, I am assuming stuff is the ability to strike players out and movement is the ability to force groundballs?

Thanks to anyone who helps me out.

[acs1970]

I'm not sure what the scales represent as far as average, etc. The 2-8 scale, though, indicates 5 as an average talent. Its used like a bell curve, from my understanding--you should have lots of 5s, less 4s and 6s, still less 3s and 7s, and almost no 2s and 8s.

I changed running ratings for a while to use the 2-8 scale. One player that had been a 5 (on the 1-5) showed as a 7, and another an 8. I switched back (because I was too used to the 1-5 scale) but found that my guy with the 8 had a better success rate than the 7. It was marginally better, but better nonetheless.

I "think" there used to be a scale somewhere that said that a 60 was average, and mapped to a .270 batting average, and every 10 points from there went up .010, or down as the case may be. That may have been a different game, though. But I'm remembering that OOTP4 had better documentation.

Someone out there did a statistical analysis by setting all players ratings the same, and playing a season. His results were very interesting. I can't find the link, unfortunately. He's on here regularly, though, so he may send an update. I was surprised that "Eye" appeared to have minimal impact on gameplay. That disappointed me.

[Henry]

Check this out for batters... pitchers table not done yet...

http://www.bigcitybaseball.com/downloads/batters.jpg

[Jayzone]

For league-wide rating level distribution, please see my thread/study on the the subject. Be warned, it's a rather long read though. However, I can tell you right here is that the average for every rating category is different.

League-wide rating level study:
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...threadid=64539

I also have two reference links on rating/stat conversion (for default/modern league total setting) in that very same thread. The links can be found in the conclusion section of the study.

As for what rating reallys means, this has been covered in the forum from time to time. I can tell you as a brief describtion. But for more detailed explanations, please search the thread since I only have a vague memory of what rating means.

Stuff is the ability to strike out batters.
Movement is the ability to prevent homeruns, not really the ability to force groudballs. The ability of forcing groundballs is covered in "Groundball%" in the player "General Info" section. The 'game effect' of groundball% is still in debate as far as I can remeber

[Jayzone]

acs1970,

If you look at the result of my rating level study, you can see that rating level does necessarily follows a 'bell-curve'. Granted, this is meant for whole league (every level includes minors, FA, and DL), so the ditribution of ML level players will be different. However, you can still see that the average for each rating category is different even for ML level (take a look at the data section on ML level service worthy analysis). So, what this means is that distribution for ML level will not necessarily follows the bell-curve either.

[Henry]

Here's the relationships....

Good Movement (Primary Rating) & Good Control = less Homeruns
Good Stuff (Primary Rating) & Good Control = more Strikeouts
Good Control (Primary Rating) = less walks
Good Velocity (Primary Rating) improves development

[jbmagic]

how do you know which rating is primary?

what is consider good velocity? and what development does it improve?

[Henry]

Originally posted by jbmagic
how do you know which rating is primary?

Markus

what is consider good velocity? and what development does it improve?

Average velocity is 5

pitchers with high velocity have a bigger chance to improve talent levels (stuff + movement), and develop faster in the stuff department

[jbmagic]

average velocity of 5 is like 88-91mph or better approx ?

[Jayzone]

Originally posted by Henry

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jbmagic
how do you know which rating is primary?

Markus

what is consider good velocity? and what development does it improve?

Average velocity is 5

pitchers with high velocity have a bigger chance to improve talent levels (stuff + movement), and develop faster in the stuff department
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henry,

I am startled. This is a very significant information for me. I have always assumed that ratings are independent variables - that they do not affect each other. Apparently, this is not the case. This new information will have an impact on the study that I am trying to do/have done since I have always regarded pitcher's velocity as miniscule impact rating (one which influences strikeout stat in a very small scale). What this means to me is that my ongoing player development study on pitcher needs to start from scratch (well, it is already on hiatus due to the possible pitcher editor glitch and waiting for new patch). Also, my rating level study needs to cover pitcher's velocity and the relationship between velocity and stuff/movement. I guess this means another major information update for my rating study. I will try to get that part done soon.

[Jayzone]

Henry,

By the way, is there anything else that I need to pay attention to regarding on rating (like the velocity influence stuff/movement thing that you mentioned)? I don't want to miss anything regarding on rating, so that the possibility of further future fundamental change to my study can be minimized. Thanks.

[Henry]

Originally posted by Jayzone
By the way, is there anything else that I need to pay attention to...

LOL. I can't say I know everything, but I did just recently find out how velocity played into the issues - after a couple studies (including yours) seemed to show that velocity had little to no effect on ratings.

[CubsSox]

This maybe a stupid question... but... is the addition of the 1-100 system suppose to be more "detailed" than the 1-10. For example since a 6 in the 1-10 system could've been barely a 6 or almost a 7, is the 1-100 suppose to eliminate those speculations by having the ability to rate someone a 61 or 69?

[Henry]

Everything is basically a 1-100 scale with the reduced ratings simply showing less detail.