The Hidden Rating Question (again)

84CubsFan · 05-20-2005, 07:37 PM

A question has come up in an online league to which I thought I knew the answer, but actually don't. It's come up before on these boards, so forgive me for bringing it up again. But as far as I know it's still not resolved completely.

The question involves whether there are hidden modifiers that affect player performance. That is, everyone knows that in OOTP, you can see two players with just about identical ability ratings have vastly different careers (e.g. two 9/9/10/9/8 guys who play 16 years, similar number of ABs, same rating development curve, same opposing pitching/fielding, etc.; one has a .960 career OPS, the other .690). Is this just a product of random chance? Or does each player have hidden modifiers within the player file that create difference?

A few years ago, Markus posted here (see post #10) that OOTP5 had no such ratings.

In this more recent thread, however, people are still unconvinced. (See especially post #68.)

My mind tells me to believe Markus' original post and just to chalk it up to the miracles of statistical probability. But my experience with the game tells me the opposite. Is there someone who has actually seen the v.6 code who can tell us whether there are hidden modifiers written into the game? NOTE: As for, I think, the majority who wonder about this, it's just a curiosity question. I don't want to know the mechanism behind such modifiers if they exist, but it would be cool to know whether they were actually there...

sporr · 05-22-2005, 06:40 PM

I don't personally believe they exist. Given probabilities, you will always have players that apparently always perform above and below their capabilities. In addition, even two players that seemingly have the same ratings on the 1-10 scale will have differences - one may be a 5.1 while the other is a 5.9. Of course, I haven't seen the code, so...

Bobble · 05-23-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 84CubsFan

(e.g. two 9/9/10/9/8 guys who play 16 years, similar number of ABs, same rating development curve, same opposing pitching/fielding, etc.; one has a .960 career OPS, the other .690). Is this just a product of random chance? Or does each player have hidden modifiers within the player file that create difference?

You also have to consider that your two "9/9/10/9/8" guys may be 99/99/109/99/89 versus 90/90/100/90/80 on an expanded scale. It's sorta like comparing a 9/9/10/9/8 guy with a 8/8/9/8/7 guy.

Dan Theman · 05-23-2005, 10:08 AM

Let's not forget the potentially wide divergence in "Clutch"

sebastian0622 · 05-23-2005, 03:55 PM

Personally, I think they exist. I have seen too many players overachieve for a long time or underachieve for a long time compared to the number who fluctuate between over- and underachieving.

BigCity · 05-23-2005, 05:02 PM

Think of it this way.... if it was totally random, both ups and downs would be what you experience with players playing out of their range - but those players forever not playing to their ratings - or playing beyond them for entire careers - would be a feat against physical law

rudel.dietrich · 05-23-2005, 05:17 PM

No, I am almost convinced that they do not exist.
Each rating is a die roll compared to the die roll of the opposing pitcher or batter.
Add in park factors, pitchers faced over a lifetime, league totals and defense and you have tens of millions die rolls over the course of a carer.
Random chance can turn some of those die rolls good or bad.
You then start having several thousand of those go 'good' or 'bad' and the carrers of two indentical players start to diverge.
Like everything in life OOTP is governed by random chance.'

Markus hit it on the head with sample size. 700 PA or 250 IP a season can still lead to alot of statistical differences. Even if you project that to a 10000 PA or 3000 IP carer you can string together several 'up' or 'down' seasons which can colour the final stats of a player.
That is how I see it.

IatricSB · 05-23-2005, 05:42 PM

I personally don't believe they exist, but wonder if there's other combinations of things that can cause this. For example the player's "Desire to play for a winner", maybe his speed (if you have two identical players except for speed, will the faster player perform better), I've even considered things like weight/height or primary position, etc. Though I haven't studied it, it seems recently that my players labeled with a position of DH seem to have longer careers. Could be small sample sizes, but I try to look for hidden helpers in the various ratings that most take for granted.

DaveHorn · 05-23-2005, 06:23 PM

I don't think they exist, they almost can't exist. If they existed it would mean that folks who import from Lahman's or whatever would be subject to at worst completely random or at best computed values for these hidden modifiers. That would be a mess of a system.

spleen1015 · 05-23-2005, 07:13 PM

If Markus said they don't exist, then they don't exist.

The randomness you are seeing is what makes this game so great.

Steve Kuffrey · 05-23-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleen1015

If Markus said they don't exist, then they don't exist.

The randomness you are seeing is what makes this game so great.

Concur!!!

endgame · 05-23-2005, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IatricSB

I personally don't believe they exist, but wonder if there's other combinations of things that can cause this..

I'm on board with this thinking. Call it the randomness of the game or its lack of predictablility. These perceptions may be tandem with one another as the "mystery" of performance ranges is nothing if not immeasurable and intangible. Yet another layer of fiction and/or myth pulsing within the game.

The characteristic I have always wanted to test is consistency. I still conceive of this being impossible to measure because the baselines of comparisons would, of necessity, be different players with some uncontrollable variables. And I don't know if it applies situationally, seasonally, or career in its scope.

Bobble · 05-24-2005, 09:45 AM

R.O.U.S.'s? I don't think they exist.

PeteRose4256 · 05-24-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobble

R.O.U.S.'s? I don't think they exist.

"Prepare to die!"

84CubsFan · 05-24-2005, 07:22 PM

So I'm inclined to believe, as most people here do, that Markus didn't change anything in v.6 and didn't code in hidden ratings factors...

But that leads to the question, then: do stats therefore mean anything at all? Does this mean, that is, that in our online leagues we should always trade based on ability ratings and never based on production? Because if the difference in production between two same-ability players is really just a function of random calculation, then we should *always* trade the 65/65/65/65/65 guy who averages .330/.390/.465 per year for the 75/75/75/75/75 guy who averages .280/.335/.415 per year. But because of the way things have panned out in my experience with the game, this is something that I, personally, would never do.

If there are no hidden ratings modifiers, do stats mean anything in OOTP?

DougWyatt · 05-25-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 84CubsFan

So I'm inclined to believe, as most people here do, that Markus didn't change anything in v.6 and didn't code in hidden ratings factors...

But that leads to the question, then: do stats therefore mean anything at all? Does this mean, that is, that in our online leagues we should always trade based on ability ratings and never based on production? Because if the difference in production between two same-ability players is really just a function of random calculation, then we should *always* trade the 65/65/65/65/65 guy who averages .330/.390/.465 per year for the 75/75/75/75/75 guy who averages .280/.335/.415 per year. But because of the way things have panned out in my experience with the game, this is something that I, personally, would never do.

If there are no hidden ratings modifiers, do stats mean anything in OOTP?

I'm probably wrong - cuz, well I suck lol - but I like to think they do. I think previous performance and ratings are factored into the die roll.

I also think that previous performance is weighted less for younger players, and more for veterans to give players a better chance to realize their ratings - yet allow veterans to be what they've been.

And - if it's not like that - well, it should be

rasnell · 05-25-2005, 06:59 AM

What you're describing is about as close as it gets to the real thing. Great scouting reports, all kinds of hype, and the player just doesn't put up the numbers that everyone expected.

thomamon · 05-25-2005, 08:14 AM

Just to add my .02 in...

Just as in MLB, look at how a player can be an all-star for one team, and then go to another team and be a total flop.

Perhaps that is part of the code, depending on where the player goes and the situation there he may perform better. So while it may not be in the code for players with identical ratings to perform differnetly, what may be there is how he performs depending on the variables that surround him. Is he on a team with alot of team leaders? Lots of clutch players? A winning team?

Just a thought!

SWardle · 05-25-2005, 01:19 PM

I've always thought previous performance had a lot to do with current and future performance. I've never tested it but that's just what I've noticed.

For example: I've had Eric Gagne take massive PD hits and drop to a middle of the road pitcher, rating wise... but he'll still put up numbers similar to his previous seasons.

This has been true for a lot of players in my personal and online leagues. I tend to think that the outcome of the die rolls is a combination of luck, ratings and previous performance.

Like I said, I've never tested such a theory so take it for what it's worth.

Steve-O

Crapshoot · 05-25-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleen1015

If Markus said they don't exist, then they don't exist.

The randomness you are seeing is what makes this game so great.

Meh. I think they do nonetheless - lets not call it lying, just a selective information problem. Admittedly, Markus is the only one at OOTP who actually knows the insides of the game.

05-23-2005, 05:42 PM	#8
IatricSB Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: California Posts: 3,493	I personally don't believe they exist, but wonder if there's other combinations of things that can cause this. For example the player's "Desire to play for a winner", maybe his speed (if you have two identical players except for speed, will the faster player perform better), I've even considered things like weight/height or primary position, etc. Though I haven't studied it, it seems recently that my players labeled with a position of DH seem to have longer careers. Could be small sample sizes, but I try to look for hidden helpers in the various ratings that most take for granted. __________________ Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a Ride!" Chicago(N) - Boys of Summer Oakland - 20th Century League Bakersfield - Wild Things Brooklyn - QBA Dodge City - NBSL California - ABC Dodger's Senioriest fan on the OOTP Boards

05-23-2005, 06:23 PM	#9
DaveHorn All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,146	I don't think they exist, they almost can't exist. If they existed it would mean that folks who import from Lahman's or whatever would be subject to at worst completely random or at best computed values for these hidden modifiers. That would be a mess of a system. __________________ Dave HFTC Commish

05-24-2005, 09:45 AM	#13
Bobble Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: High and outside Posts: 3,899	R.O.U.S.'s? I don't think they exist. __________________

05-25-2005, 08:14 AM	#18
thomamon Global Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 5,274	Just to add my .02 in... Just as in MLB, look at how a player can be an all-star for one team, and then go to another team and be a total flop. Perhaps that is part of the code, depending on where the player goes and the situation there he may perform better. So while it may not be in the code for players with identical ratings to perform differnetly, what may be there is how he performs depending on the variables that surround him. Is he on a team with alot of team leaders? Lots of clutch players? A winning team? Just a thought! __________________ Thomas A. Montalto Please check out my Stupid Little Blog - http://www.stupidlittleblog.com

05-20-2005, 07:37 PM	#1
84CubsFan Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 376	The Hidden Rating Question (again) A question has come up in an online league to which I thought I knew the answer, but actually don't. It's come up before on these boards, so forgive me for bringing it up again. But as far as I know it's still not resolved completely. The question involves whether there are hidden modifiers that affect player performance. That is, everyone knows that in OOTP, you can see two players with just about identical ability ratings have vastly different careers (e.g. two 9/9/10/9/8 guys who play 16 years, similar number of ABs, same rating development curve, same opposing pitching/fielding, etc.; one has a .960 career OPS, the other .690). Is this just a product of random chance? Or does each player have hidden modifiers within the player file that create difference? A few years ago, Markus posted here (see post #10) that OOTP5 had no such ratings. In this more recent thread, however, people are still unconvinced. (See especially post #68.) My mind tells me to believe Markus' original post and just to chalk it up to the miracles of statistical probability. But my experience with the game tells me the opposite. Is there someone who has actually seen the v.6 code who can tell us whether there are hidden modifiers written into the game? NOTE: As for, I think, the majority who wonder about this, it's just a curiosity question. I don't want to know the mechanism behind such modifiers if they exist, but it would be cool to know whether they were actually there...

05-22-2005, 06:40 PM	#2
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	I don't personally believe they exist. Given probabilities, you will always have players that apparently always perform above and below their capabilities. In addition, even two players that seemingly have the same ratings on the 1-10 scale will have differences - one may be a 5.1 while the other is a 5.9. Of course, I haven't seen the code, so...

05-23-2005, 03:55 PM	#5
sebastian0622 Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,465	Personally, I think they exist. I have seen too many players overachieve for a long time or underachieve for a long time compared to the number who fluctuate between over- and underachieving.

05-23-2005, 05:02 PM	#6
BigCity All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: South Shore, Great Lakes Posts: 1,386	Think of it this way.... if it was totally random, both ups and downs would be what you experience with players playing out of their range - but those players forever not playing to their ratings - or playing beyond them for entire careers - would be a feat against physical law

05-23-2005, 05:17 PM	#7
rudel.dietrich Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Posts: 8,608	No, I am almost convinced that they do not exist. Each rating is a die roll compared to the die roll of the opposing pitcher or batter. Add in park factors, pitchers faced over a lifetime, league totals and defense and you have tens of millions die rolls over the course of a carer. Random chance can turn some of those die rolls good or bad. You then start having several thousand of those go 'good' or 'bad' and the carrers of two indentical players start to diverge. Like everything in life OOTP is governed by random chance.' Markus hit it on the head with sample size. 700 PA or 250 IP a season can still lead to alot of statistical differences. Even if you project that to a 10000 PA or 3000 IP carer you can string together several 'up' or 'down' seasons which can colour the final stats of a player. That is how I see it.

05-23-2005, 07:13 PM	#10
spleen1015 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,005	If Markus said they don't exist, then they don't exist. The randomness you are seeing is what makes this game so great.

05-24-2005, 07:22 PM	#15
84CubsFan Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 376	So I'm inclined to believe, as most people here do, that Markus didn't change anything in v.6 and didn't code in hidden ratings factors... But that leads to the question, then: do stats therefore mean anything at all? Does this mean, that is, that in our online leagues we should always trade based on ability ratings and never based on production? Because if the difference in production between two same-ability players is really just a function of random calculation, then we should always trade the 65/65/65/65/65 guy who averages .330/.390/.465 per year for the 75/75/75/75/75 guy who averages .280/.335/.415 per year. But because of the way things have panned out in my experience with the game, this is something that I, personally, would never do. If there are no hidden ratings modifiers, do stats mean anything in OOTP?

05-25-2005, 06:59 AM	#17
rasnell Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Frankfort, Kentucky Posts: 3,746	What you're describing is about as close as it gets to the real thing. Great scouting reports, all kinds of hype, and the player just doesn't put up the numbers that everyone expected.

05-25-2005, 01:19 PM	#19
SWardle Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Seeking my El Dorado Posts: 548 Infractions: 0/1 (4)	I've always thought previous performance had a lot to do with current and future performance. I've never tested it but that's just what I've noticed. For example: I've had Eric Gagne take massive PD hits and drop to a middle of the road pitcher, rating wise... but he'll still put up numbers similar to his previous seasons. This has been true for a lot of players in my personal and online leagues. I tend to think that the outcome of the die rolls is a combination of luck, ratings and previous performance. Like I said, I've never tested such a theory so take it for what it's worth. Steve-O