|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jan 1, 2017 23:24:01 GMT -5
In this last sim Derek introduced the changes that were voted on by the PBLRC this off season.
1) Dynamic ratings. Previously the setting was annual ratings. Think of it this way. Previously our "scout" would evaluate every player once a year. Then we were looking at that scouting report for a full year until the next scouting report came out. We switched it to dynamic ratings. Now our "scout" is constantly evaluating all players. Ratings will dynamically move around with each sim. Generally you won't see as much movement as you have this first sim after the switch. In this first sim we are seeing all of the changes since the last scouting report.
2) Ratings by league level. Go the the player screen. In the upper right hand corner, just to the left of the OSA Ratings/Head Scout option, there is a drop down list that will default to "Ratings relative to: PBL". No matter what level that player is current at, that is the comparative level the ratings will show. There is a good chance that the majority of your A level players will still be at 1/2 or 1 star overall rating. If you flip that option to A ball, you can see what that player's overall rating is at that level. This setting did not change the Relative to PBL ratings you are viewing. It just gives you the option to see the player relative to the level.
Now, here is the warning for this new drop down. If you change it to another level and leave the player screen, all of the other screens in the game will continue to display all player ratings relative to that level until you go into any player screen and switch it back. You probably will figure this out pretty quickly. If your entire ML team is showing close to 5*/5* ratings, you probably left the setting at a lower level.
These are kind of confusing and may take a little while to get used to. Please post questions or concerns here and we'll try to get everyone comfortable with it as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 1, 2017 23:38:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the effort in helping myself, and possibly others, understand the new changes Ron.
I will be the first to ask the dumb question: Why do i now see players on my ML team show a '1' for their ratings, in some cases? For example, MR Arturo Sierra has a 1 listed as his control rating now. Prior to this sim it was not a 1. Previous to this sim, he was rated a '3' in control.
Why would such a drastic change occur if we made this change to have minor league players move to the right level? I've never had a PBL player on my major league roster listed as a 1 in any rating previously.
Thanks for helping me adjust to these changes. In all of my years in using OOTP, i have not used this setting so i am merely trying to understand what i see now.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Jan 1, 2017 23:39:29 GMT -5
Wow! Some crazy ratings shifts. My #2 starter now has a movement rating of 1. He gave 27 homeruns with a 5 rating last year. With a 1 rating I expect him to give the fans more souvenirs than the guy at the concession stand.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Jan 1, 2017 23:43:24 GMT -5
Looks as if the ratings are more true now to a players production.
Why do I feel like I have a new team to manage now? lol
It's gonna take some time to get adjusted to this for sure.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 1, 2017 23:45:51 GMT -5
In looking through the online manual, it appears to me the change in the player ratings is caused by point number 2, above. The dynamic ratings simply allow us to see the progress of our prospects within the minor league system rankings report. From the game manual: - By default, the list of top prospects will only be updated annually, in a similar fashion to real-world prospect reports in magazines. However, from this page, you can choose to have the Top Prospects report updated dynamically, meaning that the prospects listed on the report could change from day to day.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 1, 2017 23:48:01 GMT -5
Looks as if the ratings are more true now to a players production. Why do I feel like I have a new team to manage now? lol It's gonna take some time to get adjusted to this for sure. I agree, Nick. I think we knew and understood what a rating of 5 meant to a player rating. Now, a re-calibration will be needed to understand what a rating of 1 or 2 will mean going forward. Flawed players will now more than ever be exposed at the PBL level. lol
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jan 2, 2017 0:00:00 GMT -5
That is interesting. Sounds like my understanding was flawed. Thanks for posting your findings here and helping to get to the root of the changes. Also I had not actually looked at the differences yet. For sure dynamic ratings won't explain ratings dropping all the way to 1
|
|
|
Post by Chip_PhilliesGM on Jan 2, 2017 0:05:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I have a bunch of pretty extreme changes, especially with pitchers. Take 30 year old SP Tom Oglethorpe as an example, has had a 8/6/5 ratings for the past 6 years, now is 7/3/4, still has the same star rating of 2.5 stars, so that seems unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_NatsGM on Jan 2, 2017 0:24:41 GMT -5
Also noticing a lot of changes on my team. mostly in the negative direction. I don't think it's dynamic ratings because my understanding is that has to do with the prospect list updating constantly and not the actual 1-10 and/or star ratings of the players. At first I though maybe the PBL was being graded on a tougher curve because of something to do with the ratings by level setting, but some player ratings have gone up, so it's not a simple shift. Star ratings seem to have moved towards the middle for the most part, as my good players have lost 0.5/1, and some scrubs have gained that much. Not sure what to make of it.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Jan 2, 2017 0:26:44 GMT -5
Pretty sure I can explain what happened:
Previous ratings were centred around how good a player was, say, in general in reference to the PBL universe. In the PBL, 5 contact would be average-below average, and anything below that was 'minor-league' (or Arizona starting lineup quality). In the past, a 6 or 7 rating was really considered average for a player, and we used that as our benchmark.
Now that our players are only being compared to those players of the same level, the game has standardized 5 (or maybe something closer to 5 than 6 or 7) as our new 'average' for players at each level, and our player ratings are distributed around that. Say we have a player with below average contact at the ML level, let's say had a 5 rating in the past. Now would have a 4 or 3, since they are only being compared to other players in the PBL.
Another way to look at it, from a more mathematical point of view, is we have just standardized the distribution of player ratings, to have a lower mean and slightly higher standard deviation.
Hoping some of what I said made some sense?? All in all, I'm pretty sure the change is due to ratings by league level
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Jan 2, 2017 0:30:23 GMT -5
And I should add, I think that the change will definitely be a positive long term once we're all used to it
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 2, 2017 0:32:38 GMT -5
Also noticing a lot of changes on my team. mostly in the negative direction. I don't think it's dynamic ratings because my understanding is that has to do with the prospect list updating constantly and not the actual 1-10 and/or star ratings of the players. At first I though maybe the PBL was being graded on a tougher curve because of something to do with the ratings by level setting, but some player ratings have gone up, so it's not a simple shift. Star ratings seem to have moved towards the middle for the most part, as my good players have lost 0.5/1, and some scrubs have gained that much. Not sure what to make of it. Thanks for sharing what you see, Ryan. Prior to this sim, my most recent Player Development Report was November 1st. When the switch was made to relative ratings, coupled with the dynamic change forced a re-scout. So, as Ron put it above, 2 changes occurred this sim and had some effect on what we see now, both prospects and current PBL level player ratings. Now that i have read a bit about relative ratings, it makes sense why we see some players shift downward to a '1' in certain ratings. They are rated that way relative to all PBL players, and the scale used is 1-10. If you then switch relative ratings to view ratings relative to Triple-AAA, those same PBL players are now rated 1-10 against all players across that league. Hope that makes sense. What effect this has now is we can see player faults MUCH easier now. It sort of removes a bit of fog IMHO now, making it a bit simpler on player decisions. Will be interesting what the vote will be if it is re-opened next off-season.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 2, 2017 0:34:05 GMT -5
Ha, Luc beat me to it. But it seems we align in our understanding of the changes.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jan 2, 2017 1:29:44 GMT -5
Also noticing a lot of changes on my team. mostly in the negative direction. I don't think it's dynamic ratings because my understanding is that has to do with the prospect list updating constantly and not the actual 1-10 and/or star ratings of the players. At first I though maybe the PBL was being graded on a tougher curve because of something to do with the ratings by level setting, but some player ratings have gone up, so it's not a simple shift. Star ratings seem to have moved towards the middle for the most part, as my good players have lost 0.5/1, and some scrubs have gained that much. Not sure what to make of it. Now that i have read a bit about relative ratings, it makes sense why we see some players shift downward to a '1' in certain ratings. They are rated that way relative to all PBL players, and the scale used is 1-10. If you then switch relative ratings to view ratings relative to Triple-AAA, those same PBL players are now rated 1-10 against all players across that league. Hope that makes sense. What effect this has now is we can see player faults MUCH easier now. It sort of removes a bit of fog IMHO now, making it a bit simpler on player decisions. Will be interesting what the vote will be if it is re-opened next off-season. That's all well and good, until it doesn't really make sense. Take LHP Bobby Best of Texas, rated at 7-5-8 the last few seasons. He had some issues with the long ball early in his career. The last two seasons, however, he's allowed in total roughly 1.1 HR/9, as a starting pitcher. Of the 28 pitchers that threw at least 200 innings last season in the PBL, every one of them has a movement rating of, at minimum, 4. Bobby Best has a 1 movement rating, which means he should allow home runs in the PBL at roughly the rate of a middle infielder pitching in a blowout. Only 9 of those 28 pitchers allowed less HR/9 than Bobby Best. Ratings are now kinda meaningless! So it would appear that now we have a situation where the ratings don't tell us anything. They don't give us any meaningful indication of what Bobby Best's movement in the PBL is; in fact, unless he has somehow cratered in the last 6 weeks after zero injuries and continuing improvement, the ratings actually tell us things that are not true about Bobby Best. So, if eliminating "fog of war" is something we desire, as Fin above stated, we have done the exact opposite. This fogs thing up so much that one cannot see through it. Having players whose ratings are more clustered, as we did yesterday, means that it is on the individual GMs to actually look at the stats and track record of the player, and balance that with his ratings. Now, what do we have? I don't know what to make of these ratings. I'm not for removing the skill of a GM; it seems that this change did just that. It tells another GM, DO NOT TRADE FOR BOBBY BEST. It doesn't matter that he has actually performed, I've seen time and again in the PBL and every online league that GMs are absolute slaves to ratings, especially star ratings. **Note**---I'm just using Bobby Best as an example. I have no desire to trade him, he's been my best starter the last two years, and now I can rest assured that even if I tried to trade him I'd get absolutely zero offers! "Now this makes it easier" is the only argument I've seen in favor of this. Except, two things: 1. It did not, in fact I have no earthly idea what to make of this. 2. I am not really interested in making things easier. I don't want to get on Shane's level because we've evened the playing field to the point where it doesn't matter if you're good at the game anymore. Someone please explain how this is good, not using any of the arguments above (absolutely no shots taken at the quality GMs/good guys who are in favor of it, it's just that the arguments used so far have done absolutely nothing to make me dig this change). Because right now I think that not only do I not like this, I think I really hate this. Right now I think this fucking sucks. One more point---it was sold to us that opposed this change that it would not mess with anything, only if we really needed to know what a guy's rating was relative to other AA players we would know that. That was not true, at all. I'm not saying that anyone lied or deceived, but I'm frankly irritated that this change is not at all what we were told it was going to be. This sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jan 2, 2017 1:39:34 GMT -5
Pretty sure I can explain what happened: Previous ratings were centred around how good a player was, say, in general in reference to the PBL universe. In the PBL, 5 contact would be average-below average, and anything below that was 'minor-league' (or Arizona starting lineup quality). In the past, a 6 or 7 rating was really considered average for a player, and we used that as our benchmark. Now that our players are only being compared to those players of the same level, the game has standardized 5 (or maybe something closer to 5 than 6 or 7) as our new 'average' for players at each level, and our player ratings are distributed around that. Say we have a player with below average contact at the ML level, let's say had a 5 rating in the past. Now would have a 4 or 3, since they are only being compared to other players in the PBL. Another way to look at it, from a more mathematical point of view, is we have just standardized the distribution of player ratings, to have a lower mean and slightly higher standard deviation. Hoping some of what I said made some sense?? All in all, I'm pretty sure the change is due to ratings by league level What you are saying makes sense, it's just that this is not what happened, and parts of it make no sense. The entire argument that Tim made was that this would allow you to see a player's ratings relative to his minor league level, instead of relative to PBL. Everything has always been scaled to PBL, including the player's current ratings. So your point about "they are only being compared to other players in the PBL" would be the exact opposite of what Tim was arguing when he was selling this to us. They always were compared strictly to other PBL players. I fail to see what this has done that is good. I fail to understand how a change that was only supposed to even have an effect if we wanted it to, but it turns out that what has happened is exactly the opposite, is good. This is not what we voted on because we weren't told the whole story. I don't like that at all. I know it wasn't done with malice or any intent other than for good and for fun, but I do not think this is good or fun.
|
|