|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Jan 2, 2017 2:10:10 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. I think what I bolded is where we differ slightly. Everything was scaled to the PBL in the sense in that a rating of '10' meant superstar, and '1' meant utter minor league trash. The player ratings themselves though in the PBL weren't normally distributed in that if a player had a '1' in a category, they were in the minors. So the player ratings in the PBL were way right skewed, as nobody with a very low rating would ever be in the majors. A rating of '1' now appears to mean that that player is among the worst in that category in the PBL. It does not say anything about how that player is in reference to players at any other level. So for your pitcher -- he had 5 movement before. But compared to the rest of the pitchers in the PBL, he's probably near the bottom in movement rating. The '1' rating would just represent that doesn't have good movement in reference to the rest of the PBL. It hasn't changed his ability, and he should still perform at the same level. I think you are perhaps misinterpreting what the rating change means -- he won't give up HR at the rate of a middle infielder, and I wouldn't say that ratings are meaningless at all. The rating is just a way that the game has to represent a players true ability to us, and all we have done is changed the scale that it is being done on. No player's true ability and expected future performance should have changed because of these ratings.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Jan 2, 2017 2:20:37 GMT -5
I'll try to show this in an example:
Say we have 20 players in our universe, 10 in the majors, 10 in the minors.
Their true 'overall' ratings out of 10 were: 10, 9.5, 9, 8.5, 8, 7.5, 7, 6.5, 6, 5.5, 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5 respectively for all 20 players.
Now, for obvious reasons, only the top 10 players were in the majors, and the bottom 10 played in the minors. So in the majors, we had players with the ratings 10, 9.5, 9, 8.5, 8, 7.5, 7, 6.5, 6, 5.5. We realized that an average major league player had a rating of 7.5 or so. A player with a 5.5 rating was below average, and 10 above average. This is in essence the scenario we had with the old rating system.
Under the new system, the game will look at the 10 players in the majors, and see that the best player is 10, and the worst player 5.5. The game decides to scale the best player up to 10, and the worst player to 1. So in the majors, those 10 players will now be rated: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, or something like that. Rather than having the ratings all clogged up near the top, the game is now scaling things using just the majors players. IT will also do the same for minors.
So in the PBL, our ratings were never standardized to the PBL level. That's why we never saw any low ratings in the ML. Hope this can help clear things up...?
|
|
|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Jan 2, 2017 2:22:06 GMT -5
The stats aren't going to change, if your player usually produces he probably will. This is all relative to how good your player really is compared to a true superstar player. I think there will be less "5*" players now. Take a look at Chiah-jen Chen: Luc beat me to the explanation but his is way better than what I was about to say. Chen is a good player, probably above average. I think you're going to have to be a true GM now and look at the stats and trends of players now to get a grasp of how good they are, not just stars Here's another example, my guy Ramon Castillo: He's an example of an average player I would think. batting .270 for the 4 years or so. The draft is going to be really interesting this year!!!
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jan 2, 2017 2:26:14 GMT -5
[I think what I bolded is where we differ slightly. A rating of '1' now appears to mean that that player is among the worst in that category in the PBL. It does not say anything about how that player is in reference to players at any other level. So for your pitcher -- he had 5 movement before. But compared to the rest of the pitchers in the PBL, he's probably near the bottom in movement rating. The '1' rating would just represent that doesn't have good movement in reference to the rest of the PBL. It hasn't changed his ability, and he should still perform at the same level. But if his movement is so bad, and it's worse than all but about 5 starting pitchers in the PBL, why does he allow home runs at a below average rate two years running? The rating does not give an indication of the player's performance ability. If he's at the bottom of pitchers in movement rating, he should perform like that. He doesn't even perform poorly. A player batting .285 for 2 consecutive years while maintaining a contact rating of 1 simply makes no sense. That aside, because that little bit could be argued for a while, what of the part where we were told this wouldn't change anything, wouldn't change the ratings of any players, unless we wanted to see how they looked as a AAA player? I am very bothered by the fact that we didn't know what we were actually voting on.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jan 2, 2017 2:30:49 GMT -5
The stats aren't going to change, if your player usually produces he probably will. This is all relative to how good your player really is. I think there will be less "5*" players now. Take a look at Chiah-jen Chen: View AttachmentWhy should there be less 5 star players now? I fail to see how that change benefits anyone. The point is, how in the world would I have ever promoted Bobby Best? There is no way I would have promoted somebody whose ratings suggest should be allowing around 1.75 HR/9 as a SP. Nobody with a 1 rating at a crucial skill is ever getting promoted again, and everyone knows that. The trade values of so many players has tanked just because people had a hard time sorting 5's from 6's, looking at the stats and making judgments like that? I fail to see what we have accomplished here other than make something easier that is supposed to be hard. And even then, actually make it harder because I don't know what the ratings mean at all anymore. I had a decent idea before. This sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Jan 2, 2017 2:42:20 GMT -5
A 5 star player is probably a true superstar say like Mike Trout or Anthony Rizzo. There aren't many superstars in baseball. A two or three star player is probably like a Kyle Seager or Starling Marte..the guys you really need to win. A superstar is what you are lucky to have and puts asses in the seats.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jan 2, 2017 2:51:12 GMT -5
I have to offer my apologies. As one of the primary voices arguing for this change it turns out I was ignorant in a place I thought I had understanding.
I think Luke has done an excellent job of describing the impact of the change. As far as the question "Why does a 1 movement pitcher not allow a ton of HR?" my guess would be that ratings are sometimes wrong. One of the challenges of a good GM is to find the players that either out or under perform their ratings.
I do apologize for my incorrect assertion that there would be no noticeable change if you did not touch the drop down. I understood how the drop down worked, but was not aware that it would also exclude players outside of the level you are viewing.
Not sure where we go from here. I am sure that we will be discussing it over the next couple of days though.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Jan 2, 2017 4:40:43 GMT -5
I know full well that the actual quality of the players hasn't changed. But as with Texas, I made my vote with apparent misinformation. Only when informed that the 'relative to league level' system was something that could be turned on and off did I switch my vote.
I feel as though the discussion/vote should happen all over again, now that we actually know how it works. The ability to compare minor league players to other levels is nice, but in no way outweighs the completely unnecessary costs of having to completely recalibrate our evaluation of ML and ML-destined players. My two cents. But it's a fairly cranky two cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 6:14:37 GMT -5
Newbie talking, but just read it all...and the last thing I would ever do is mess with a player rating system once a league has started. Players getting better and worse more often is great, rather than once a year, but relearning everyone's rating, even if they are the same but now on a different scale, is a brutal task that literally ended a good league I used to be in.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jan 2, 2017 7:58:28 GMT -5
Not sure where we go from here. I am sure that we will be discussing it over the next couple of days though. We could, and should, switch it back. Unnecessary problem solved
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 2, 2017 8:37:32 GMT -5
FROM THE DESK OF THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
Before we get too much further into the 'Dynamic Ratings by League Level' debate that we could get tied up in I want to take a minute to post my opinion. There is a lot of debates on the boards already and I woke up to many PMs about this issue as well. The first thing I want to say is this process was done in the fairest way possible and I stand by the decision of the PBL Rules Committee and their hard work to try to make the Paramount Baseball League a better league going forward. The process of coming up with a list of potential and future rule changes, keeping track of them and debating them in a completely unbias way towards their own franchise was really great to see. The reason behind the PBL's success is because of things like this, putting the best interest of the league in front of the best interest of one's own desire. We felt that with all the changes that were on the table for discussion this would be one of the most widely debated and for that very reason we put it to vote and opened up the PBLRC discussion to the rest of the league before we (a small group) made a decision for the entire league. The debates for both sides of making this change were solid and the results of the voting showed how much of a tough decision this was for the league. As Commissioner of the league, I am always for implementing change that I think benefits the long-term health and success of the PBL. We have tried many different things along the way. Some worked (budget fixes) and some did not last very long (International Leagues). It is not the implementing of new features or even the adjustments that it takes from every member of the league that hurts a league if something does not work out. I firmly believe those things can be overcome. What DOES hurt a league, in my opinion, is when changes are made and people feel they were dealt misguided information. I believe this leads to a lack of trust in a league and that could be the beginning of the end for some. Again, I do not question ANY member of the league and their reason for standing behind this change or being opposed to it either. But I do think we expected something entirely different. I feel that many (myself included) were expecting changes to the Minor League Level ratings but the ML levels would remain the same. As far as the adjustments, I agree with some GMs who say its a matter of adjusting to a new understanding of the rating system and it doesn't mean these players will be no good all of a sudden. I do think it would halt some trade talks right away but eventually, it would pick right back up as teams familiarize themselves with the changes. In complete transparency, I looked at Andrew Everett and said "why did I make that trade?!" but that was before I understood this method a little better. However, despite understanding how it works I think I would be a little bit hypocritical if I was okay with these rating changes we knew for 30+ seasons but not okay with the changes the rating system that was discussed. I was against changing the rating from 1-10 to either 20/80 or 1-100 for many reasons. The major being that I believe in consistency when it comes to the core of the game. I do not think asking guys who been reviewing their teams, players, and the league one way for so long to change their ways is fair. Do I think this rating system has a positive place in OOTP? Yes, I do. Do I think it has a positive place in PBL? I think it can eventually. Do I think eventually is a good enough for a league that is still thriving? No, I do not. I said it a hundred times but a league cannot be great unless it has GREAT guys in it. When you get a group of guys like we have, the hardest job as Commissioner is simply not to screw it up. With that said, I think it would be in the best interest of the league to revert back to the rating system we had before and down the road and we can revisit this change now that we know what the impact would be and we could bring more data and understanding to the debate as a group. Once again, the PBLRC did a great job in its first full-season and I expect us to continue to grow as a league and the PBLRC will be a huge part of this growth but as I think every member in it would agree to, we strive for the best interest of the entire league at all times and will always try to correct this issue at hand.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jan 2, 2017 9:03:56 GMT -5
Sorry, must have been writing my post as Derek was writing his. Wish it was one above his, but it's not.
2c to add... This is certainly different. And I suppose we can choose one of two paths immediately. - Go back on the ratings by league level - Forge ahead and deal with the new reality Texas is making an interesting argument in that it may be harder to trade a "1 star" player that produces. Most likely this is a true statement as most will evaluate using stars, but Texas appears to only be considering this from the seller standpoint. He makes the point, backed by analysis, that his player is good, but now a 1 star instead of a 5 star (or whatever the numbers were). I would think he, as a buyer, would be in a much better position to evaluate other players now? In other words, where you were trying to sell a 5 star that wasn't producing for a 5 star that you see as being a producer before, now just becomes a different set of stars. You are still making your analysis and judgement based on what you consider important as a GM in the PBL? I also agree with Luc's assessment that what is now a 1 star at the ML level is being evaluated against all the other players "in PBL" so if you think of a Bell curve, someone always has to be at the bottom and far fewer will now be at the top, just because. That would also tell you something and (and I hate to put words into another's mouth) might be what Tim was talking about. When a player gets to be a solid 5/5 or even 4/4 at a given level, move him up STAT! BUT, also be aware that the grade changes per level, so the 5/5 or 4/4 at AAA might appear as a 1 or 2 at the next level, like PBL. Hopefully he has some higher POT at any given level, but if not, that also tells you something. Update: To go back to the Texas example. Best is a 2/2 in PBL with 6-1-7 pitching. If you show him relative to AAA he is 4/4 and an 8-4-9 pitcher. So that gives you some of the information. The Texas stats evaluation gives HIM even more of a picture of what his player can do for his team.
And, to repeat, when trying to trade him, someone will undoubtedly see the "1" and say "Uh, no thank you!" BUT when TEXAS trades FOR a player like that, he will focus on the entire package and, despite the "1", probably say "Well, OK, but he is a 1 movement, so I am certainly not going to offer much. This scrub is good in return? Ok, done deal."
Followed soon after by, "TOTAL TEXAS SCORE!!!" I love this new ratings system!!!
As for the dynamic versus annual ratings of prospects, to me that is a separate thing, but will play into this too in several ways. 1) You will obviously see changes more frequently IF they are happening on a player level. So a 5 star can "crash and burn" or the 1 star can dramatically improve within a shorter span, instead of when the calendar clicks over. I do see this as a positive. 2) From a league perspective, you will also see the player change more rapidly (if they are evolving, and not everyone will - up or down - with respect to others in the league, because with have made the two changes at once. From a "trade" standpoint (because that's where everyone seems to go immediately), it might be best to buy when the player has just moved off his low point and sell when the player makes the slightest dip? OR, that might just be a ratings blip in-game? Never know, but it is a challenge. BUT, also remember that with OOTP 17 the in-game player development model was changed to reflect the earlier model where there were MANY more 5 star players in the draft. If you recall, there were howls when they changed it before (15, I think) so that there were MANY more lower rated players that would develop. There were not enough 5 stars for the masses and draft classes with only a half dozen were UNACCEPTABLE. Within the community and online, there was a rush to changes the player creation modifiers, increase the draft class size, do anything and everything to show more 5 stars) which frankly just balloons the number of inferior players too. SO, OOTP went back to the model where the players are "generally" higher rated in their draft class but MORE will flame out and fewer 1 stars will magically develop into the stud! Now, with the two changes we have just made, someone will most certainly suffer permanent damage when their 5-star LOCK of a STUD in the draft immediately tanks to 1 star within a couple of weeks!!! That is not necessarily because of the changes just made, just that we can see it happen dynamically at whatever level that player happens to be in at the time! So, to sum up (and for what my 2c is worth to you), you just have to pick your fog!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 9:55:44 GMT -5
I'm brand new to the league...so...might not understand the situation as it pertains to the history of the league, etc., but I have been playing online since version 5.0, and what I'm looking at this morning is what I'm used to seeing. As far as I know, and have known, (which usually isn't very far) no players actually change, only the way their ratings are viewed, relative to other players, has changed. Going from annual development reports to constantly changing development reports only means that when a player's ratings change we see them as they change, instead of seeing what they are after one year of changes has occurred. If I'm totally missing the ussue, or the point of the discussion, please ignore me...I have a wife and two young bots...being ignored is, for me, very normal.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Jan 2, 2017 10:47:19 GMT -5
I agree with the Commissioner that the best thing to do at this time is to revert back to the rating system that the league has used for a long time and everyone is comfortable with.
I think the Rules Committee did an excellent job bringing their proposals to the league and explaining the pros and cons to us- to the best of their ability. However it is obvious that none of us fully understood how switching to relative ratings would impact the game. Now that we know how the switch effects the rating, I believe we can have an educated discussion on if we want to make this change in the future.
For now lets go back to what has worked so well for so long.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 2, 2017 11:01:00 GMT -5
Valid, salient points above have been made (in some cases, REALLY long essays *cough* Texas *cough*) and I am pleased to see Derek swoop in and make a decision on how we move forward.
Let's be clear though. Keeping the Annual vs. Dynamic ratings is a GOOD thing. Relative ratings by league is a BAD thing and should be changed.
So let's keep the minor league systems ranking as dynamic so we do see prospects update throughout the year.
My example for this change: SP Norris Barton of St. Louis was listed as the number one prospect the ENTIRE season in the minor league rankings, only he pitched 187 innings in the PBL this year! He should have lost his prospect status and been removed from this list after his 45 or so innings were pitched at the PBL level. This is what Dynamic ratings would do for us.
I believe if we had started the PBL with the relative ratings view, this would not be an issue. However, with so much history using the 1-10 rated within the entire PBL universe, it really would throw us into chaos and changed the game we know it. it's hard to support that sort of change without having a 'turn off' feature in-game for those of us that do not wish to view the game ratings that way. And to me, that is at the heart of the issue. We were told we could in fact turn this off.
At any rate, excellent points made by many people above (Danny, i got love for your viewpoints man). Thanks to Ron, Tim and David for helping us along the way be introduced to something new within the game. I may just try an offline league with these changes to see if i like it long term.
|
|