|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Jan 2, 2017 11:06:20 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. I agree 100%. Keep the Dynamic ratings.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jan 2, 2017 11:12:44 GMT -5
Not trolling!!!
And another moot point, I freely admit, as the Commissioner has spoken, but the change and "un-change" seems to have happened rather rapidly. I would be interested to hear from Tim and Sean (and any others frankly), obvious proponents of this change, about whether this is what they expected to see?
And, on a slightly different note, Anthony has been terribly quiet of late. Must have his hands full with stuff outside PBL?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 11:16:04 GMT -5
Just an aside, the best like I ever played in was on OOTZ 6.5. And one of the best feature of it was checking your player development page after each sim. Some guys improve. Others decline. But when a player got a "takes his game to the next level", it was always a league shaking development. Wish those pages were still exactly the same...straight up showing everyone's increases and decreases in the HTML.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jan 2, 2017 11:21:07 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. Again moot, but... PBL is not merely a "good" league! Having played in several, this one is outstanding and, to be very sincere, has endured quite a bit of RADICAL change even in my relatively short time here. The history of the implementation and subsequent cessation of "Isaac Zevin" comes to mind. We would have powered through this! And may yet again at some point in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 11:23:16 GMT -5
I was only in a single league better than the one where the ratings changes wrecked everything. Was probably in for 10 years real life. Then died because we couldn't attract people to OOTZ 6.5 when 17 was coming along. But it's been a fun first week here...just wait til next season when I get busy in FA
|
|
|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Jan 2, 2017 12:12:57 GMT -5
Not trolling!!! And another moot point, I freely admit, as the Commissioner has spoken, but the change and "un-change" seems to have happened rather rapidly. I would be interested to hear from Tim and Sean (and any others frankly), obvious proponents of this change, about whether this is what they expected to see? And, on a slightly different note, Anthony has been terribly quiet of late. Must have his hands full with stuff outside PBL? I wasn't expecting the stars to change like that. But I think I get the jist of how the stars work now. I understand why everyone is a little scared of this as they think they have lost all of their 5* prospects. You din't lose them, they'll still play the same. With this rating system, you aren't going to see a lot of those. You are going to have more two and three star players now with the ratings changing, but like I said that's good thing. Those are the guys that are going to help you win. Those are the guys you will want to trade for. If we need to switch back to the other ratings system, I'm cool with it. It would suck if we start losing GM's because of the change. But, I think Luc knocked out out of the park with his explanation and I tried to put it in the non-analytical just like to look at pictures people (like me the older I get:) I thought the MLB star player analogy would help more than it did. That's how I understand the ratings to be now anyway in perspective to the majors and not the minors.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 2, 2017 12:35:28 GMT -5
Few quick notes:
* We will be keeping the Dynamic ratings for prospects, just to be clear.
* I agree with many, I do think this can be a good thing but Fin is right after almost 7 real years, 30+ seasons it's hard to change the way one views players so drastically without proper heads up on how it can work.
* Luc did a great job breaking it down, even for a dummy like to me to follow.
* David is right, this was a quick decision for me to make a change back but I feel like its the best at this time and I have seen enough to know when a good debate can turn into a pissing contest and the same thing is repeated over and over to prove a point and "win the argument". I feel both sides have done a great job expressing pros/cons and how and why it could work and all that but I wanted to end this discussion on a high note and leave the door open for a positive discussion in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 2, 2017 12:52:06 GMT -5
Not trolling!!! And another moot point, I freely admit, as the Commissioner has spoken, but the change and "un-change" seems to have happened rather rapidly. I would be interested to hear from Tim and Sean (and any others frankly), obvious proponents of this change, about whether this is what they expected to see? And, on a slightly different note, Anthony has been terribly quiet of late. Must have his hands full with stuff outside PBL? I have been reading the posts about this and both sides have made good points. I was expecting the PBL ratings to remain constant and the Minor League ratings to adjust to the PBL based on the drop down menus available. That did not happen. I agree with Fin, Derek and others that have brought up points about not changing a system of rating that has been used for the life of the league.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_NatsGM on Jan 2, 2017 13:02:54 GMT -5
Not trolling!!! And another moot point, I freely admit, as the Commissioner has spoken, but the change and "un-change" seems to have happened rather rapidly. I would be interested to hear from Tim and Sean (and any others frankly), obvious proponents of this change, about whether this is what they expected to see? And, on a slightly different note, Anthony has been terribly quiet of late. Must have his hands full with stuff outside PBL? I have been reading the posts about this and both sides have made good points. I was expecting the PBL ratings to remain constant and the Minor League ratings to adjust to the PBL based on the drop down menus available. That did not happen. I agree with Fin, Derek and others that have brought up points about not changing a system of rating that has been used for the life of the league. That was my understanding too. I'm on board with the Commissioner's path forward.
|
|
|
Post by Peter - Boston Red Sox on Jan 2, 2017 15:18:25 GMT -5
I was one of the "no" votes originally but I would probably change mine to "yes" if we voted today. I've been messing around with the options a lot this afternoon and I actually kind of like it. I like seeing how my AAA guys might fair if I move them to the ML roster. Not sure how accurate these numbers or star ratings are but I guess it gives me some insight into what might happen if I try and move this guy up from AAA to ML. I've been going through my AAA and AA rosters checking each of my guys to see if I might wanna try them at AA or AAA respectively. I have some guys that my scout thinks are ready to move from AA to AAA that I would not have considered otherwise. Same for a couple of my ML guys. Scout says maybe they are not ready to perform well relative to the PBL. Again, not sure if this is accurate or not but maybe it can be useful to gauge things a little. I know a lot of GMs are voting to go back to the way it was. Maybe that's the right thing to do but speaking as someone who is still somewhat NOOB to the game, I kind of like this feature since it helps me make some decisions on guys.
I would change my vote no doubt about it.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Jan 2, 2017 16:37:37 GMT -5
Good morning - now afternoon - from the West Coast. I signed on and was surprised by the many, many posts. Last night, I had not realized that the changes had been implemented; I had not reviewed my team in depth, only whether I signed any free agents. The discussion has been a good one. Following are some thoughts and examples. Dynamic Rankings- Implementation produced exactly the results I anticipated.
- Until the change, prospect rankings were based on the annual evaluation conducted last April; they were very out of date. On the Minor League System Rankings page, John Watts, Kelby Renaud, and Norm Bannatyne were listed as top prospects for the Giants even though each had played enough at the PBL level last season to no longer be considered prospects.
- After the change, Watts, Renaud, and Bannatyne are no longer listed as prospects for the Giants. The three now listed as prospects - one is new to the list - are ranked relative to all current prospects. Now, for example, I can see that Enrique Vazquez, a starter who has pitched very well at the A and A+ levels, has made considerable progress and now is ranked the number 3 prospect in the PBL. Vazquez is but one example, but the current ranking of my prospects and organization provides a better picture of the current status of my organization.
- Note that the player rankings are independent of the player rating system used by the PBL. The rating system the PBL always has used has always been dynamic. Increases and decreases in skills occur on a continuing basis. With the 10 point system in use, we do not often observe changes in ratings from sim to sim, but they occur. I have noticed them and I am sure many of you have, too.
Ratings by League Level - Minor Leaguers- Continuing with Vazquez as an example...
- Per the ratings at the A+ league level, Vazquez is rated 5*/5* (current/potential). He still has ample room for improvement in control, but overall he seems to have developed to the max at this level. This is consistent with his performance (i.e., stats) last season.
- Per the ratings at the AA league level, Vazquez is rated 4*/5*. He should prove to be a strong performer at that level, but he does have some room for improvement in control.
- Per the ratings at the AAA league level, Vazquez is rated 3*/5*. His control relative to other AAA pitchers is even poorer (3) than at the AA level (5), which is not surprising. He could pitch well at the AAA level, but I would expect a high BB/9 stat.
- Vazquez is only 20 years old, so I plan to continue to bring him along slowly and begin the season with him pitching in AA. I will closely monitor his progress, though, and promote him to AAA in mid-season if he continues to develop and produce.
- With ratings by league level in use, I would be able to use stats plus the additional granularity provided by ratings by league level to assess development and make more informed decisions. For me, this is especially important when assessing players with 1* or 2* potential at the PBL level. These players could have 3* or above potential at the lower levels with current skill levels approaching or well below potential. For these guys, ratings by league level would be especially helpful by providing additional, useful information to use for assessment purposes.
Ratings by League Level - Major Leaguers- Luc did an excellent job of explaining the impact of rating a player vs. all players in the PBL universe vs. rating a player vs. his peers competing at a specific level, such as the PBL level. Ratings at the PBL level only provides us with better separation of skills from best to worst at that level.
- The separation point, I believe, is a very significant one. In another league that uses ratings by league level, I have observed many pitchers, for example, that are very effective even though one of the three primary characteristics (stuff, movement, control) is in the 3-4 range. Poor/Fair stuff is offset by very good movement and control - fewer Ks, but fewer HRs and BBs. Poor/Fair movement is offset by very good stuff and control - more frequent HRs, but more frequent Ks and fewer BBs. The combinations are many. Of course, anomalies occur, especially with small sample sizes, but over time those results should be expected.
- In other words, when rating players vs. the entire PBL universe, one could say that player ratings for major leaguers are artificially inflated. The following image captured from within the game lists the description of each rate value from 1-10. Using ratings by level, it is possible for a major league player rated poor or fair in one characteristic to be successful if offset by other, good quality skills. However, when evaluating players rated vs. the entire PBL universe, I don't believe many of us consider promoting players who are rated lower than average. For hitters, power, sometimes, but certainly not contact. And perhaps poor/fair plate discipline, but only if offset by strong contact plus very good ability to avoid Ks. For pitchers, I hesitate to promote anyone with any of the three primary characteristics rated below average. I view those as exceptions. In general, I prefer decent or better as much as possible, but one must ask whether the skills really are decent or better vs. players playing at the PBL level. Or even average. If everyone is average or better, what is the actual average? Intuitively, everyone playing in the PBL can't be average or better.
- A review of my Giants roster revealed: a) overall star ratings, current and potential, remained relatively constant; increases or decreases more than .5* were rare; and b) ratings of some, but not all, individual skills decreased for most players (for a few players, a skill rating or two actually increased); this makes sense to me as they now are being evaluated vs. players at the major league level only.
- In the context of the PBL universe rating system we have used to date, it is a bit unsettling to see lower skill ratings; however, the ratings are vs. stronger competition and the stronger, individual skills associated with PBL level players. Personally, I would rather see a player with a skill rated fair (4) vs. his peers than an inflated decent (6) vs. all players in the major & minor league universe. It will just take time to become accustomed to the change.
- A rating system will not impact performance on the field.
- When lobbying for this change, I recall discussing ratings at the PBL level, the AAA level, etc. I never implied that the system we have used to date rated players vs. only the major leaguers. All players were rated vs. the entire PBL universe. This seemed obvious. I did not intend to be misleading, nor do I believe I was. I always strive to communicate clearly. If some of you misinterpreted what I wrote, I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Jan 2, 2017 16:43:08 GMT -5
I was one of the "no" votes originally but I would probably change mine to "yes" if we voted today. I've been messing around with the options a lot this afternoon and I actually kind of like it. I like seeing how my AAA guys might fair if I move them to the ML roster. Not sure how accurate these numbers or star ratings are but I guess it gives me some insight into what might happen if I try and move this guy up from AAA to ML. I've been going through my AAA and AA rosters checking each of my guys to see if I might wanna try them at AA or AAA respectively. I have some guys that my scout thinks are ready to move from AA to AAA that I would not have considered otherwise. Same for a couple of my ML guys. Scout says maybe they are not ready to perform well relative to the PBL. Again, not sure if this is accurate or not but maybe it can be useful to gauge things a little. I know a lot of GMs are voting to go back to the way it was. Maybe that's the right thing to do but speaking as someone who is still somewhat NOOB to the game, I kind of like this feature since it helps me make some decisions on guys. I would change my vote no doubt about it. Right on. The up and down arrows displayed on the roster screens often seem to be misleading to me. Sometimes an up arrow appears to have been generated based on a player's age, not readiness. The organization report that displays the scout's take (e.g., possibly ready for promotion, ready for promotion, overmatched at a level, etc.) also may not be appropriate. I have found the ratings by league level to be more informative and useful.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 2, 2017 16:51:51 GMT -5
Good morning - now afternoon - from the West Coast. I signed on and was surprised by the many, many posts. Last night, I had not realized that the changes had been implemented; I had not reviewed my team in depth, only whether I signed any free agents. The discussion has been a good one. Following are some thoughts and examples. Dynamic Rankings- Implementation produced exactly the results I anticipated.
- Until the change, prospect rankings were based on the annual evaluation conducted last April; they were very out of date. On the Minor League System Rankings page, John Watts, Kelby Renaud, and Norm Bannatyne were listed as top prospects for the Giants even though each had played enough at the PBL level last season to no longer be considered prospects.
- After the change, Watts, Renaud, and Bannatyne are no longer listed as prospects for the Giants. The three now listed as prospects - one is new to the list - are ranked relative to all current prospects. Now, for example, I can see that Enrique Vazquez, a starter who has pitched very well at the A and A+ levels, has made considerable progress and now is ranked the number 3 prospect in the PBL. Vazquez is but one example, but the current ranking of my prospects and organization provides a better picture of the current status of my organization.
- Note that the player rankings are independent of the player rating system used by the PBL. The rating system the PBL always has used has always been dynamic. Increases and decreases in skills occur on a continuing basis. With the 10 point system in use, we do not often observe changes in ratings from sim to sim, but they occur. I have noticed them and I am sure many of you have, too.
Ratings by League Level - Minor Leaguers- Continuing with Vazquez as an example...
- Per the ratings at the A+ league level, Vazquez is rated 5*/5* (current/potential). He still has ample room for improvement in control, but overall he seems to have developed to the max at this level. This is consistent with his performance (i.e., stats) last season.
- Per the ratings at the AA league level, Vazquez is rated 4*/5*. He should prove to be a strong performer at that level, but he does have some room for improvement in control.
- Per the ratings at the AAA league level, Vazquez is rated 3*/5*. His control relative to other AAA pitchers is even poorer (3) than at the AA level (5), which is not surprising. He could pitch well at the AAA level, but I would expect a high BB/9 stat.
- Vazquez is only 20 years old, so I plan to continue to bring him along slowly and begin the season with him pitching in AA. I will closely monitor his progress, though, and promote him to AAA in mid-season if he continues to develop and produce.
- With ratings by league level in use, I would be able to use stats plus the additional granularity provided by ratings by league level to assess development and make more informed decisions. For me, this is especially important when assessing players with 1* or 2* potential at the PBL level. These players could have 3* or above potential at the lower levels with current skill levels approaching or well below potential. For these guys, ratings by league level would be especially helpful by providing additional, useful information to use for assessment purposes.
Ratings by League Level - Major Leaguers- Luc did an excellent job of explaining the impact of rating a player vs. all players in the PBL universe vs. rating a player vs. his peers competing at a specific level, such as the PBL level. Ratings at the PBL level only provides us with better separation of skills from best to worst at that level.
- The separation point, I believe, is a very significant one. In another league that uses ratings by league level, I have observed many pitchers, for example, that are very effective even though one of the three primary characteristics (stuff, movement, control) is in the 3-4 range. Poor/Fair stuff is offset by very good movement and control - fewer Ks, but fewer HRs and BBs. Poor/Fair movement is offset by very good stuff and control - more frequent HRs, but more frequent Ks and fewer BBs. The combinations are many. Of course, anomalies occur, especially with small sample sizes, but over time those results should be expected.
- In other words, when rating players vs. the entire PBL universe, one could say that player ratings for major leaguers are artificially inflated. The following image captured from within the game lists the description of each rate value from 1-10. Using ratings by level, it is possible for a major league player rated poor or fair in one characteristic to be successful if offset by other, good quality skills. However, when evaluating players rated vs. the entire PBL universe, I don't believe many of us consider promoting players who are rated lower than average. For hitters, power, sometimes, but certainly not contact. And perhaps poor/fair plate discipline, but only if offset by strong contact plus very good ability to avoid Ks. For pitchers, I hesitate to promote anyone with any of the three primary characteristics rated below average. I view those as exceptions. In general, I prefer decent or better as much as possible, but one must ask whether the skills really are decent or better vs. players playing at the PBL level. Or even average. If everyone is average or better, what is the actual average? Intuitively, everyone playing in the PBL can't be average or better.
- A review of my Giants roster revealed: a) overall star ratings, current and potential, remained relatively constant; increases or decreases more than .5* were rare; and b) ratings of some, but not all, individual skills decreased for most players (for a few players, a skill rating or two actually increased); this makes sense to me as they now are being evaluated vs. players at the major league level only.
- In the context of the PBL universe rating system we have used to date, it is a bit unsettling to see lower skill ratings; however, the ratings are vs. stronger competition and the stronger, individual skills associated with PBL level players. Personally, I would rather see a player with a skill rated fair (4) vs. his peers than an inflated decent (6) vs. all players in the major & minor league universe. It will just take time to become accustomed to the change.
- A rating system will not impact performance on the field.
- When lobbying for this change, I recall discussing ratings at the PBL level, the AAA level, etc. I never implied that the system we have used to date rated players vs. only the major leaguers. All players were rated vs. the entire PBL universe. This seemed obvious. I did not intend to be misleading, nor do I believe I was. I always strive to communicate clearly. If some of you misinterpreted what I wrote, I apologize.
I don't think you or anyone else was trying to be misleading at all. There was a lot of talk about how this change wouldn't cause any changes to those that didn't want to use the ratings relative feature. I think that's where part of the push back is coming from because this did change the way you have to evaluate players and changed the ratings of PBL players.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 2, 2017 16:53:49 GMT -5
Thanks for your thoughtful insights, Tim. It's always appreciated.
Can I ask you something? I view you as more of an expert on this subject than I am. Using Danny's pitcher, Bobby Best, his movement rating moved to a '1' when the change was made to turn on relative ratings. Using the rate system grid you showed above, capturing 1-10 player ratings, it would suggest Bobby Best is unproven in movement. I think all we are trying to do is understand why would a Major League pitcher who has experience ever be rated as unproven in any rating?
If you can help me understand this, I would be grateful.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 2, 2017 17:01:05 GMT -5
I don't think you or anyone else was trying to be misleading at all. There was a lot of talk about how this change wouldn't cause any changes to those that didn't want to use the ratings relative feature. I think that's where part of the push back is coming from because this did change the way you have to evaluate players and changed the ratings of PBL players. This is not to point blame in any way at all. This is simply show where the confusion of turning on/off the options originated from. This example is from the thread where we voted on this change.
|
|