|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jan 2, 2017 17:11:58 GMT -5
Great info Tim! I really wish Tim lived on the EAST coast or better yet Australia or something, so he would have been awake before anyone else this morning!
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jan 2, 2017 18:08:35 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. Thank you Fin, this rule was simply not explained correctly. No bad intentions assigned by me, but we were simply not informed. I will say that if this is exactly what was expected by Tim and those who knew what this was, they should have mentioned it in the section posted that I'm quoting, because it was that exact exchange that caused me to switch my vote back, and that exchange told us the opposite of what was to happen. That said, I wouldn't for a moment suspect Tim, or anyone really in the league, to be intending to deceive. Tim frequently takes time to explain things to noobs and vets alike, with patience and kindness, even helping me set up the game on MacBook when I was feeling extremely frustrated; I'm very pro-Tim. I really didn't like the change and I'm glad it has been changed back, but there's no hard feelings towards anyone.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Jan 2, 2017 18:46:02 GMT -5
I was a no vote, but in the brief time we had the new rating form I do think it went a long way to accurately portraying a lot of things I was seeing in my players that might have been hidden by the old version.
I wouldn't be averse to giving it another shot later on, however I think timing is important. I think the best time to make the switch would be right before the start of the regular season. That way we have a full season of play to help evaluate exactly what the new ratings mean. Trying to make off-season trades without completely understanding my player ratings would be flying a little too blind for my tastes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2017 20:42:46 GMT -5
I know this conversation is about something else, but can I ask why ratings are 1-10 rather than 20-80?
I ask because the 1-10 scale has 10 values. The 20-80, because of the incremental of 5, has 13 values - so its not THAT different. But the 20-80 rating is the scale MLB actually uses, which adds a bit of realism.
I can totally see why 1-100 isn't used, that would be anarchy. But I'm curious if the 1-10 scale has some other league importance or was just the preference at the time. I'm not against it, in fact I like that it's a little bit different. Makes playing in the PBL unique (for me anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 3, 2017 8:48:26 GMT -5
I know this conversation is about something else, but can I ask why ratings are 1-10 rather than 20-80? I ask because the 1-10 scale has 10 values. The 20-80, because of the incremental of 5, has 13 values - so it's not THAT different. But the 20-80 rating is the scale MLB actually uses, which adds a bit of realism. I can totally see why 1-100 isn't used, that would be anarchy. But I'm curious if the 1-10 scale has some other league importance or was just the preference at the time. I'm not against it, in fact, I like that it's a little bit different. Makes playing in the PBL unique (for me anyway). I always played OOTP as 1-10 and so when I started the PBL, I went the same route and most I talked to setting up the game did as well. I tried solo leagues 20-80 and it's so hard for me to get accustomed too and I just feel weird using it. I even think I prefer 1-100 over it because to me it can be broken down into 1-10 form with more clarity. Example, in 1-10 a pitcher could be 7-7-6. In 1-100 a pitcher could be 77-76-66 and I would view it simply as 7.7-7.6-6.6 and I think a determination could be easier for a player instead of a 6 he could be a 6.1 or a 6.9 and that's a big gap for talent. As far as 20-80, I would have NO CLUE how to break it down.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Jan 3, 2017 9:20:21 GMT -5
If you're interested, to convert from 20-80 to 1-10 the conversion is (score-20)/6. For instance a 62 rating is (62-20)/6 = 42/6 = 7.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 9:36:43 GMT -5
I know this conversation is about something else, but can I ask why ratings are 1-10 rather than 20-80? I ask because the 1-10 scale has 10 values. The 20-80, because of the incremental of 5, has 13 values - so it's not THAT different. But the 20-80 rating is the scale MLB actually uses, which adds a bit of realism. I can totally see why 1-100 isn't used, that would be anarchy. But I'm curious if the 1-10 scale has some other league importance or was just the preference at the time. I'm not against it, in fact, I like that it's a little bit different. Makes playing in the PBL unique (for me anyway). I always played OOTP as 1-10 and so when I started the PBL, I went the same route and most I talked to setting up the game did as well. I tried solo leagues 20-80 and it's so hard for me to get accustomed too and I just feel weird using it. I even think I prefer 1-100 over it because to me it can be broken down into 1-10 form with more clarity. Example, in 1-10 a pitcher could be 7-7-6. In 1-100 a pitcher could be 77-76-66 and I would view it simply as 7.7-7.6-6.6 and I think a determination could be easier for a player instead of a 6 he could be a 6.1 or a 6.9 and that's a big gap for talent. As far as 20-80, I would have NO CLUE how to break it down. I think they all start at 1-250, or something like that. I stink in math, but I think the smaller numbers you use (1-5, 1-10) give the most wiggle room. 1-250 would be exact? They don't round up (or didn't used to) so in 1-10, a '6' could really be anywhere from 6.0 to 6.9
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jan 3, 2017 11:55:50 GMT -5
[/quote]I think they all start at 1-250, or something like that. I stink in math, but I think the smaller numbers you use (1-5, 1-10) give the most wiggle room. 1-250 would be exact? They don't round up (or didn't used to) so in 1-10, a '6' could really be anywhere from 6.0 to 6.9[/quote]
This is one of the things I like most about 1-10, since all "true" ratings are on a 25 point scale in 1-10, I like trying to figure out whether someone is a high 6 or a low 6, for example. There is a big difference. I like trying to figure out whose 5 contact rating is a hindrance and whose is more of a .260 type guy
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Jan 3, 2017 14:56:36 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! First, the image I displayed was captured from one of the drop-down menus used to customize queries. It applied to overall coaching ability, but I used the descriptions to illustrate the general increase in skills when progressing from 1-10 In the context of an individual skill such as movement, my take is that a 1 rating indicates that a pitcher throws pitches that are so straight that nearly every pitcher at the ML level has better movement than the pitcher in question. I see that when rated vs. the PBL universe Best is rated a 5, yet Danny wrote that it was a 1 when compared with PBL level pitchers. This indicates to me that his movement is average when compared with every pitcher in every organization, most of whom are so weak that they will never even pitch at the AAA or AA levels. The 1 rating when compared to PBL level pitchers indicates to me that his movement is very poor. Last season only 24 pitchers with movement ratings less than 6 saw any action at all at the PBL level. Of the 24, 10 registered ERA+ stats above 100. Of those 10, several delivered solid performances (defined as significant starts for SP, appearances for RP, and ERA+ stat above 100): - Marv Harvey, BOS (currently 8/5/8): 25 holds, 2.61 ERA, 158 ERA+, 3.14 FIP
- Patrick Davis, MON (6/5/9): 31 saves, 2.67 ERA, 152 ERA+, 3.23 FIP
- Bobby Best, TEX (7/5/8): 18-6, 3.30 ERA, 124 ERA+, 3.58 FIP
- Ed Alder, CAR (7/5/8): 8-9, 3.69 ERA, 109 ERA+, 4.12 FIP
Plus, about three or four additional RP pitched well in lesser roles. Only Best pitched 200+ innings.
Contrast this with the 337 pitchers with movement ratings of at least 6 who pitched at the PBL level last season. 24 of those pitchers pitched at least 200 innings.
To summarize, of the 361 pitchers who pitched at the PBL level last season only 6.6% had a movement rating lower than 6. When evaluated vs. PBL level pitchers it seems logical to me that pitchers with a movement rating of 5 when compared with every pitcher in the PBL universe would drop to a 1 or perhaps 2 rating when compared only to PBL level pitchers.
Further, Best and the others who pitched well illustrate that above average stuff and control can offset the lack of movement. This supports my non-scientific observation of similar pitchers in my other league that uses ratings by league level. Labeling the movement for these guys as "inexperienced" may not be the most appropriate description when applied to an individual skill, but the movement on their pitches certainly is among the worst when compared to other PBL level pitchers.
That is my take. I hope it helps.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 3, 2017 15:47:01 GMT -5
If you're interested, to convert from 20-80 to 1-10 the conversion is (score-20)/6. For instance a 62 rating is (62-20)/6 = 42/6 = 7. Ummm man, I'm not that smart to take the time to do that nor do I have the patience. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Jan 3, 2017 16:16:35 GMT -5
If you're interested, to convert from 20-80 to 1-10 the conversion is (score-20)/6. For instance a 62 rating is (62-20)/6 = 42/6 = 7. Ummm man, I'm not that smart to take the time to do that nor do I have the patience. LOL. Haha...yeah...that's high school math. I'm an adult, I don't need to use that anymore. The only math I need is to balance my checkbook and that shit is easy...nothing from nothing is... NOTHING!!!It's a great explanation though and I understand it after looking at it for a few minutes trying remember the rules for equations like that.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Jan 3, 2017 18:18:45 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! First, the image I displayed was captured from one of the drop-down menus used to customize queries. It applied to overall coaching ability, but I used the descriptions to illustrate the general increase in skills when progressing from 1-10 In the context of an individual skill such as movement, my take is that a 1 rating indicates that a pitcher throws pitches that are so straight that nearly every pitcher at the ML level has better movement than the pitcher in question. I see that when rated vs. the PBL universe Best is rated a 5, yet Danny wrote that it was a 1 when compared with PBL level pitchers. This indicates to me that his movement is average when compared with every pitcher in every organization, most of whom are so weak that they will never even pitch at the AAA or AA levels. The 1 rating when compared to PBL level pitchers indicates to me that his movement is very poor. Last season only 24 pitchers with movement ratings less than 6 saw any action at all at the PBL level. Of the 24, 10 registered ERA+ stats above 100. Of those 10, several delivered solid performances (defined as significant starts for SP, appearances for RP, and ERA+ stat above 100): - Marv Harvey, BOS (currently 8/5/8): 25 holds, 2.61 ERA, 158 ERA+, 3.14 FIP
- Patrick Davis, MON (6/5/9): 31 saves, 2.67 ERA, 152 ERA+, 3.23 FIP
- Bobby Best, TEX (7/5/8): 18-6, 3.30 ERA, 124 ERA+, 3.58 FIP
- Ed Alder, CAR (7/5/8): 8-9, 3.69 ERA, 109 ERA+, 4.12 FIP
Plus, about three or four additional RP pitched well in lesser roles. Only Best pitched 200+ innings.
Contrast this with the 337 pitchers with movement ratings of at least 6 who pitched at the PBL level last season. 24 of those pitchers pitched at least 200 innings.
To summarize, of the 361 pitchers who pitched at the PBL level last season only 6.6% had a movement rating lower than 6. When evaluated vs. PBL level pitchers it seems logical to me that pitchers with a movement rating of 5 when compared with every pitcher in the PBL universe would drop to a 1 or perhaps 2 rating when compared only to PBL level pitchers.
Further, Best and the others who pitched well illustrate that above average stuff and control can offset the lack of movement. This supports my non-scientific observation of similar pitchers in my other league that uses ratings by league level. Labeling the movement for these guys as "inexperienced" may not be the most appropriate description when applied to an individual skill, but the movement on their pitches certainly is among the worst when compared to other PBL level pitchers.
That is my take. I hope it helps.
Thanks Tim. I understand your thoughts much better now, I appreciate it. I may try an offline league to see this play out over time using the relative ratings by league option. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Jan 4, 2017 11:19:47 GMT -5
Side note: John from Oakland was kind enough to inform me that my equation wasn't even right, so there ya go.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Jan 8, 2017 15:09:19 GMT -5
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. Thank you Fin, this rule was simply not explained correctly. No bad intentions assigned by me, but we were simply not informed. I will say that if this is exactly what was expected by Tim and those who knew what this was, they should have mentioned it in the section posted that I'm quoting, because it was that exact exchange that caused me to switch my vote back, and that exchange told us the opposite of what was to happen. That said, I wouldn't for a moment suspect Tim, or anyone really in the league, to be intending to deceive. Tim frequently takes time to explain things to noobs and vets alike, with patience and kindness, even helping me set up the game on MacBook when I was feeling extremely frustrated; I'm very pro-Tim. I really didn't like the change and I'm glad it has been changed back, but there's no hard feelings towards anyone. Hey, Danny, everything is cool with me - no hard feelings. I do want to share where I was coming from when I supported the comment Sean posted. When I responded with "exactly" it was in the context of the process I use to make player decisions - evaluating trade proposals, signing free agents, promoting/demoting players, etc. To conduct business, a GM may use or not use the ratings by league level option. If a GM elects not to use the ratings by league level option, the GM would continue to run his team exactly as he does today. I compete in another league that uses ratings by league level. If I elected not to use the optional ratings, I could use the same processes I use in the PBL. Not using the ratings by league level option would not impose a self-inflicted handicap. In fact, in that league I usually use the major league ratings, but I find the optional ratings to be especially useful when evaluating minor league talent (see example posted elsewhere). A couple of seasons after I joined the other league, GMs voted to change the rating scale from 1-20 to 1-100. As soon as the ratings changed, GMs discussed what the new ratings meant relative to the competition. It didn't take long for all of us to become accustomed to the new system. Everyone continued to do their thing. Each GM applied his system exactly as in the past. The rating numbers were different, but GM activities continued exactly as they existed prior to the change. With this history, I frankly did not anticipate the change in numerical ratings we experienced. Also, I did not consider that GMs who were not familiar with multiple rating scales would be so tied to specific, numerical values. My fault. The topic did not surface, but I did not think of it, either. When I first viewed the ratings for my players, I was surprised, but then I realized that the changes made sense. Players were evaluated vs. major league talent instead of everyone in the PBL universe. My next thought was that I would just have to become accustomed to the meaning of the new ratings, just as I did in the other league. My GM processes would remain unchanged. And player performance would not be impacted by a mere change in the rating system used by the league. My sense is that the blow-back after the change was because of the unanticipated change in numerical ratings. I totally understand. The change in specific rating numbers surprised everyone. Given an understanding that specific current/potential skill numbers may change and an understanding of what the numerical ratings by league level mean relative to the competition, GMs will be prepared for adoption of the ratings by league level setting. I don't believe we ever should consider using a rating system other than the 1-10 scale we have used in the PBL. I do think adoption of the ratings by league level option would inject more variety into the mix (e.g., additional separation - the example of Bobby Best going 18-6 with very good stuff and control, but little movement) and provide GMs with an additional means to evaluate talent and make decisions. Hopefully we will revisit the proposal. I hope this helps.
|
|