|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Mar 17, 2017 13:28:09 GMT -5
I am also one that heavily dislikes this idea.
|
|
|
Post by kendalld00(GM for hire) on Mar 17, 2017 14:39:48 GMT -5
Cardinals voted no... I have played with this on in another league and I enjoyed it.. But it is more time consuming and you have to be willing to be active in all your teams in your organization.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Mar 17, 2017 14:51:08 GMT -5
To me, this just seems like a lot more work and I'm not sure how that would play out with the pace of the PBL. Could we sim daily or 2-3 days then skip a day? Would activity slow down because teams are too busy trying to get a grasp of their team still and not sure how to put all this together yet?
The one thing I thought of when mentioning a "6 is a 6" and the comment "is it a high six or low six" was brought up. I think if we really wanted to narrow down the value of a player, high six, low six, average six, would we not just be better off changing rating scales from "1-10" to "1-100"?
I always only played in 1-10 rating scales but would a 6 contact now be a 61, 62, 63.... etc? Then simply in your head if you're used to the 1-10 you can look at your hitter as a 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, etc.... That would provide slightly more detail in the type of player you are getting.
Would that allow us to better see the development or regression of a player? A player who used to be a 6.8 (68) is now a 6.2 (62) so we see the player going towards the tail end of their career? We could strategize before a player dips from 6 to 5 which is a big drop to some GMs.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 17, 2017 15:45:08 GMT -5
To me, this just seems like a lot more work and I'm not sure how that would play out with the pace of the PBL. Could we sim daily or 2-3 days then skip a day? Would activity slow down because teams are too busy trying to get a grasp of their team still and not sure how to put all this together yet? The one thing I thought of when mentioning a "6 is a 6" and the comment "is it a high six or low six" was brought up. I think if we really wanted to narrow down the value of a player, high six, low six, average six, would we not just be better off changing rating scales from "1-10" to "1-100"? I always only played in 1-10 rating scales but would a 6 contact now be a 61, 62, 63.... etc? Then simply in your head if you're used to the 1-10 you can look at your hitter as a 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, etc.... That would provide slightly more detail in the type of player you are getting. Would that allow us to better see the development or regression of a player? A player who used to be a 6.8 (68) is now a 6.2 (62) so we see the player going towards the tail end of their career? We could strategize before a player dips from 6 to 5 which is a big drop to some GMs. Changing from 1-10 to 1-100 introduces an entirely different concept to this thread. As we're at 16 no, I suspect the "ratings by level" is effectively done. To your point about changing the scale to 1-100, and based on other discussions around the desire for MORE activity in the league, in terms of trading, I might offer that the 1-100 scale might curtail trading to a degree because GM's would spend much of their trading energy trying to line up the numbers. A little bit of fog (1-10) means there is more trading flexibility IMHO. But again, with respect, that is a concept outside the scope of this thread about the "ratings by level".
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Mar 17, 2017 16:16:25 GMT -5
I personally would love to see a 20-80 ratings system used.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Mar 17, 2017 19:10:19 GMT -5
Not trying to hijack this thread BUT for the sake that the votes are pretty strongly in favor of NO, I will keep going with this thought... 20-80 scale is the system professional scouts use, I honestly never paid much attention to it so I got no idea how this would even work. I just read a great article ( here) on it though and not sure if it would be too much of a change? As far as "GM's would spend much of their trading energy trying to line up the numbers", I can see that to some degree but I also think that it could help teams facilitate more deals. Maybe we see more movement/upside in players, maybe the larger number scale allows teams to find pieces to plug in they didn't feel would be a fit before and perhaps it allows teams to create a value chart to determine the value of specific positions. I do want to say, between the dialog here on the forums and then the endless (sometimes heated) debates in the PBLRC PMs, I love the direction of the PBL and this is fantastic to see strong interest in making the league always get better.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Mar 17, 2017 19:30:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 17, 2017 19:39:44 GMT -5
Not trying to hijack this thread BUT for the sake that the votes are pretty strongly in favor of NO, I will keep going with this thought... 20-80 scale is the system professional scouts use, I honestly never paid much attention to it so I got no idea how this would even work. I just read a great article ( here) on it though and not sure if it would be too much of a change? As far as "GM's would spend much of their trading energy trying to line up the numbers", I can see that to some degree but I also think that it could help teams facilitate more deals. Maybe we see more movement/upside in players, maybe the larger number scale allows teams to find pieces to plug in they didn't feel would be a fit before and perhaps it allows teams to create a value chart to determine the value of specific positions. I do want to say, between the dialog here on the forums and then the endless (sometimes heated) debates in the PBLRC PMs, I love the direction of the PBL and this is fantastic to see strong interest in making the league always get better. We all understand how the current rating system works, and I personally don't think we need to change anything with it. I'm more excited about the updates in OOTP 18 which allow teams to pay for players salaries in trades, highlight reel option for game replays, Arizona Fall League, the ability to setup a WBC tournament each year, the ability to use closers in high leverage situations not in the 9th inning, etc.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 17, 2017 19:41:19 GMT -5
The 20-80 scale was discussed last off-season by the PBLRC and we voted unanimously to retain the current scale. Possibly this could be raised again in the committee after this next season?
In the meantime, the ratings by league level? Currently 53% No vote.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 17, 2017 19:44:34 GMT -5
I would like make a motion that rules that get voted down be tabled for multiple seasons instead of debating the same points over and over every offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Mar 17, 2017 19:55:01 GMT -5
I think the guys do a pretty good job refreshing the memory of past discussions and its always good to bring them back up so we can have fresh takes on a topic.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 17, 2017 20:11:06 GMT -5
I think the guys do a pretty good job refreshing the memory of past discussions and its always good to bring them back up so we can have fresh takes on a topic. When something like this topic gets voted down so strongly in back to back seasons, it really does no good to keep bringing it up. It might be better to table it a few seasons and then discuss, but not every offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Mar 17, 2017 20:14:00 GMT -5
I think the guys do a pretty good job refreshing the memory of past discussions and its always good to bring them back up so we can have fresh takes on a topic. When something like this topic gets voted down so strongly in back to back seasons, it really does no good to keep bringing it up. It might be better to table it a few seasons and then discuss, but not every offseason. I do not recall that we voted on this; we tabled the idea (and reversed direction) for future consideration. Now that we have voted, we can move on. Great job, Ron, and everyone on the PBLRC!
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 17, 2017 20:44:11 GMT -5
"Voted" may not the best choice of word for both instances of "ratings by league level". But it now has been both reversed and voted upon in consecutive seasons, so I agree we should move along.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 18, 2017 8:57:05 GMT -5
Every rating system, whether 20-80 or by league level, has virtues to it. The question is whether or not the virtues outweigh the pain of spending a few seasons with a vastly diminished understanding of what your players' ratings actually mean. 1-100 is an easier sell because it's exactly what we already have, just 10x more specific. I think there are upsides to scouting by league level. But I think they're fairly small and in no way outweigh the hassle of relearning what the ratings mean over several seasons.
I know this issue is de facto decided, I'm just in love with the sound of my own voice. Err, typing.
|
|