|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 16, 2017 21:40:16 GMT -5
Here is the poll to vote your preference. For those that were not around last season or may have missed it, a quick review.
There is a setting in the game that allows you to view ratings for players as compared to a league. It can be modified by a drop down option in the player screen. We briefly had it active last season. It was agreed to because we thought that if you did not change the option you would not see a difference in the game. That turned out to be untrue. There was a significant difference and when we realized it we rolled it back (more details in the cons area below).
There were people who still preferred to have it on despite the changes we witnessed in ratings. It is a change that we would have to adjust to but change can be a good thing. We are opening this issue up to the league to vote on. I will do my best to represent the pros and cons but I encourage people to post their opinions and observations in this thread.
Pros: It is a tool to better manage minor league rosters and promotions. You can better see how a player is rated by league and have more detailed information than just the green arrows to identify what players are ready to be promoted or need to be demoted. (i.e. if a guy is 4/4 with all ratings maxed out in AA he will probably not gain more development at the AA level and should get bumped to AAA)
It can be a tool help differentiate talent in the sea of one star players available. Look at all players compared to A ball and many of those one star guys might show 3 star potential. That can identify them as more likely to be a major league contributor than a guy that is rated one star at that low level.
Cons: Because players show ratings as compared to league level player ratings were altered significantly. A pitcher with 6 stuff may now show as only having 2 because he is only being compared to major league players instead of all of the players in the game. This change will alter the way player ratings are understood. In the current system you will probably never see a hitter with 2 contact in the big leagues. If we make this change it that would become fairly normal.
The implementation is a little clunky. You can only change the value in the player screen, but the change sticks. So if you go to a player, switch it from PBL to AA, then back out of the player screen, all ratings you view in the game will be as compared to AA until you go back in to a player screen and switch it again.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Mar 17, 2017 0:47:06 GMT -5
I vote no. It removes a large element of skill. I really couldn't be more against this move.
There is, honestly, no upside to this move for me and large, significant downside. Hard, hard no complete with me lobbying people to also vote no.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Mar 17, 2017 6:51:11 GMT -5
I also voted no. The league is thriving now with the rating system in place. I personally prefer a 20-80 scale but why fix something that's not broken? That is the same thought I have about the Ratings by League Level.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 17, 2017 7:16:02 GMT -5
In the end I don't feel like increased control over the minor leagues is worth the confusion in the majors. FOr myself, the whole point of having scouting off is so that you know that a player with a contact of 6 has a contact of 6. This move would make all ratings relative, and therefore, less directly understandable. Till the day we can quickly and efficiently switch back and forth between this system, and the original I'm going to say it's not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 17, 2017 8:47:47 GMT -5
Haven't voted yet, I would love to see how the comments in this thread play out first.
Interesting that the Texas comment seems to counter the Colorado comment however. Texas saying "it removes some fog of war" while Colorado says "this move would make all ratings relative, and therefore, less directly understandable" because now, with Scouts off, a 6 is a 6. I read that as adding confusion (which could be interpreted as more "fog of war")?
Neither wrong of course because it's all a matter of your individual perception.
In another league that utilized this, with ratings other than 1-10 (happened to be 20-80), I found it to be even more confusing because immediately every player in the minor leagues was rated higher because the floor was higher at 20. So yes, it does required some adaptation on the part of the GM.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Mar 17, 2017 11:08:40 GMT -5
Haven't voted yet, I would love to see how the comments in this thread play out first. Interesting that the Texas comment seems to counter the Colorado comment however. Texas saying "it removes some fog of war" while Colorado says "this move would make all ratings relative, and therefore, less directly understandable" because now, with Scouts off, a 6 is a 6. I read that as adding confusion (which could be interpreted as more "fog of war")? Neither wrong of course because it's all a matter of your individual perception. In another league that utilized this, with ratings other than 1-10 (happened to be 20-80), I found it to be even more confusing because immediately every player in the minor leagues was rated higher because the floor was higher at 20. So yes, it does required some adaptation on the part of the GM. Post edited to remove reference to fog of war, because this change really has worst of both world elements for me on that front. Removing the skill of the GM's judgment is a bigger gripe. Colorado and Texas used different wordings, but our meanings are the same really. I've made this case before the last time this came to a vote (I hope this gets crushed via vote and doesn't get brought up again soon). A 6 being a 6 is nice because then it's up to the GM to use skill to find out what that six means. Is it a high 6 or a low 6? And I agree completely with Colorado when he says this makes ratings meaningless. It does. There remain zero compelling reasons for me to vote yes.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 17, 2017 11:27:50 GMT -5
Haven't voted yet, I would love to see how the comments in this thread play out first. Interesting that the Texas comment seems to counter the Colorado comment however. Texas saying "it removes some fog of war" while Colorado says "this move would make all ratings relative, and therefore, less directly understandable" because now, with Scouts off, a 6 is a 6. I read that as adding confusion (which could be interpreted as more "fog of war")? Neither wrong of course because it's all a matter of your individual perception. In another league that utilized this, with ratings other than 1-10 (happened to be 20-80), I found it to be even more confusing because immediately every player in the minor leagues was rated higher because the floor was higher at 20. So yes, it does required some adaptation on the part of the GM. Colorado and Texas used different wordings, but our meanings are the same really. I've made this case before the last time this came to a vote (I hope this gets crushed and doesn't get brought up again soon). A 6 being a 6 is nice because then it's up to the GM to use skill to find out what that six means. Is it a high 6 or a low 6? And I agree completely with Colorado when he says this makes ratings meaningless. It does. I'll use my example again of a 1 rating in a category for an SP in the bigs. As there is no zero rating this means that a pitcher with a 1 movement rating in the bigs should give up home runs at the rate of a backup catcher. He does not. There remain zero compelling reasons for me to vote yes. I too am inclined to vote no, but for the sake of full debate, I would characterize your point in bold above a different way. A 1 movement (or any other rating) at the PBL level simply means he is a 1 relative to the rest of the pitchers at the PBL level (and there could be many 1's all within the window of what 1 signifies). If you then used the drop-down to check him against AAA level, he could very well be a 3 (possibly a 2 or even a 4 or 5) and at the rookie level possibly a bit higher? In my mind a "1" doesn't signify that he's basically a backup catcher , just "relatively" difficient in that stat. Conversely a "10" in any rating at a minor league level might only be an 8, maybe 9 (maybe 10) at the major league level. That's part of the rationale for this, as I understand it, as it's easier to assess your minor league players by comparing them to different levels and moving them up accordingly. To me, that adds confusion (which could be interpreted as fog of war)? But it certainly is very different. And some GM's would be VERY into this kind of thing. Think I'll vote now just to see the hidden results.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Mar 17, 2017 11:47:19 GMT -5
Voted yes, however I seem to be in the significant minority here. Going to keep things brief, as a big argument seems a bit pointless with the vote total the way it is.
I'm having trouble figuring out the arguments on the yes side, besides the new system being unfamiliar and wanting to stay with the familiar system (I get that.) I think I made a post in the previous thread from last year explaining how the ratings would work - I'll see if I can find it and post it again.
But let's clarify a couple things. In the current system, a 6 is a 6. It could be a low 6 or a high 6, and figuring that out takes skill. (We agree there). However that doesn't really change that much in the new system other than being able to compare ratings to what that player would be rated in the different levels. A player can have a 6 rating in the new system. That 6 could still be a low 6 or a high 6! That element hasn't changed other than we can see what a player would be rated in AAA, AA etc.
All that is changed, is that the player ratings will be compared to players at their same level. This makes sense intuitively -- you compare Robinson Cano to all the other 2B in the MLB, not to players in single A.
And no, this change does not making ratings meaningless at all. How can the points of "the new system would remove the fog of ratings" and "the ratings would mean nothing" be used in the same argument? Those are completely contradictory points. If the ratings meant nothing, then logically there would be a lot of GM skill required to figure out what they meant, and thus a lot of "fog".
And lastly, a SP with a movement rating of 1 under the new system will not give up HR at the same rate as a backup catcher. That is not how the rating system works. A SP with a rating of 1 will be in the bottom 10% of all SP in the PBL in movement. He is not being compared to backup catchers, because backup catchers are not SP, and obviously that pitcher is a lot better than a backup catcher. If you converted a backup catcher to SP, his movement rating would likely be 1, and it would be a 'low' 1.
In the end, I'm fine if this gets voted down. But I want it to be voted down for rational reasons, and the points that keep getting brought up last year and this year against this change are making claims that simply aren't true about the new system.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 17, 2017 12:09:36 GMT -5
A 1 movement (or any other rating) at the PBL level simply means he is a 1 relative to the rest of the pitchers at the PBL level (and there could be many 1's all within the window of what 1 signifies). If you then used the drop-down to check him against AAA level, he could very well be a 3 (possibly a 2 or even a 4 or 5) and at the rookie level possibly a bit higher? In my mind a "1" doesn't signify that he's basically a backup catcher , just "relatively" difficient in that stat. Conversely a "10" in any rating at a minor league level might only be an 8, maybe 9 (maybe 10) at the major league level. That's part of the rationale for this, as I understand it, as it's easier to assess your minor league players by comparing them to different levels and moving them up accordingly. To me, that adds confusion (which could be interpreted as fog of war)? But it certainly is very different. And some GM's would be VERY into this kind of thing. Think I'll vote now just to see the hidden results. And again, if it were a feature that I could turn on and off with a click of a button, I'd be into that. However, it seems like you have to make the change one player at a time, and only from a very specific page? That's just bad implementation of the feature to my mind.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Mar 17, 2017 12:21:08 GMT -5
It's 14 to 2 in votes. I don't need paragraphs to explain my side, I'm SO opposed to this rule that I would be willing to quit if it is enacted. Ron and Luc maybe you can find a different league that would be in to this but at 14 No's and only two Yes's I think this topic should curbed and not brought up again next year or the year after.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Mar 17, 2017 12:21:08 GMT -5
All that is changed, is that the player ratings will be compared to players at their same level. This makes sense intuitively -- you compare Robinson Cano to all the other 2B in the MLB, not to players in single A. How can the points of "the new system would remove the fog of ratings" and "the ratings would mean nothing" be used in the same argument? Those are completely contradictory points. And lastly, a SP with a movement rating of 1 under the new system will not give up HR at the same rate as a backup catcher. Both points you refute were removed by me before this response. While you're correct, you're swinging at windmills here, as those points are not central to my distaste for this. The Cano argument, however, I can sink into a little. It's not intuitive to me at all. Yes, I know we don't get to see these players play. And we don't have scouts. But we do have the massive advantage over real teams in that we can see other teams' rated players and we're all on equal ground here. Teams simply cannot evaluate the way this change suggests. You only evaluate a 2B against Cano when he's in the major leagues. You don't have the ability to evaluate your second baseman relative to a 2b in AAA. Which, by the way, can be easily messed up. Say one team's minor league rosters are generally in the range of normal for their prospects in terms of age. But then you get a GM who cares not for development (Rob the old GM let his minors be run by CPU and would occasionally have guys sit at A ball for 5 years, slowly developing, while his higher level squads would be propagated by 32 year old with no real upside. There would even be such gents at A-ball). So you go and check to see how good your second baseman is relative to A ball, but he's not as good as you hoped! So you don't promote him. When in reality, he's developing fine for a 22 year old 2nd baseman, but there are 4 such GMs who have teams in the Sally league too, and they have 29 year old 2B, and thus your guy doesn't look as good relative to his league. Now we have more confusion. As it is now, a 6 is a 6 is a 6. Then it's up to you to make up your mind.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 17, 2017 12:23:32 GMT -5
A 1 movement (or any other rating) at the PBL level simply means he is a 1 relative to the rest of the pitchers at the PBL level (and there could be many 1's all within the window of what 1 signifies). If you then used the drop-down to check him against AAA level, he could very well be a 3 (possibly a 2 or even a 4 or 5) and at the rookie level possibly a bit higher? In my mind a "1" doesn't signify that he's basically a backup catcher , just "relatively" difficient in that stat. Conversely a "10" in any rating at a minor league level might only be an 8, maybe 9 (maybe 10) at the major league level. That's part of the rationale for this, as I understand it, as it's easier to assess your minor league players by comparing them to different levels and moving them up accordingly. To me, that adds confusion (which could be interpreted as fog of war)? But it certainly is very different. And some GM's would be VERY into this kind of thing. Think I'll vote now just to see the hidden results. And again, if it were a feature that I could turn on and off with a click of a button, I'd be into that. However, it seems like you have to make the change one player at a time, and only from a very specific page? That's just bad implementation of the feature to my mind. Not saying it's a great implementation because I find the one fault to be that you have to remember to reset the league level, which is a pain. But, when you go to a specific player page you can pull down the league levels in the drop down and choose the league. That, in fact (pretty certain) changes ALL players to be relative to that selected level. So, after that one move on a player page the who org is relative to the selected level. As you cycle through players, they all have that same reference for their ratings. Voted no because, in this specific case, I am more comfortable with the current way (and that doesn't happen often).
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 17, 2017 12:25:43 GMT -5
It's 14 to 2 in votes. I don't need paragraphs to explain my side, I'm SO opposed to this rule that I would be willing to quit if it is enacted. Ron and Luc maybe you can find a different league that would be in to this but at 14 No's and only two Yes's I think this topic should curbed and not brought up again next year or the year after. But you just returned?!?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Mar 17, 2017 12:30:00 GMT -5
In the interest of allowing others space to move on this topic, and in the interest of brevity (never my strong suit but a point of emphasis for me), I'll do my best to bow out now and only respond to direct replies.
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Mar 17, 2017 12:35:14 GMT -5
All that is changed, is that the player ratings will be compared to players at their same level. This makes sense intuitively -- you compare Robinson Cano to all the other 2B in the MLB, not to players in single A. How can the points of "the new system would remove the fog of ratings" and "the ratings would mean nothing" be used in the same argument? Those are completely contradictory points. And lastly, a SP with a movement rating of 1 under the new system will not give up HR at the same rate as a backup catcher. Both points you refute were removed by me before this response. While you're correct, you're swinging at windmills here, as those points are not central to my distaste for this. The Cano argument, however, I can sink into a little. It's not intuitive to me at all. Yes, I know we don't get to see these players play. And we don't have scouts. But we do have the massive advantage over real teams in that we can see other teams' rated players and we're all on equal ground here. Teams simply cannot evaluate the way this change suggests. You only evaluate a 2B against Cano when he's in the major leagues. You don't have the ability to evaluate your second baseman relative to a 2b in AAA. Which, by the way, can be easily messed up. Say one team's minor league rosters are generally in the range of normal for their prospects in terms of age. But then you get a GM who cares not for development (Rob the old GM let his minors be run by CPU and would occasionally have guys sit at A ball for 5 years, slowly developing, while his higher level squads would be propagated by 32 year old with no real upside. There would even be such gents at A-ball). So you go and check to see how good your second baseman is relative to A ball, but he's not as good as you hoped! So you don't promote him. When in reality, he's developing fine for a 22 year old 2nd baseman, but there are 4 such GMs who have teams in the Sally league too, and they have 29 year old 2B, and thus your guy doesn't look as good relative to his league. Now we have more confusion.As it is now, a 6 is a 6 is a 6. Then it's up to you to make up your mind. Thanks. The bolded point makes a lot of sense and I hadn't thought of that before. I'm still sticking with yes, but I think I can better understand the reasons for voting no now.
|
|