Ratings Scales

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ratings Scales

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball >> Ratings Scales

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ratings Scales - 8/8/2006 3:06:37 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

When you guys use the the 1-10 scale and have large rosters, I really think you're just cheating yourself. I think the 1-100 scale is the way to go, because the gap between the elite players and the most marginal scrubs is very large.

Some of you guys hold the opinion that lessening granularity makes for more of a challenging game.

What's really happening is that statistical performances get all weird simply because of this dependence on that 1-10 scale.

If you use a large minor-system, the subtle variations in a 1-100 scale mean that much more. You can better assign players to their proper level, and get the most out of their potential ( or recognize the lack thereof).

I honestly think that you guys are limiting yourself too much by opting for these 1-8 or 1-10 ratings.

Of course, it also depends on how abstract you wanna be. A totally fictional league, and its designer, may wanna maximize the unknown, whereas an "alternate-history" player using real players may be looking for something else. I lean towards the latter category, but that may not be another player's cup of tea.

In summary -- the game is good "out of the box", but if you wanna put some work into it, you can customize it and transform it to create your own personal ideal baseball world. The tools are there, and others have already provided some guidelines.

I hate to keep comparing this to Steel Panthers, but these two games share the ability to customize the game in your own fashion. Pure Sim surpasses SPWaW, in that the code is much more modern. I digress, but the programmers amongst us ( I am NOT a professional programmer), know what I'm talking about.

Post #: 1

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/8/2006 5:50:14 AM

Woodruff

Posts: 176
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline

I also prefer the 1-100 scale, and I use a fictional league with salaries.

And I agree with you regarding both the similarity to SPWaW and that the Puresim code is more modern.

I'm not what you'd call a "professional programmer" from most folks standpoint, but I have been programming for the Air Force for the last twenty-one years or so. (smile)

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 2

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/8/2006 5:55:38 AM

Nukester

Posts: 472
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Newburgh, NY
Status: offline

I play entirely historical leagues also, but mine are always of the "what-if" scenario, so being spot on with regards to the ratings doesnt matter much to me. I use the 1-10 scale only because if I see a guy with, say a 62 contact and another with a 69 contact, Im going with the 69 contact guy (all other things being equal of course). If both guys are a 6, Im going to have to think about it a bit more, look at past stats, minor league stats, ect, in order to decide which one to use.

(in reply to Woodruff)

Post #: 3

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/8/2006 6:01:12 AM

PadresFan104

Posts: 1223
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

What nukester said.

(in reply to Nukester)

Post #: 4

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/8/2006 6:06:19 AM

Abev

Posts: 228
Joined: 8/11/2005
Status: offline

What Padres said, what nukester said, what kg erwin said

(in reply to PadresFan104)

Post #: 5

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/8/2006 8:28:58 PM

Woodruff

Posts: 176
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline

Nukester...what you say is true for the initial draft and amateur drafts. But anytime I'm trading or looking at free agency, I'm certainly looking past the ratings and looking at the statistics.

The ratings really only apply as a "first look" kind of thing.

(in reply to Abev)

Post #: 6

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/8/2006 9:42:51 PM

Nukester

Posts: 472
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Newburgh, NY
Status: offline

Even starting lineups are too "precise" to me with the larger scale. I think it keeps me in check a bit. If I see a guy with a 75 contact and a guy with a 66 contact, but the guy with a 66 contact is hitting .315 and the other guy is hitting .275, I would still end up playing the guy with the 75 contact, because, even though it hasnt played out that way in the season, I know that the engine is set so that the percentage of times he "should" get a hit are higher than the lower contact guy.

Again, I know there are many more variable involved than just contact and power, and Im not trying to preach 1-10 scales or anything like that. Just having a discussion.

< Message edited by Nukester -- 8/8/2006 10:54:26 PM >

(in reply to Woodruff)

Post #: 7

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/8/2006 11:20:52 PM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

From my perspective, trying to remember this guy has 72 CH and 38 EYE is too much. It overcomplicates my personal analysis of him.

I am not saying there is a right/wrong scale to use. This is just my reason for not using 1-100. However, when I go into analyzing trades in the near future, I will switch it to 1-100 to get a more accurate picture of the player.

For me, using 1-10 is as close as I can get to that once-used awesome concept of 'scouts'. PSBB Scouts, may you R.I.P.

(in reply to Nukester)

Post #: 8

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 12:08:29 AM

scott32671

Posts: 30
Joined: 7/18/2006
Status: offline

Okay, here is a question that has been probably already answered in another thread, but i'll ask it anyway

After a season has already begun, can you go in and reset the values from the 1-10 scale to the 1-100 or not

i really think the 1-100 is best for determining the players total value and productibility. I may be wrong, but i too have been struggling with finding consistancy with determining two mirror players with a CH of 7 getting schooled offensively by a couple players with a 5-6!

just wandering. thanks to anyone with the feedback!

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 9

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 12:39:54 AM

DandricSturm

Posts: 492
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline

Yes you can under options and utilities.

While we are on the topic I wonder how the concept got started (and I know it goes back to the very first thread on this subject and I've been itching all the while to point this out) that 1-100 is MORE granular when actually it is LESS granular. A picture made of 100 pixels would be far more grainy than one made with 1,000,000 pixels.

< Message edited by DandricSturm -- 8/9/2006 12:44:23 AM >

_____________________________

"The Guns, Thank God, The Guns..." - Rudyard Kipling
http://www.bluemax-ara-assoc.com/

(in reply to scott32671)

Post #: 10

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 12:45:49 AM

sposfan

Posts: 212
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

scott,

you can change the rating system at any time you want even during a season. Simply go to the options and utilties from the home screen, click on the association settings tab and about 3/4 of the way down on the right hand side is a pulldown menu for rating system.

(in reply to scott32671)

Post #: 11

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 12:54:53 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

Dandric - right. I guess the usage of the words was just backwards, but most of us got the message as I think it was intended. Lord knows I've used a word or a thousand inverse of its true definition.

(in reply to sposfan)

Post #: 12

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 12:58:40 AM

DandricSturm

Posts: 492
Joined: 8/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck

Dandric - right.� I guess the usage of the words was just backwards, but most of us got the message as I think it was intended.� Lord knows I've used a word or a thousand inverse of its true definition.

Yeah we all understood it, it just irritated me but not enough to post about it until I was posting something in the thread anyway.

_____________________________

"The Guns, Thank God, The Guns..." - Rudyard Kipling
http://www.bluemax-ara-assoc.com/

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 13

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 2:19:10 AM

Woodruff

Posts: 176
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline

Yes, I understand you're not "preaching" Nukester, and I didn't take it that way.

But even starting lineups...I use the ratings for the first week of the season or so. After that, I use the statistics almost entirely. Don't even review the ratings before sending a guy down to the minors and the only reason I look at the ratings before bringing a guy up to the majors is because I want to make sure they're not a super-scrub wasteoid.

Oh, and I do a check of ratings if I'm looking at trade offers, but even then I give more strength to the statistics than I do the ratings.

I prefer the 1-100 scale not because I use it more often, but because when I do use it, I want to have a better "picture" of what I'm looking at.

(in reply to DandricSturm)

Post #: 14

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 2:49:34 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

I think a second-thinking on statistics is in order.

Reason being, I have watched my 1966 Frank Robinson go with seasonal BA's in the .220's twice (out of, oh, I don't know how many replays - many many). So if a Triple Crown winner can tank, you better believe just about everyone else can. So stats only will take ya but so far. Case in point - what's his face on the Yankees who was supposed to be the second coming of Gehrig. Big white dude, bac k in the early 90's, oh yeah - Kevin Maas, I think it was...

*spe-lunk!*

So ratings are a vital indicator of why you want to stick with a guy if they are good, even though he might have a crap season. It happens. If it continues to happen, adios.

(in reply to Woodruff)

Post #: 15

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 7:09:46 PM

scott32671

Posts: 30
Joined: 7/18/2006
Status: offline

here is what i noticed when i changed the rating to 1-100. i had a couple scrubbs i had brough up from AAA that had CH of 7-8, and when i went to the 1-100, their contact was 50-60, which in my opinon is a HUGE difference, and that makes me mad

It just shows how much the rating are skewed from one format to another, and how it would instill different ways to determine player production other than just a 1-10 or 1-100 rating. Just my opion

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 16

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 7:31:07 PM

verizon32

Posts: 168
Joined: 5/23/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scott32671

here is what i noticed when i changed the rating to 1-100. i had a couple scrubbs i had brough up from AAA that had CH of 7-8, and when i went to the 1-100, their contact was 50-60, which in my opinon is a HUGE difference, and that makes me mad It just shows how much the rating are skewed from one format to another, and how it would instill different ways to determine player production other than just a 1-10 or 1-100 rating. Just my opion

wow

Thats kind of odd to see that.

IF CH rating was 7-8 on a 1-10 scale, then it should be 70-80 on a 1-100 scale right?

(in reply to scott32671)

Post #: 17

RE: Ratings Scales - 8/9/2006 10:46:50 PM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

Nope, I think if it is 7 (as an example), it should be anywhere between 65-74, or 66-75 (depending on the break pattern).

Scott, what exactly were to percentages? You gave us basically a 10 scale rating (in a sense of ambiguity) by saying they were 50-60. What was the number?

(in reply to verizon32)

Post #: 18