Ratings Scales

Ratings Scales (Full Version)

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

Message

KG Erwin -> Ratings Scales (8/8/2006 3:06:37 AM)
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.

Woodruff -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/8/2006 5:50:14 AM)
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)

Nukester -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/8/2006 5:55:38 AM)
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.

PadresFan104 -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/8/2006 6:01:12 AM)
What nukester said.

Abev -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/8/2006 6:06:19 AM)
What Padres said, what nukester said, what kg erwin said[8D]

Woodruff -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/8/2006 8:28:58 PM)
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.

Nukester -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/8/2006 9:42:51 PM)
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.

SittingDuck -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/8/2006 11:20:52 PM)
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.

scott32671 -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 12:08:29 AM)
Okay, here is a question that has been probably already answered in another thread, but i'll ask it anyway[8\|] 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![&o]

DandricSturm -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 12:39:54 AM)
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.

sposfan -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 12:45:49 AM)
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.

SittingDuck -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 12:54:53 AM)
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.

DandricSturm -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 12:58:40 AM)
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.

Woodruff -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 2:19:10 AM)
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.

SittingDuck -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 2:49:34 AM)
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.

scott32671 -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 7:09:46 PM)
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[:)]

verizon32 -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 7:31:07 PM)
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?

SittingDuck -> RE: Ratings Scales (8/9/2006 10:46:50 PM)
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?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.671875