-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
WBL Rule Change Thread
- Thread starter OU11
- Start date
Schauwn
Well-Known Member
I think @Karl Hungus brought it up, but I thought it would be an interesting discussion at least.
Changing from Starzz to 20-80 for overall ratings on players?
Changing from Starzz to 20-80 for overall ratings on players?
The stars aren't overall ratings for players. Neither would the 20-80. That part is only for their position.
Schauwn
Well-Known Member
Isn't it their overall rating compared with other players at that position?
Yeah, so it isn't their actual overall.
Like if Zwagger is the best SS, he'd be a 5* there. In reality he's probably a 3.5*-4* overall.
Schauwn
Well-Known Member
Even better, uber accuracy!
Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
Against.
Schauwn
Well-Known Member
Are you sure on this? The OOTP manual says that 20-80 is in increments of 5.
Lloyd Carr
Well-Known Member
Can we have an overall rating that is independent of playing position?
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Why? The pure ratings (contact, gap, power, etc.) are independent of playing position. Who cares about stars? They're virtually meaningless.
Lloyd Carr
Well-Known Member
If you want all the stars to go down sure.
Lloyd Carr
Well-Known Member
I'm okay with that.
The 20-80 scale is only by 1s, not 5s.
I've done that before and it is an eye opener for sure. You never know how good your guys are in that system though which most people don't like
I've done that before and it is an eye opener for sure. You never know how good your guys are in that system though which most people don't like
Schauwn
Well-Known Member
Interesting...the OOTP site says differently.
"quote"
You can change rating scales at any time during a game without adversely affecting your league. Changing scales doesn't actually affect your players' skills, just how they are represented numerically. OOTP supports any of the following ratings scales:
NONE displayed - This will prevent ratings from displaying. Even if ratings are not displayed, however, they still exist and are used by the computer in decision-making. They are simply not visible to the human player.
1 to 5
2 to 8
1 to 10
1 to 20
20 to 80 (in increments of 5)
1 to 100
"quote"
You can change rating scales at any time during a game without adversely affecting your league. Changing scales doesn't actually affect your players' skills, just how they are represented numerically. OOTP supports any of the following ratings scales:
NONE displayed - This will prevent ratings from displaying. Even if ratings are not displayed, however, they still exist and are used by the computer in decision-making. They are simply not visible to the human player.
1 to 5
2 to 8
1 to 10
1 to 20
20 to 80 (in increments of 5)
1 to 100
I don't think the star ratings even make sense, honestly. Look up ur players positional ratings and then look at their star ratings, which are supposed to be based on a comparison with other players in the league?
So Rough Ridha is rated as the 12th best 1B in the league and is given a value of 1.5 star.
Clement Launay is rated as the 13th best SS in the league and is given a value of 3.5 star.
I think the STARZ are a ham-fisted combination of an overall rating and a comparison to other players in the league at the position and it ends up being useful for neither, and therefore has zero informational value. I recommend everyone Come up with their own BTT rating.
So Rough Ridha is rated as the 12th best 1B in the league and is given a value of 1.5 star.
Clement Launay is rated as the 13th best SS in the league and is given a value of 3.5 star.
I think the STARZ are a ham-fisted combination of an overall rating and a comparison to other players in the league at the position and it ends up being useful for neither, and therefore has zero informational value. I recommend everyone Come up with their own BTT rating.
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
Yeah and even vs. their own positions they make no sense. For instance: Cliff Jackson is 2.5* SP with good ratings, stamina and three good pitches. His WBL ERAs are 2.53, 2.79, 3.28 and 3.37. I have no idea who he's not 3.5-4* SP. Maybe because he lacks a fourth pitch?
It's just an example of how StARrRzZ sometimes don't make any sense.
Think about it, it'll come to you. Very easy to see why that's the case.
It's just at the level you're at, including backups. There are tons of good 1B, so naturally the worst starter will be a lower star in comparison to a guy like Carrier. Zwagger or Noda are probably the best SS which isn't saying much. They're alright but compared to other positions they aren't anything special. So the 13th starter is probably closer to those guys than the 13th 1B is with Carrier. It also matters that most backup 1B are closer to the worst starter than the backup SS are.
I don't agree with ur take. If you are saying the SS position is worse overall, then why is my 13th rated dude a 3.5 star "overall." If you are saying that the top 12 SSs in an 18 team league are all rated at least 3.5 "stars" overall? Wouldn't that mean the SS position is actually deeper overall than the 1st base position? Are you saying that the top guy at the position in the league is automatically "5 stars" and everyone else at the position gets their "overall starzz" relative to that single player? If so, the rating is even more worthless than I thought.
To me, the "overall" rating is a ham-fisted juxtaposition of BOTH the player's overall baseball skillset and then also a comparison to the other players that player's position. This explains why Clement Launay, who is an extremely well rounded baseball player and can play multiple positions, gets a "3.5 stars overall" despite being only the "13th best shortstop" in the league. He's a better overall player than most of the SSs in the league, but he's also not even an average shortstop (those position ratings probably In the end it is useless because it tells me neither how complete the player is as a baseball player or how he compares to other players at his position in the league.
To me, the "overall" rating is a ham-fisted juxtaposition of BOTH the player's overall baseball skillset and then also a comparison to the other players that player's position. This explains why Clement Launay, who is an extremely well rounded baseball player and can play multiple positions, gets a "3.5 stars overall" despite being only the "13th best shortstop" in the league. He's a better overall player than most of the SSs in the league, but he's also not even an average shortstop (those position ratings probably In the end it is useless because it tells me neither how complete the player is as a baseball player or how he compares to other players at his position in the league.
Last edited:
No it just means there are a lot more in the middle. Also those top starter lists arent the best gauge for who is better.
If the SS position has a really shitty backup and an average #1 there are going to be a lot more in the middle star wise.
1B is dumb because theyre all decent and the best player in the game plays 1B. There are also no backups for 1B widening the star range. If there are backups there are very few
Meant best field player. But that creates a very very high 5*. Given there arent many backups the worst 1B starter is closer to the 1* than the worst SS.
It gave me trouble for a while too.
Even if the 1B is a much better player overall taking position out
Think of it like this. You have a decent top guy like zwagger. That means the 5 star or 80 level is less than other positions where guys like carrier roam. So a guy who would be a 40 at first is a 65 at SS overall. SS has tons of below average backups because you need backups there and there arent a lot of good ones to go around. That means the low is lower than first where there arent many backups and the only reason guys play first is their bat is good enough they need to play and cant play anywhere else. Thus the 13th ss is a 3.5* and the 13th 1B is a 1.5*
If i changed it to do the stars based on everyone those would probably flip. Really the ss would probably be a half star
If i changed it to do the stars based on everyone those would probably flip. Really the ss would probably be a half star
To me it exactly like the "football manager" CURRENT ABILITY rating, which I did a lot of research into. It was a mysterious weighted combination of individual ratings, with the weights and ratings used in the calculation differing by position, then those ratings are made relative to other players at that position at your specific level. In the end because it is a combination of objective and comparative ratings, it becomes useless as a predictor of anything. I don't know what the rating is based on, so how do I know if it is overvaluing shit I don't care about? What if part of the catcher's overall rating is based running speed without you knowing it?
As such, I disregard it completely and suggest others do the same before I continue using it to trick you into trading me starting pitchers for failed starting pitchers by switching their position to reliever and watching them suddenly show up as "4 STARRRRZ" even though their mundane ratings never actually changed at all. This change is therefore based on two factors: 1) the quality level of the other players at that position in the league and 2)the change in calculation methodology used to compare them.
My patented BTT rating system involves 3 primary ratings for each field player and then a single combined rating that takes those three into account while also adding other factors based on versatility, statistical analysis of the player's career, and the intangibles.
3 primary ratings
Weighted Batter Rating
Weighted Primary Position Specific Fielder Rating
Weighted Base Runner Rating
+intangibles modifier, statistical analysis modifier, versatility modifier
= ONE RATING TO RULE THEM ALL
For $29.99 you too can have access to the proven BTT system that has helped the riggers to a 1-6 record.
As such, I disregard it completely and suggest others do the same before I continue using it to trick you into trading me starting pitchers for failed starting pitchers by switching their position to reliever and watching them suddenly show up as "4 STARRRRZ" even though their mundane ratings never actually changed at all. This change is therefore based on two factors: 1) the quality level of the other players at that position in the league and 2)the change in calculation methodology used to compare them.
My patented BTT rating system involves 3 primary ratings for each field player and then a single combined rating that takes those three into account while also adding other factors based on versatility, statistical analysis of the player's career, and the intangibles.
3 primary ratings
Weighted Batter Rating
Weighted Primary Position Specific Fielder Rating
Weighted Base Runner Rating
+intangibles modifier, statistical analysis modifier, versatility modifier
= ONE RATING TO RULE THEM ALL
For $29.99 you too can have access to the proven BTT system that has helped the riggers to a 1-6 record.
The problem with this is that it fundamentally misses the beauty of a 20-80 scale for describing normal distributions. Outliers absolutely fuck rating systems like the one the "Overall Stars" system uses. Therefore it is worthless at describing the player population because it provides no discretion between the thousands of "1 star" players.
The beauty of using a proper 20-80 scale based on a normal distribution and a 50 average, with each 10 points being a full standard deviation away from average, a full 67% of the players in the WBL at each position should be rated between 40 and 60. The 20-80 scale wasn't invented by accident, it was based on the fact that professional sports player populations ARE well described using a normal distribution. The vast majority of players are within one standard deviation of average and the true scrubs and true all stars are rare in the population.
If most of the players in the WBL were rated between 2 and 3 stars overall, with few outliers outside of that and maybe 1-2 guys rated 5 stars, we'd know that the rating system was based on a normal distribution and it would actually have some fucking value. 2-3 star players would make up the vast majority of starters with 2.5 being the average and 2 being 1 standard deviation below and 3 being i standard deviation above. I'd know if I had a 2.5 star guy he was better than 50% of the league. I'd know if I had a 5 star guy he was better than 98%+
Karl Hungus
Here to fix the cable
Just don't look at the stars 
You're right to disregard it, I'm just trying to explain to you the wizardry of the 13th SS being a 3.5* and the 13th 1B being a 1.5*.
If you're not me, it probably doesn't mean much to you. My idea of a great bat is in line with what the OOTP coders do so my guys are always 5*s. However someone like gooksta who values a completely different bat may have less 5*s because of what strategy he is employing.
The stars are meaningless, it just takes the overall bat score for a player and the defense score and creates a baseline for the player. Then compares that on a spectrum from the worst at his position to the best. The ranges can widen or narrow depending on depth or high/low. Plus if a guy is an 80 defense that will bump his score quite a bit.
If you're not me, it probably doesn't mean much to you. My idea of a great bat is in line with what the OOTP coders do so my guys are always 5*s. However someone like gooksta who values a completely different bat may have less 5*s because of what strategy he is employing.
The stars are meaningless, it just takes the overall bat score for a player and the defense score and creates a baseline for the player. Then compares that on a spectrum from the worst at his position to the best. The ranges can widen or narrow depending on depth or high/low. Plus if a guy is an 80 defense that will bump his score quite a bit.
Okay, go look at every SS in the WBL and chart them and see if it is wrong. It very well could be, but all it is for is to say 2.5* is the average talent at the position. The talent pool is every player in the WBL listed as a SS.
You can't have outliers in a talent pool like this, so yeah the 20-80 is a little fucked because of that. Sorry it messes with your engineer brain but I'm just explaining to the best of my knowledge how it works. If you can figure it out further I'd love to hear it because it's been like 3 years and I'm still just educated guessing.
I can tell you right now it is wrong without even looking because the vast majority of players in the league are rated between 1 and 2 stars. That's not a normal distribution. Since it isn't a normal distribution it is a worthless rating because it is arbitrary. Changing it to 20-80 scale wouldn't matter because it is based on some arbitrary ranking system that I clearly don't' understand.
FWIW I think the actual 20-80 scale player ratings generally ARE based on a normal distribution. because the VAST majority of player ratings and player potential ratings fall between 40-60. It might not be perfect, but at least it looks like something I can comprehend. I think some ratings the "average" for the population is more like 55, but I can adjust that in my head as long as the vast majority of players fall between 45 and 65.
Last edited:
What I'm proposing is that OOTP takes the overall score from the top player at a position and the bottom player, and then fills in the others where they fit on that scale.
I'm almost positive that is what the stars are based off of, and no it won't have the usual distributions because it isn't a bell curved scale.
I'm almost positive that is what the stars are based off of, and no it won't have the usual distributions because it isn't a bell curved scale.
Just don't look at the stars
This is what I'm sayin. Don't look at the stars, pay $29.99 for the BTT rating system
