Lloyd Carr
Well-Known Member
The only issue with changing the way stars are handled, is it may make evaluation of players more straight forward. Which could be a disadvantage for people like Gooksta who have spreadsheets.
It's still the AI though, which isnt absoluteThe only issue with changing the way stars are handled, is it may make evaluation of players more straight forward. Which could be a disadvantage for people like Gooksta who have spreadsheets.
I think people should stop looking at the starz.. but I like the stars over the numbers visually. LolSee, I think most people can agree with this. Which makes me question why we should maintain the status quo for what the stars represent.
There's a reason we say STARRRRZZZ. I think we should do something to make the stars more relevant.
It's still the AI though, which isnt absolute
I think people should stop looking at the starz.. but I like the stars over the numbers visually. Lol
It won't that much.. most people are pretty good at judging talent.. my spreadsheet is really just to try and find productive well rounded players in later rounds of the draft..and make sure I don't miss any decent prospects that I would typically overlook.I'll just say this.. if a player has high defensive and base running ratings.. his hit ratings don't have to be as high to be of equal or greater value of a decent offensive player with bad defensive or base running ratings.. it's a give and take
Oh it would. People would still value what they value and prospects would be graded more harshly in those early years that they dont produce. I'll check it out and see what happens with someone like my rookie OF who is a beast prospect but is playing shittyTo me it's a skill ceiling thing to me, I don't want a league where I can just look at a player and see he's 70 potential or 4.5 potential (like actually 4.5 potential now how it is now) without thinking, If a players overall rating (stars/numbers) is tied to his WAR then his other ratings don't really matter. The way it is now forces you to do some work to determine which of those 1.5/2.5 star guys are actually good. I don't really care for the fact that shortstops get like 4 stars automatically due to their position but it's not like we don't see it coming or anything.
I just see a 100% accurate stars/numbers system(in terms of no positional bias yadda yadda) as disrupting the trade market (You want to trade me a 40 overall for a 60 overall? Get lost) whereas as of right now different things are valued by different managers and it creates more unique ways of building teams
That being said all those settings do is change presentation, the players themselves are still the same at their cores, so perhaps differentation would remain.
I think that depends on the position as wellStarz are based off physical ability.. I think baserunning ability is a small part of the equation also
It doesI think that depends on the position as well
See, I think those are the metrics that make the most sense for evaluating how to rate a guy. Stars make the most sense (to me at least) as an evaluation of a players overall abilities as a baseball player. You've got their ratings and stats, and the stars indicate how good of a player they are when all of that is meshed into a general observable evaluation of a player's merits.
Example:
Darrach and Dani have the same ratings (well, close enough), but their star situation is a lot different. And that bugs me, because Dani is rated higher (star wise), even though he's not playng (nor has be ever played) better than Darrach.
I think the metrics in your post are a more accurate style for what to use when evaluating the overall skill of a player. And when I think of stars, the overall skill of a player is what I envision those stars represent.
I bet if you used those metrics in that post, Darrach would have more stars than Dani. Or at least it would make more sense to me for Darrach to have more stars. Maybe Dani has more potential stars because he's younger and the scouts think he has more long term potential? But overall, it doesn't make sense for Dani to be higher (in stars) than Darrach.
I'm curious if changing those metrics would support that or not.
I do too, and using some stats mixed with ratings would make them more usable than they currently areI hate change. Go back to how they were!
Seriously though, I'd prefer the overall to be compared against others in the same position not everyone.
Also I would probably put the least weight on the current year and higher on the last two years and probably equal weights on those.
This will slow-change how prospects develop too btw..
Would 40/20/25/15 be good? Two years ago is just a long time ago to put more weight into than the current year. Guys can fall off a cliff in a year which would make their overall skewed
Ok. Never mind thanIt will change nothing about how prospects will develop btw.
I think those evaluations are little more accurate than what we're currently using.
As far as the weights go, I'd probably change the weights a little bit. Probably lower current year and raise previous year.
Maybe something closer to: 35, 30, 25, 10 (obviously I'm just spitballing)
See, I think those are the metrics that make the most sense for evaluating how to rate a guy. Stars make the most sense (to me at least) as an evaluation of a players overall abilities as a baseball player. You've got their ratings and stats, and the stars indicate how good of a player they are when all of that is meshed into a general observable evaluation of a player's merits.
Example:
Darrach and Dani have the same ratings (well, close enough), but their star situation is a lot different. And that bugs me, because Dani is rated higher (star wise), even though he's not playng (nor has be ever played) better than Darrach.
I think the metrics in your post are a more accurate style for what to use when evaluating the overall skill of a player. And when I think of stars, the overall skill of a player is what I envision those stars represent.
I bet if you used those metrics in that post, Darrach would have more stars than Dani. Or at least it would make more sense to me for Darrach to have more stars. Maybe Dani has more potential stars because he's younger and the scouts think he has more long term potential? But overall, it doesn't make sense for Dani to be higher (in stars) than Darrach.
I'm curious if changing those metrics would support that or not.
Ok. Never mind than
Can you do two different weights for current and potential?
I still think there is a problem with the way the overall ratings are calculated regardless, because they will not end up on a normal distribution as they probably should. Again this is because if you base ratings on a normal distribution then you cannot perform mathematical operations on them as if they were created with a uniform distribution (ie you cannot combine them with other ratings based on a separate normal distribution and then take the average). I would honestly have to see player ratings for the entire population to see how they were distributed before I had any comment on the usefulness of changing any of those settings, because I believe there is a fundamental mathematical error in the OOTP system for all the "overall" calculations.
I'll be using my own rating system anyway and I'll share it with anyone who wants, so I guess I don't really care what system you end up choosing... I'm just saying the underlying mathematical problem of combining normally distributed data is probably there no matter how you distribute the relative weights.
Seriously if you want to get this deep, I'll make you a commissioner so you can mess with the settings. Just don't be a fag and look at the hard coded ratings to cheat.
I'll do so after I've done some more analysis.
DO NOT WANT
Anyway, this might be a better offseason discussion once I've got a data set to work with. I'll offer to help you evaluate different overall rating calcs at the end of the season to see if any of them provide useful information, then I can present the data with graphs and people can vote on how they'd like it displayed (and understand what the ratings mean). I just think the start of the season is probably the wrong time.
I don't get putting much weight at all into the current year. It's such a small sample and the two prior years are a much better indicator.Would 40/20/25/15 be good? Two years ago is just a long time ago to put more weight into than the current year. Guys can fall off a cliff in a year which would make their overall skewed
Current year should be the Heaviest weight imo..what they are now is most important.. contract/trade situationsI don't get putting much weight at all into the current year. It's such a small sample and the two prior years are a much better indicator.
I don't get putting much weight at all into the current year. It's such a small sample and the two prior years are a much better indicator.
I don't get putting much weight at all into the current year. It's such a small sample and the two prior years are a much better indicator.
I must say, hypothetically, that if this was a stealth Jihad mission and @kella put me up to infiltrate and destroy the WBL from the inside, then it is going swimmingly so far
1. Join the league
2. Convince them I'm at 80/80 immersion and have them make me a commissioner
3. ?
4. Destroy the WBL, profit.
You know those numbers change right? Unless you changed something for our league, when I ran player progression sims with a single player MLB save those numbers (both current and potential) changed.Seriously if you want to get this deep, I'll make you a commissioner so you can mess with the settings. Just don't be a fag and look at the hard coded ratings to cheat.
I vote to leave it as is for now because we are already in season and I'll run some experiments to test how the distributions look based on various options and then we can discuss the pros and cons with a more detailed understanding of what each potential option means.
You know those numbers change right? Unless you changed something for our league, when I ran player progression sims with a single player MLB save those numbers (both current and potential) changed.
It just kills someone ratings for being in the midst of a cold streak.So that if a guy is hitting .200 throughout this year (which is all I'm concerned about honestly) he isn't rated a 5* because he hit .330 the previous two. That's just my thinking behind it, two years ago means nothing to me either. A lot can change in two seasons and I'd rather his current overall be based more on current events.