Player rating mechanism

[Tarheels153369]

Re: Player rating mechanism

Were scouts wrong on Arrieta or did he develop/learn something to turn him into what he's become?

Given the information at the time, scouts could have been right, just like they could see him making improvements.

That sounds like a interaction between scouting, development, and an "overachiever" that turns out to be a whole new level of ability. Not just "well I don't think he's a stud" but he really is.

Since performance helps inform development in the game now, a player that consistently overperforms his ratings (and yes, that IS possible), then he could have the chance for a rapid growth (to simulate the player got good coaching, something "just clicked", etc. things that can't really be scouted). It's not something you can count on, which allows for the surprise factor (in either direction).

True, Arrieta isn't exactly the best example. But the point being that no matter how long a guy plays I don't think the ratings, or scouting report, should be exactly 100% correct. Because what's great about baseball is the unpredictability.

[nomo17k]

Re: Player rating mechanism

One minor issue I have with the Show (and many sports games) is the way that player ratings are visually displayed.

I understand that players need to have ratings to determine outcomes within the game; however, as a player and GM in franchise mode I don’t always like being able to see the exact number rating for each attribute because it seems unrealistic for a coach to know the player X has 89 Con v L vs player Y who has 85 Con v L.

As it is now when deciding things like line-ups or pinch hitting the main thing that it really comes down to is what the exact number of the relevant attribute is. You can argue that you hit better with a one player’s batting stance than another or that one is on a hot streak (though I’m not sure how much of an affect that actually has), but essentially if player X has better ratings numbers then he has a higher probability of succeeding than player Y. This doesn’t seem very realistic and takes away some of the weight/risk of the decisions that one might have to make in real life.

I get that you don’t have to look at the ratings numbers, but they are hard to avoid and while I do like the radial graph it makes the ratings even harder to avoid. I feel like there is an opportunity to include an option similar to NBA 2k where you can toggle between rating numbers and letter grades for attributes.

It seems that just being able to see the letter grades may make things more interesting as you wouldn’t ever know if player X’s B+ rating is better than player Y’s B+. This would seem to add realism in line-up and roster management, trades, free agency, etc.

There would be some issues around the fact that there still may not be a wide enough range for each grade (a B+ may only cover 3 numbers) and the fact that an F rating would have too wide of a range. But there seems to be an opportunity for some mechanism like letter grading that takes out the certainty of exact number grades and adds some realism to franchise mode and decision making in general. I want the opportunity to make the wrong decision!

Again this isn’t a huge issue, seeing player ratings isn’t a game breaker or anything, but I think having the option to toggle between specific ratings and more vague ratings would really add to the overall experience and replicate some of the challenges that a coach or GM might face.

I do not have any experience coaching and don't have as much knowledge on how player evaluations and scouting works as others like do, so I would like to hear if other people think a mechanism like this would be a good feature.

I agree exposing "true" player attributes used by the game to directly influence outcomes (probabilistic or not) is one of the biggest oversights that the sports games keep making to cheapen simulation experience...

It basically makes playing a franchise-type game mode akin to playing with guess pitch with all pitches being guessed correctly, because you don't even have to guess it right since the game is handing out the answer to you... surely one major reason why I haven't really enjoyed franchise mode in The Show.

I would like to see MLB scouts for each team. The scouts would then give a rating to each player based on the scouts attributes. Even the best scout could be off on the ratings.

The Yankees scout may see Machado as a 95 while the Braves scout sees him as a 98. The actual "real" rating may be a 96.

This would make having a good mlb scout important in determining talent on your team and others. Obviously the better the scout the more expensive they would be.

There should always be some error built in and this would reflect somewhat hidden attributes and ratings.

If The Show's franchise type mode ever gets closer to provide more realistic representation of how people in general evaluate player values, I think player ability viewed through some type of beer goggles needs to happen, and doing that through subjective scouts I agree is the most reasonable approach...

[findinghomer]

Re: Player rating mechanism

i hated the old style (the show 08-09) with no ratings, only bar charts. however i do get what you are saying. i wish they would just go to a potential only ratings. then as they progress through their career you determine when and if they reach those numbers based on performance.

[Grinder12000]

Re: Player rating mechanism

I wasn't aware there was variance in how a players attributes play out. How does that work?

I think that it means that given the random nature of things if a player had 4000 ABs with 96 PWR would hit more the a 92 PWR but with only 500 ABs the variance can be a bitch.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Player rating mechanism

I think that it means that given the random nature of things if a player had 4000 ABs with 96 PWR would hit more the a 92 PWR but with only 500 ABs the variance can be a bitch.

In so many words, yes. In played games, you see a similar phenomenon where some gamers do worse with higher-rated players for whatever reasons. My view is that the ratings are not as deterministic as they're often made out to be by people who want more fog of war. This is coming from someone who runs sims for fun and someone who finds some players "more comfortable" to play with no matter the ratings.

Now we can argue the semantics of what it means to "know" a true rating or not, and whether that's teleologically "good" or "bad", but functionally-speaking, you don't know what any given player is going to do in a particular AB/game/week or simmed season. Certainly, ratings allow you to play the probabilities, but there's always going to be a crutch like that (scouting reports, past stats, etc..). Ratings just happen to be the most convenient for casual fans and the most widespread.

[KBLover]

Re: Player rating mechanism

Certainly, ratings allow you to play the probabilities, but there's always going to be a crutch like that (scouting reports, past stats, etc..). Ratings just happen to be the most convenient for casual fans and the most widespread.

And do we even know what those probabilities are? Can we figure them out? If not, far as we know, the differences might not be huge in a lot of cases.

What's the chance of a 90 contact getting a hit vs a 75 H/9 pitcher? Even if there's a "base chance", a lot of other inputs go into that in played games, and in sim games...random is as random does.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Player rating mechanism

And do we even know what those probabilities are? Can we figure them out? If not, far as we know, the differences might not be huge in a lot of cases.

What's the chance of a 90 contact getting a hit vs a 75 H/9 pitcher? Even if there's a "base chance", a lot of other inputs go into that in played games, and in sim games...random is as random does.

Yep. Figuring out the probabilities would take a ton of testing, data collection, and statistical analysis. But who buys the game for that? lol. At that point, just go get a Stats major.

[Tarheels153369]

Re: Player rating mechanism

And do we even know what those probabilities are? Can we figure them out? If not, far as we know, the differences might not be huge in a lot of cases.

What's the chance of a 90 contact getting a hit vs a 75 H/9 pitcher? Even if there's a "base chance", a lot of other inputs go into that in played games, and in sim games...random is as random does.

Correct, the randomness and the probabilities mean there is never a foregone conclusion no matter the ratings. However, one would figure that a 90 contact would have a better chance in those probabilities than an 80 contact, thus removing a decision making element from the game because it is obvious to choose the player who you 'know' has a higher probability. That is not a luxury that exists in real life.

And of course there are several other factors that indicate outcome such as vision, discipline, power, etc. But still we are able to see the exact numbers and compare them to another player with absolute accuracy.

I'm not talking about how the ratings work in game. As I said in the op I realise that ratings need to be there in the background to determine the probabilities and outcomes. And overall I think that works well. The issue is the fact that we can see those ratings and have, what seems to me, way too much insight and knowledge on player X vs player Y.

[KBLover]

Re: Player rating mechanism

That is not a luxury that exists in real life.

Like WTNY said - scouting reports, past performances, etc, give us the same thing.

If Bryce Harper has the day off, but a PH opportunity comes up for the Nats where he can face a RHP instead of, say, Matt den Dekker, you don't think the Nats "know" Harper has a higher chance to come through?

What are the probabilities there? You have to figure Harper's is higher, right? Or even Werth's or Ben Revere's would be higher?

Those other factors change things also. Is 90 contact with low vision and discipline better than 70 contact but 90 vision and discipline? 90 contact might have a higher BABIP, but less likely to put the ball in play. 70 contact might not be as high BABIP but rarely strikes out. Maybe that let's you try a hit and run, etc.

Which one is the 100% definitive better choice?

That's like asking if a .330 BABIP but 24% K rate is better than a .290 BABIP but a 12% K rate in real life. Which is more likely to come through? Do we "know"?

Ultimately, it will come down to what you value. Maybe you go with the high BABIP guy and "hope" he doesn't strike out against a K-machine reliever. Maybe you rather go with the pure contact hitter and put a play on.

I don't think the scenarios are all that different. I mean, how much "mystery" is there to what a lot of veteran players can do, given the "book" on these guys and their past performances? The "mystery" is in projecting their futures more than where they are now - which leads more into progression/decline as much as to what the UI shows for ratings/abilities.

As far as the ratings - they do work well and, to me, create that same uncertainty especially when taken together to create the picture of the whole player.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Player rating mechanism

Bravo, KBLover.

I mean we can basically agree that there are 2 main camps here. Those that feel like looking at ratings is cheating and there needs to be more fog or war in the UI. And there are those of us that feel the variance/probability that accompanies various combinations of ratings is enough to muddy the "true" ratings sufficiently.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue (especially Nomo and I who went round and round a few months back), but I think we can all agree that adding more depth to the players is ultimately a good thing if designed well and if it doesn't become a resource hog in the dev cycle.

[Tarheels153369]

Re: Player rating mechanism

Bravo, KBLover.

I mean we can basically agree that there are 2 main camps here. Those that feel like looking at ratings is cheating and there needs to be more fog or war in the UI. And there are those of us that feel the variance/probability that accompanies various combinations of ratings is enough to muddy the "true" ratings sufficiently.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue (especially Nomo and I who went round and round a few months back), but I think we can all agree that adding more depth to the players is ultimately a good thing if designed well and if it doesn't become a resource hog in the dev cycle.

Yes, I think there is a bit of an agree to disagree element here. A more in depth and detailed player rating/evaluation system would be a welcomed addition to any sports game, but as you say if that gets implemented then something else is getting left out of the dev cycle so it is a bit hard for us to really comment on without knowing the ins and outs. However, I do think a relatively simple thing to do would be to add the “fog of war” element to the ratings just so they are no so accurate. This could be an option to turn on or off if people didn’t like it.

I agree with you to a degree KBLover as several factors go into determining outcomes and they are still unpredictable, but to me it seems that you may be giving the game a bit too much credit in how outcomes play out, because it is still a game. For example right now the Yankees and red sox are going to have some interesting questions to answer about their starting rotations. Should Severino get benched? Should Bucholz get benched once Kelly and E-rod come back? In the game those decisions are made a bit easier because you can look at the exact ratings and on balance say player X has a better chance to succeed. Whether or not you value K/9 or BB/9 or HR/9 or whatever more than something else, when simming Severino has a better chance the Nova to succeed and that is fairly easy to determine. If there was some fog of war element added I think it would add another layer of depth to the decision making process.

As it is now you may pick Severino over Nova and Severino may fail, where as if you repeat the game but play Nova he could succeed. So there is still a ton of randomness/unpredictability that can lead to you making a good or bad decision. But, for all intents and purposes, because you can see the ratings you know you made the right choice going with Severino even if it doesn’t lead to the right outcome (if that makes sense…)

[KBLover]

Re: Player rating mechanism

I agree with you to a degree KBLover as several factors go into determining outcomes and they are still unpredictable, but to me it seems that you may be giving the game a bit too much credit in how outcomes play out,

Not really. I only have the experiences I have with my franchises and the choices I've made over the seasons, especially my Marlins that's in year 7.

In the game those decisions are made a bit easier because you can look at the exact ratings and on balance say player X has a better chance to succeed. Whether or not you value K/9 or BB/9 or HR/9 or whatever more than something else, when simming Severino has a better chance the Nova to succeed and that is fairly easy to determine.

That depends on my team.

I haven't used the Yankees, but I know with my Marlins franchise (in 2021), I have a team full of strong defenders. So I want pitchers that can do better in H/9 (induce easier to field contact) over K/9. I'll get more efficiency out the pitcher, which could mean more innings.

I wouldn't want a pitcher with 50 H/9 and 90 K/9 vs 90 H/9 and 50 K/9. Do those two have the same likelihood of success? To me, no, because of the rest of my team. The first guy could very well be a 10 H's + 10 K's type, lots of pitches, those hits could bunch up, etc. Meanwhile the second guy plays right into my defense.

In fact, I have a pitcher that's 95 H/9 and 32 K/9. I'm playing him over pitchers with more "rounded" ratings and higher numbers on balance, as you say. So why do I go with him? Because he can get 4 or 5 pitch outs, get a CG in 90 pitches if he's on, and induce poor contact into my good fielders for a good team synergy.

So I'm not just picking the guy with the higher ratings. In fact, I've shifted 3 of my SP to being more "finesse", trading or letting go higher-rated players in the process. My staff is doing better by far as a result. More IP, easier work for the RP, etc.

Now with the fantasy draft Rockies franchise - that defense is...not as good. Huff would get KILLED with that defense (as Severino is, ironically), plus Coors would dampen his ability to lessen contact strength. So going with a power guy who gets Ks even though he's not as good (according to the sum of his ratings) as Huff would make more sense.

But, for all intents and purposes, because you can see the ratings you know you made the right choice going with Severino even if it doesn’t lead to the right outcome (if that makes sense…)

It's the right choice only if it makes sense in relation to the rest of my team and team environment (stadium, league environment, etc - believe me, my Marlins franchise plays FAR different than the new MLB16 franchises I have). If Nova would have worked better given the rest of my squad, then did I make the right choice simply because I picked the guy with the higher numbers?

To use my example above, if I simply went with a guy that had lower H/9 so he gives up harder contact but the sum of his 4 per-9 ratings is higher, did I make the wrong choice to choose Huff (the finesse guy above) instead even though he's meshing well with my team composition, which is allowing the team as a whole to be more successful?

[Tarheels153369]

Re: Player rating mechanism

In fact, I have a pitcher that's 95 H/9 and 32 K/9. I'm playing him over pitchers with more "rounded" ratings and higher numbers on balance, as you say. So why do I go with him? Because he can get 4 or 5 pitch outs, get a CG in 90 pitches if he's on, and induce poor contact into my good fielders for a good team synergy.

So I'm not just picking the guy with the higher ratings. In fact, I've shifted 3 of my SP to being more "finesse", trading or letting go higher-rated players in the process. My staff is doing better by far as a result. More IP, easier work for the RP, etc.

Is this simming or playing?

Also, while that is a good point that on balance a player may be worse but has different skill sets and therefore may succeed better with a certain team, the fact that you can sort through and find a pitcher with a high K/9 or H/9 or whatever you want and target them supports the argument for a more 'fog of war' element.

I do not rely too heavily on overalls and look at individual ratings and it sounds like you have a pretty good idea (more so than me) of how you would like to build a team and what attributes you value. Do you think it is a bit unrealistic and removes some of the challenge to be able to say 'I want a guy who pitches to contact and induces easy ground balls for my high level defense to field' and then be able to go sort by the exact rating that you are looking for and find the exact guy to suit your needs?

[jamezkoe]

Re: Player rating mechanism

I personally wish they took notes from OOTP baseball and introduce a stat similar to gap power.

[scooterperpetual]

Re: Player rating mechanism

I may be in the minority but I use stats after like a month into the season for my lineups. Same for callups, I called up a 63 overall over a 70 overall because they were doing better (And I didnt want to risk the 70 regressing due to not being ready).

I pretty much do the same thing to a lesser extent that I do in OOTP, i look at their stats and just use attributes as maybe extra information if I am torn between two players.