Player rating mechanism

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Tarheels153369
    Rookie
    • Sep 2004
    • 165

    #1

    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.
  • RockPowderDownLoL
    Rookie
    • Nov 2015
    • 219

    #2
    Re: Player rating mechanism

    while i agree for the most part i think ratings are overrated. i use zone plus analog and a players specific stride is essential to how i hit with that specific player. in addition, there height and weight are also important factors, there hot and cold zones are important and i play all my organizations games because i have found that even low ratings players can do well for me if i find good rhtyhm with their stride and they have good hot zones then i might call that guy up even if he is rated 62.

    Comment

    • KBLover
      Hall Of Fame
      • Aug 2009
      • 12172

      #3
      Re: Player rating mechanism

      Perhaps if they extended the 20-80 scale to all players, not just showing the scouting reports on prospects?

      That way it's not even tied so much to the number or number ratings, but the player's ability (rating) relative to the level's average. If ML level average was 65, a guy who had that would get a 50 (average) rating on the 20-80 scale.

      It might be even more informative that way. The letter grades aren't a bad idea - but it's still tied to the actual number in isolation. For example, 73 potential is a "C"...but what if the average potential in AAA is 66? Is 73 still "average"? Or if the average OVR in the majors was 79. That would change things (if Pot = projection, maybe this kid is a "45" - a touch below average).

      20-80 is a scale used in baseball frequently, so there's realism there, too. And the scale could be quite wide (I'd image the 40-60 area would be if nothing else), so there could be more chances to make the less optimal decision or at least we'd need to watch performance more.
      "Some people call it butterflies, but to him, it probably feels like pterodactyls in his stomach." --Plesac in MLB18

      Comment

      • Tarheels153369
        Rookie
        • Sep 2004
        • 165

        #4
        Re: Player rating mechanism

        Good point RockPowderDownLoL. One thing I should have mentioned is that I sim a decent amount of games each season. While there are several factors that contribute to how you actually play with a player, when simming my understanding is that the dice roll is largely determined by player ratings. Introducing some uncertainty to player ratings would add to the challenge of roster building for those that sim games.
        Last edited by Tarheels153369; 05-04-2016, 05:46 PM. Reason: clarifying who I was responding to

        Comment

        • Tarheels153369
          Rookie
          • Sep 2004
          • 165

          #5
          Re: Player rating mechanism

          Originally posted by KBLover
          Perhaps if they extended the 20-80 scale to all players, not just showing the scouting reports on prospects?

          That way it's not even tied so much to the number or number ratings, but the player's ability (rating) relative to the level's average. If ML level average was 65, a guy who had that would get a 50 (average) rating on the 20-80 scale.

          It might be even more informative that way. The letter grades aren't a bad idea - but it's still tied to the actual number in isolation. For example, 73 potential is a "C"...but what if the average potential in AAA is 66? Is 73 still "average"? Or if the average OVR in the majors was 79. That would change things (if Pot = projection, maybe this kid is a "45" - a touch below average).

          20-80 is a scale used in baseball frequently, so there's realism there, too. And the scale could be quite wide (I'd image the 40-60 area would be if nothing else), so there could be more chances to make the less optimal decision or at least we'd need to watch performance more.
          Yea I was thinking about the 20-80 scale. is that used for MLB players or is that strictly a prospect thing? How are MLB players generally evaluated or graded?

          Comment

          • KBLover
            Hall Of Fame
            • Aug 2009
            • 12172

            #6
            Re: Player rating mechanism

            Originally posted by Tarheels153369
            Yea I was thinking about the 20-80 scale. is that used for MLB players or is that strictly a prospect thing? How are MLB players generally evaluated or graded?

            You see it for players at the ML level. Though usually for those who aren't considered as peaked or with little room to grow. So prospects/young players getting their taste of the majors probably still have the actual/projected grading. You can see this on Fangraphs for some young players like Buxton. But you won't see it for Harper since he's well-established.

            Otherwise, it's usually evaluated in terms of production, though you could assign grades to them - which is why I think 20-80 would work as a general (used for everyone) scale, especially for video game purposes.

            Something like Player X 50/40/30/40/40 in his 5 tools, overall (actual): 45, projected (potential) 60.

            It might not be strictly how it's graded for established players (stats/track record and things like age and injury history speak a lot to that), but it uses a real scouting scale that has some "objective" standard and shows relative strengths/weaknesses against level average (or relate them all to ML average).

            Plus with some of the tools grades, you'd have to see performance. Why is that guy above a 40 in fielding? Bad reaction? Lots of errors? Bad hands once he gets to the ball?
            "Some people call it butterflies, but to him, it probably feels like pterodactyls in his stomach." --Plesac in MLB18

            Comment

            • NEOPARADIGM
              Banned
              • Jul 2009
              • 2788

              #7
              Re: Player rating mechanism

              Where I find this issue pops up the most is when the real MLB team makes a call-up and it's for a guy who's a 55 or something when there are any number of other guys with higher overalls that make more sense in-game. That by itself makes me want to ignore overalls, that or I end up re-rating the guy so calling him up at least makes some kind of sense.

              Comment

              • tabarnes19_SDS
                Game Designer
                • Feb 2003
                • 3084

                #8
                Re: Player rating mechanism

                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.



                Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

                Comment

                • Knight165
                  *ll St*r
                  • Feb 2003
                  • 24964

                  #9
                  Re: Player rating mechanism

                  Originally posted by tabarnes19
                  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.



                  Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
                  Yes.

                  ...and to the OP....I would LOVE to be able to hide ALL ratings as on option.
                  (and just have scouting as my point of reference.)

                  M.K.
                  Knight165
                  All gave some. Some gave all. 343

                  Comment

                  • KBLover
                    Hall Of Fame
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 12172

                    #10
                    Re: Player rating mechanism

                    Originally posted by tabarnes19
                    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.
                    As long as players become "easier" to scout as they get a body of work, I like this idea.

                    I don't think any decent scout is going to be "off" about Harper or Trout or Machado. It's well-known what they can do, especially in their best attributes and current ability.

                    It would combine track record with "fog of war", and the more performance data you get, and the better the scout/scout team, the clearer the picture becomes.
                    "Some people call it butterflies, but to him, it probably feels like pterodactyls in his stomach." --Plesac in MLB18

                    Comment

                    • Tarheels153369
                      Rookie
                      • Sep 2004
                      • 165

                      #11
                      Re: Player rating mechanism

                      Originally posted by tabarnes19
                      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.



                      Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

                      I like that idea too. Though I'm not overly concerned about overalls as I tend to focus more on individual ratings but the same idea could apply there as well.

                      Comment

                      • Tarheels153369
                        Rookie
                        • Sep 2004
                        • 165

                        #12
                        Re: Player rating mechanism

                        Originally posted by KBLover
                        As long as players become "easier" to scout as they get a body of work, I like this idea.

                        I don't think any decent scout is going to be "off" about Harper or Trout or Machado. It's well-known what they can do, especially in their best attributes and current ability.

                        It would combine track record with "fog of war", and the more performance data you get, and the better the scout/scout team, the clearer the picture becomes.
                        Yea this would be great if it could be this in depth. I saw a post in the roster sections of a new ratings calculator spreadsheet that factored in all years and had some weighting system. Something like that seems feasible to incorporate into scouting so that as you say it gets more accurate the larger your sample size is.

                        However there would still need to be some sense of inaccuracy to allow for players suddenly over preforming like Arrieta or visa versa.

                        Comment

                        • WaitTilNextYear
                          Go Cubs Go
                          • Mar 2013
                          • 16830

                          #13
                          Re: Player rating mechanism

                          Couple of things...this topic has been argued about before not that long ago...but (1) this is probably not worth the devs' time because the vast majority of Show players want to see ratings (maybe are addicted to them), also (2) people always forget that there is already error built into the ratings. A 95 OVR isn't always going to play better than a 92 OVR; a 95 POW is not always going to hit more homers than a 91 POW and so on and so on.

                          I'm all for added depth/more options, but this doesn't really add much unless it comes along with a completely new scouting and player development paradigm in the game and if it doesn't siphon off precious development resources from a great many things that are--to my mind--much higher priority.
                          Chicago Cubs | Chicago Bulls | Green Bay Packers | Michigan Wolverines

                          Comment

                          • KBLover
                            Hall Of Fame
                            • Aug 2009
                            • 12172

                            #14
                            Re: Player rating mechanism

                            Originally posted by Tarheels153369
                            However there would still need to be some sense of inaccuracy to allow for players suddenly over preforming like Arrieta or visa versa.

                            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).
                            "Some people call it butterflies, but to him, it probably feels like pterodactyls in his stomach." --Plesac in MLB18

                            Comment

                            • Tarheels153369
                              Rookie
                              • Sep 2004
                              • 165

                              #15
                              Re: Player rating mechanism

                              Originally posted by WaitTilNextYear
                              Couple of things...this topic has been argued about before not that long ago...but (1) this is probably not worth the devs' time because the vast majority of Show players want to see ratings (maybe are addicted to them), also (2) people always forget that there is already error built into the ratings. A 95 OVR isn't always going to play better than a 92 OVR; a 95 POW is not always going to hit more homers than a 91 POW and so on and so on.

                              I'm all for added depth/more options, but this doesn't really add much unless it comes along with a completely new scouting and player development paradigm in the game and if it doesn't siphon off precious development resources from a great many things that are--to my mind--much higher priority.
                              I wasn't aware there was variance in how a players attributes play out. How does that work?

                              Agreed, the scouting system would be quite a bit of work. However, for a minimalist option being able to toggle between specific ratings and more vague ratings does not seem like it would require a lot of work, and at least for me would improve the game.

                              Comment

                              Working...