Player ratings in this game do not matter (Video inside).

[seanjeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

I think this is just a coincidence... ratings go from 0 - 99, and K/9 goes from 0 (impossibly poor) to > 9 (best strikeout pitchers).

I dunno about that... Here are the game ratings vs. straight 3 year averages

Jason Vargas - 56/5.58
Jared Weaver - 80/8.11
Scott Baker - 77/7.71
Bruce Chen - 57/6.04
Justin Verlander - 91/9.28
Ubaldo Jimenez - 81/8.48

Notice a trend here? Use a weighted average like SCEA does and the numbers align even more...

There's obviously a different formula for relievers, but for starters the numbers line up perfectly.

[MLB Bob]

Quote: Originally Posted by seanjeezy

I dunno about that... Here are the game ratings vs. straight 3 year averages Jason Vargas - 56/5.58 Jared Weaver - 80/8.11 Scott Baker - 77/7.71 Bruce Chen - 57/6.04 Justin Verlander - 91/9.28 Ubaldo Jimenez - 81/8.48 Notice a trend here? Use a weighted average like SCEA does and the numbers align even more... There's obviously a different formula for relievers, but for starters the numbers line up perfectly.

I think its more to do with the fact its a 0-99 scale and K/9 is pretty much the same thing. 10 is fantastic and 0 is bad 5 is avg...so it only lends itself to the fact they would line up. it would line up for any scale of ten that also relates to another scale of 10 and is probably why all other ratings are less liking to line up. Dunno

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by seanjeezy

I dunno about that... Here are the game ratings vs. straight 3 year averages Jason Vargas - 56/5.58 Jared Weaver - 80/8.11 Scott Baker - 77/7.71 Bruce Chen - 57/6.04 Justin Verlander - 91/9.28 Ubaldo Jimenez - 81/8.48 Notice a trend here? Use a weighted average like SCEA does and the numbers align even more... There's obviously a different formula for relievers, but for starters the numbers line up perfectly.

The numbers are from simmed games, correct? I bet you won't see the same thing if you played everything out in the gameplay mode.

It's still a coincidence, though (K/9 rating) = 10 * (K/9 stats) appears to be a good rule of thumb. My conversion (from MLB 11) was similar:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2042319351

The reason why this must be a coincidence is that your competitions matter. 66 K/9 rating at the MLB level doesn't have the same meaning down in minors, for example.

[seanjeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

The numbers are from simmed games, correct? I bet you won't see the same thing if you played everything out in the gameplay mode. It's still a coincidence, though (K/9 rating) = 10 * (K/9 stats) appears to be a good rule of thumb. My conversion (from MLB 11) was similar: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2042319351 The reason why this must be a coincidence is that your competitions matter. 66 K/9 rating at the MLB level doesn't have the same meaning down in minors, for example.

Simmed games? I'm comparing in-game ratings to real life values. I think the point I'm trying to make is that the ratings scale should be widened or adjusted, which goes back to your original post about the lack of variation in results. Looking at data from the past 5 years on fangraphs, the lowest K/9 rating was 2.58 by Chad Bradford in 2008. They could make 0 = 1 K/9 and 99 = 11 K/9, since it looks like the highest K/9 with at least 100 innings pitched was 11.01 by Rich Harden in 2008.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by seanjeezy

Simmed games? I'm comparing in-game ratings to real life values. I think the point I'm trying to make is that the ratings scale should be widened or adjusted, which goes back to your original post about the lack of variation in results. Looking at data from the past 5 years on fangraphs, the lowest K/9 rating was 2.58 by Chad Bradford in 2008. They could make 0 = 1 K/9 and 99 = 11 K/9, since it looks like the highest K/9 with at least 100 innings pitched was 11.01 by Rich Harden in 2008.

Oh I see what you mean now... I was just making a point that there's nothing special about K/9 rating scaling exactly like real life K/9 stats; that point still stands.

Expanding on the range... yes I agree and hope that happens eventually. But the devs still have to carefully do this since it's not just pitchers K/9 ratings that lead to Ks... batters' Vision rating would also need to be rescaled accordingly, since they are both major factors in events leading to Ks (not to mention other factors that may be minor but still factor into this...). Since the game "on average" is incredibly well balanced, I hope this happens without sacrificing the current game balance too much.

[seanjeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

Oh I see what you mean now... I was just making a point that there's nothing special about K/9 rating scaling exactly like real life K/9 stats; that point still stands. Expanding on the range... yes I agree and hope that happens eventually. But the devs still have to carefully do this since it's not just pitchers K/9 ratings that lead to Ks... batters' Vision rating would also need to be rescaled accordingly, since they are both major factors in events leading to Ks (not to mention other factors that may be minor but still factor into this...). Since the game "on average" is incredibly well balanced, I hope this happens without sacrificing the current game balance too much.

Do you think SCEA uses hard numbers or percentages Nomo? I'm leaning towards to former, case in point Alex Liddi, Zack Cozart, Drew Pomeranz, etc. In Liddi's case, he was given 25/30 power, even though his HR/FB rate was 30% last year (small sample size, I know). To date he has a 20.8 HR/FB rate which is better than 2010-2012 Prince Fielder, Josh Hamilton, and Matt Kemp (again, SSS). The way to counteract Liddi having 40+ homeruns every year is to give him low vision and moderate contact ratings correct? I guess my question is how much influence does the vision rating have over contact skills and power?

[ballin095]

Made a part two of this experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rAle...&feature=g-upl

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by seanjeezy

Do you think SCEA uses hard numbers or percentages Nomo? I'm leaning towards to former, case in point Alex Liddi, Zack Cozart, Drew Pomeranz, etc. In Liddi's case, he was given 25/30 power, even though his HR/FB rate was 30% last year (small sample size, I know). To date he has a 20.8 HR/FB rate which is better than 2010-2012 Prince Fielder, Josh Hamilton, and Matt Kemp (again, SSS). The way to counteract Liddi having 40+ homeruns every year is to give him low vision and moderate contact ratings correct? I guess my question is how much influence does the vision rating have over contact skills and power?

You cannot rate those guys reliably at the MLB level. They haven't had enough plate appearances for one year worth of data.