OSFM ST

[rjackson]

This is something I have wondered as it is pretty standardized to use K% for vision but I wonder how much of a difference it would make to use contact % instead? It speaks more to the intent of the ingame rating. Contact is another one--LD% or maybe BABIP would be more accurate than AVG, but there is a relationship there between all three. Plus, does steamer even offer these numbers? I have been leery of using rosters adjusting the SCEA players for these reasons but I just got home so I will take a peek at what you have so far.

[VeranKai]

Contact % isn't listed in the lump projections - not sure if I could get for each individual on their own page (tons of extra time), but you can definitely get it easily for previous years. I toyed with averaging ratings from K% and contact % at first.

There's always a tradeoff though. Some statistics are much harder to get quickly; and some don't seem to translate into the game the way SCEA has their ratings. This is my first year doing this, but as I've worked on each formula I try to get my result spreads to match the ratings spreads similarly to SCEA.

It's far from perfect. I mean narrowing a person down to a few in-game ratings to replicate them is no easy feat. You're going to have bias and error no matter who is calculating and from what base of information. With my pitching I've relied on Steamer(U) so they moreso reflect what's happened this year. With the batting changes I've done, I've had to rely more on previous season results. Considering how much flux you can get from guys having great years or prolonged slumps you'll be hard pressed to find two people who totally agree on a rating.

Unlike some others I guess, I'm not against the default SCEA ratings. I just always like doing my own too and give people another option.

Oh, and as you'll see in other threads too, if a roster messes with the rating spreads too much then future draft prospects will come in and be out of whack comparatively. So is it worth it to come up with a new rating setup that doesn't disrupt the metagame too much? At this point I'm not sure lol. If a few people like the approach though then it's all worth it.

[VeranKai]

If you are a Padres fan, Cashner, Kennedy and I think Ross have some slight improvements according to the latest data I'm doing right now even. I've put up so many versions already I know I need to tone down on that though. Mostly I was just trying to get some feedback and when you're doing all this alone, after enough hours you just want people to have the better version.

[rjackson]

I only found one version in the vault. A cursory look really showed nothing glaringly wrong. I didn't think about the incoming prospects and that is a good point. What makes it hard is that thia game diws such a good job of emulating up and down years, so testing becomes an adventure. I'll have to go back in and check out Cueto--I am sure you hit him up already.

[VeranKai]

Yeah I deleted all the previous versions this afternoon after figuring out my mistake in H/9 that was impacting sim results.

Even if you dislike my rosters, I highly encourage checking out any roster with pitch edits. Those guys put in a ton of work and I think it's pretty fun to have (they go through pitch repertoires for everyone). Most of what I've input is based on 2013 data, not Cueto's favorite I'm sure, so I'm hoping with 2014 data he'll get a little more control on a pitch or two ;-)

[VeranKai]

I pretty much just worked on the rosters all day, and yet another version is up (v7)...

Mostly it addressed the pitching aces and fixed some of the H/9 ratings on a few minor leaguers.