Player rating mechanism

[Knight165]

Quote: 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

[KBLover]

Quote: 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.

[Tarheels153369]

Quote: 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.

[Tarheels153369]

Quote: 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.

[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.

[KBLover]

Quote: 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).

[Tarheels153369]

Quote: 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.

[Tarheels153369]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

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.