Player rating mechanism

[WaitTilNextYear]

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tarheels153369

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tarheels153369

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tarheels153369

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

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]

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

[scooterperpetual]

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.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tarheels153369

Is this simming or playing?

Playing. I play every ML level game for my team in all my franchises.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tarheels153369

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 can look up that same information in fangraphs right now, and I'm not even in the baseball industry. I can only imagine what kind of information they have.

And considering either playing or simming, the batted ball profiles are barely even mentioned (and don't seem to play heavily in terms of push/pull...or AT ALL in terms of GB/FB/LD rates...I don't see how I have more information in MLBTS than I can get off Fangraphs and/or Brooks Baseball, etc).

If anything, the ratings are MORE obscure than real information. How much movement does a pitcher's curve have? With pitch F/x, I can go find out. In MLBTS how do I know how much Huff's 12-6 moves? How do I know if that's what his rating should get or if he's just "on" (or "off" as the case may be). Just how much movement does "72 movement" represent? What does that translate to?

And if you want to say that I don't know how they'll perform going forward...I get that same experience. Chris Taylor is batting .230 for me after years of being a steady .270-.280 hitter. Just out of the blue. Same ratings, same spot in the lineup, I play the same way with him...no dice. Matt Stiles, a high-rated reliever...sucked. He's currently sulking in AAA because I couldn't give him away at the deadline. Paco Rodriguez was fine...until 2 years of 6 ERA and 5.50 ERA...same ratings that gave him about 150 saves in 4 years. Had to dump him. Stroman fell apart. Traded him to make room for (then much) lower-rated Huff.

You could say "well you knew you were making the right move"...doesn't do me a darn bit of good to know I was "right" when my lead off man is OBP'ing in the .270's or my closer posting 5+ ERAs in back-to-back seasons. Being "right" doesn't win ball games. Adapting to the oddities that happen does.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tarheels153369

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?

How? Don't we know who the contact pitchers are in real life? Is it a mystery that Buehrle or Dickey or Mike Leake gets fewer K's than league average? That Maddux would strike out fewer hitters than Roger Clemens? That Randy Johnson's "Mr Snappy" will K guys at a rate Wakefield's knuckler could only dream of? We know who the contact pitchers are. Who the flyball guys are, etc.

I could make a list of contact pitchers with X or higher GB rate and put a rotation together. In MLBTS? I have K/9....but where's the GF rate? And I have more information than irl? I have one BIG question mark...how many flyballs will he give up? Do I have Brett Anderson and his 66% GB or Price and his 40%? In MLBTS...it's as much random as it is anything else and if I'm selecting for contact types (low K/9, low BB/9), then the batted ball profile is key information, imo.

Then, just like in real life, when I use these guys on the mound, I might get what it says on the tin, or I might not. Or maybe not as often as I hope. Maybe the balls will fall in despite my defense. Or maybe I throw a few 85-pitch CGs because of my defense.

I have plenty of "fog of war" in my franchises. I get surprised or disappointed often. I end up with position battles unexpectedly (Jorge Mateo and his 49/19 is trying to "wow" me with his speed and surprising hitting...and it's working...I've benched Addison Russell for now as a result in my fantasy draft Red Sox). The list goes on, especially in my Marlins franchise. Huff being one of them - I thought he'd be a "guy who never lived up to his potential", then suddenly he just started putting it together - and I mean on the field, not just watching his ratings go up - the ratings lagged his performance for a long time. I kept saying "the shoe is going to drop on him"...and it never did.

Meanwhile I created Tyler Kolek and give him the same "will he learn control?" question mark. Let's say I hope the real Kolek does better than my created version. Incredibly slow developer (had A potential, dropped to low B), got out of AAA due to injuries...posted a 4.50 ERA, send back down...never been back since. Nice top prospect.

Taylor Guerrieri in MLB13 is another example. Just out of nowhere turned into a "finesse power pitcher" somehow. Another kid I threw in because he was ripping up AAA and I thought "they are going to get him one day" and I was ready with my moves...but never needed them. Then after about 2 years of that...THEN his H/9 skyrocketed, he was already going it on the field. Wil Myers right before MLB14 dropped was hitting over .400 with a 32-game hit streak. I don't think a 70 Contact translates into that (yeah, he was still in the 70's).

So, I think I get plenty of unexpectedness. Whether or not the moves were "certain" to be "right" doesn't mean much when I'm trying to win games day-to-day and adjusting to what my players throw at me (even as I control them lol), be it the "right" ones or not.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

... So, I think I get plenty of unexpectedness. Whether or not the moves were "certain" to be "right" doesn't mean much when I'm trying to win games day-to-day and adjusting to what my players throw at me (even as I control them lol), be it the "right" ones or not.

This is actually wrong though, unless you can try hard not to believe in attributes not exposing the true event frequencies used by the game... the fact is they are exposing the "seeds".

Any random process, you can be correct in the outcome only in a probabilistic sense, even if you know what that probability of event is.

For example, even when you send a "true" .270 hitter to bat for you, 73% of the time he would fail. That's a very high failure rate, and not very distinguishable with 74% failure rate with a "true" .260 guy, just by feeling. But just because the "true" .270 hitter got unlucky in one at-bat (or one season for that matter) and performed worse than the "true" .260 hitter does not make him intrinsically worse.... he was just unlucky in the opportunities that you used him in. That's one layer of uncertainty, because it is a random event.

Another layer of uncertainty is that, in real life, it is very difficult to know the difference between .270 and .260 hitters to begin with (due to what would be "fog of war" factors)...

But if you know who is a "true" .270 hitter, you'd be fool not to use him over a "true" .260... Since attributes expose this type of information, you actually *can* play the game this way, and if you don't, you are clearly not employing optimal strategy, basically for no reason.


People who want the true attributes to be obscured (in appropriate modes... they should still be editable as they are right now) are not saying the first kind of uncertainty above is an issue. It is the second kind of uncertainty that is not very well simulated in the game.


Of course, you could make an argument (in large part that seems to be what KBLover is implying) that given that there are always multiple factors/attributes in play, that you cannot always quickly make the most optimal decision even when theoretically you can, as I described using a very simplistic example of batting average... that would be true.... unless some serious amount of $$$ is at stake, nobody would care to play games that way.


But in a lot of more interesting and what should be more realistic cases, knowing the true nature of attributes get in the way of enjoying the "realistic uncertainty" that really is what makes simulation games fun.

The best example is the evaluation of rookies just coming up from minors... in reality there are always so many uncertainties involved in how they could make adjustments, maintain the level of performance he showed in minors, etc., which makes making roster movements fun....

Is this rookie really better than my veteran guy right now? Which should I play him more?

It's a difficult (but fun) decision in real life, but with The Show you don't really have to wonder.... because for the most part you can simply compare attributes and get a sense who's better already.

Not very fun.