Player rating mechanism

[Tarheels153369]

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]

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.

[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.

[Tarheels153369]

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.

[Tarheels153369]

Quote: 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?

[KBLover]

Quote: 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?

[NEOPARADIGM]

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.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

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