OOTP 2007 BLB Change List

[robster1225]

Ok, I've switched camps, H and Andrew, I agree with you!

[Khrog]

I've used the 20-80 scale in most of my games and find that gives quite a bit of leeway with scouts...especially since they rarely agree. Hell, I have several guys in an offline game that are rated around 50 and are among the best hitters on my team despite 2 powerhouses. The 2-8 scale leaves it so general that you almost have to do more stat based research to get a reliable answer.

[rubisco43]

I like the 2-8 scale. plus, won't 2007 have a star ratings scale as well?

[Squint]

I like the 2-8 scale. plus, won't 2007 have a star ratings scale as well?

That is an additional option to go along with the numerical rating. I think Andrew is considering turning that on as well.

[liquidcrash]

I've used the 20-80 scale in most of my games and find that gives quite a bit of leeway with scouts...especially since they rarely agree. Hell, I have several guys in an offline game that are rated around 50 and are among the best hitters on my team despite 2 powerhouses. The 2-8 scale leaves it so general that you almost have to do more stat based research to get a reliable answer.

That's what I like about our 2-8 scale, you have to look at stats a lot more and there's no clear picture on some guys. The top players are obvious, but the middle of the road guys are a blurry picture at best.

I don't see how giving us exact ratings would make the scouting process more difficult. Our ratings now might have two players both rated a "6" in a category, but the other one will show the one is clearly better than the other, since it won't be rounded. We all have some scouts that are marginal, so despite the weak pool of scouts, it's an even playing field.

[Clay]

Any thoughts on the future with Expansion?

Thinking outloud, if we add 4 teams and move to a 3 Division structure (3 divs of 4 teams each), we could actually probably do a pretty good job of breaking them up geographically.

The league is very heavy on the East Coast, but it is, and will continue to expand westward.

Just thinking outloud.

[Andrew]

Any thoughts on the future with Expansion?

Thinking outloud, if we add 4 teams and move to a 3 Division structure (3 divs of 4 teams each), we could actually probably do a pretty good job of breaking them up geographically.

The league is very heavy on the East Coast, but it is, and will continue to expand westward.

Just thinking outloud.

I think that will be a discussion for next season. I think we need to see how the conversion to 2007 goes (and if we lose anybody in the process) and get a full season under our belts before we can expand.

[Clay]

I assumed that. Just putting it out there.

[Andrew]

I like the 2-8 scale. plus, won't 2007 have a star ratings scale as well?

Stars are a completely different discussion. The ratings scale we're talking about here is for player ratings such as Stuff, movement, contact, power, etc. We currently use 2-8 for this scale.

The stars are referring to the overall rating. We have a choice between 20-80 or stars (1-5). I prefer 20-80, but we'll have another poll for that. I'm going to re-create the polls in case there was any confusion.

[SC_Dawg]

Actual & Potential rating scales

I PM'ed you about this but wasn't around to catch your reply.

Can we open discussion on moving to a 20 point rating system rather than an 8 point rating system?

We went to 8 points when all the player values were going to be the same for every team due to the lack of scouts. Now that we have scouts and their pool isn't very deep (concerning their talent evaltuation skills....just look at the FA's), would it benefit us to have a broader scale for player evaluations?

I have been think on this for a league idea I have been kicking around since 2006 came out. I personally think I like the idea of having the actuals and potentials rated in different scales. This adds another level of uncertainty to the game.

Oh and BTW I think I was one of the extreme minority who didn't miss the stars at all.