Rating Scale - Please read

[Andrew]

This is for player ratings such as contact, stuff, fielding, etc. NOT overall.

Please discuss this and vote. You might want to hold off your vote until people state their case for both sides.

[Squint]

My reply from the previous thread:

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.

I really don't think converting to a 1-20 system is going to make it any easier to evaluate a player's potential per se. What I do think it will do is help us on a couple of fronts.

Again, we decided on a 2-8 scale when scouts were turned off and a "6" was a "6" and an "8" was an "8" and so on.

You have to remember that a swith to a 1-20 scale would not only apply to players, but to coaches and scouts as well. The depth of the coaches, scouts, and doctors are lacking. How many FA scouts or coaches has anyone seen picked up in the last couple seasons since they've been turned on? Converting to a 1-20 scale may actually make some of those free agents more valuable.

Let's say, for instance, that you have a coach that is a "4" teach pitching and a "4" handle rookies. I'd like this to be my pitching coach at my A or AA team so those are the most important attributes in my opinion. Those ratings could be anywhere from an 8-12 on a 1-20 rating system. Let's say that means this coach is a "10" teach pitching and a "12" handle rookies. What if there is another coach out there that is a "4" and "4" in the same categories except he is rated a "12" teach pitching and "9" handle rookies on a 1-20 scale. I now have the option to pick this guy up because I'm willing to sacrifice this coaches lower handle rookies rating for an increase in his teach pitching.

This may make some of those FA's a little more valuable, thus increasing the talent depth within their respective pools and adding a bit more realism to the league in my opinion.

I don't know if I agree with your concern that our reliance on stats will be less important and that we'll potentially lose some ambiguity with the ratings.

Each of your scout's ratings are going to differ and they may even differ more than they do now. If a two scouts rate a player a "5" and "7" in contact on a 1-8 scale, then that could equate to a 10-14 from one scout and a 14-18 from the other scout on a 1-20 scale. With that much variance, doesn't that mean you'd have to look to stats even more? (I think this is what Andrew meant by more difficult)

Lastly, there are no stats to evaluate when it comes to the most important part of our league: The Draft.

Big time free agents rarely (if ever) jump to another team because their original team can't afford to keep them. That being the case, a lot of the teams (the majority) have to build through the draft. I would prefer to have as much information as possible from the my scouts on the draftees to help off-set some of the talent level differential in the BLB. If I want to concentrate on drafting a SS that is great defensively and makes good contact, then I'd like to make an informed decision. The guess work will still be there, of course, because my scouts (like many others) rarely agree when it comes to player assessment.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but I'd like to see people make a fully informed decision before they vote.

[Jistic]

I like the way it is. There's so much room for error now. I wouldn't change it.

[Squint]

I like the way it is. There's so much room for error now. I wouldn't change it.

How wouldn't there be room for error in a 1-20 rating scale? Isn't it all relative?

[Khrog]

I'm for giving a little more information to the owners...especially with the scouts being in play. 1-20 looks like a good option to me...especially since on the 2-8 scale there is a demanding effort that needs to be made to scout a player.

I never really messed with the scales just going 20-80 most times, but after doing a few leagues like that I think that the additional granularity makes it very easy to produce powerhouses vs. CPU. Just makes me think that the scouting may be a little too easy then.

[BradleyB]

I personally don't play single player games. I just use OOTP for the online league, so I've known nothing different. From the sound of things, I think I'd like to try the 1-20 scale (and keep the 20-80 for overall, but that's a different thread). It seems to only provide less ambiguity when looking at the ratings from a single scout (it also helps when looking at available personnel, which another reason I'd like to see it happen). Overall, it's just as likely that my scout thinks a guy is great and your scout thinks he's crap (or even that one of my own scouts thinks he's crap). In that regard, it shouldn't negatively effect all the reasons why we turned scouting on in the first place (ie, makes the draft more interesting, makes free agency more interesting, etc).

Anyway. That's my 2 cents. If anyone disagrees with me, don't be surprised to find your tires slashed.

[Andrew]

This vote has been pretty inconclusive so I'm going to stick with what we have now. 2-8 for ratings and 20-80 overall. However, I'm going to switch coaches ratings to 20-80 as well.

[Squint]

Well, that blows.

Oh well, maybe people will see the light next year.

[liquidcrash]

I've been using the 1-20 scale for players and coaches in my single player game, and I'm really liking it so far. Using those numbers, in conjunction with the star rating system is pretty good.

I know I was one of the main people arguing for us to keep the same system, but Squint's suggestions look good to me now that I've tried it out. The somewhat more specific 1-20 scale, combined with the more ambiguous 1-5 stars is my pick if we're still debating this. Especially since the stars seem to work a lot better in 2007 than they did in previous versions of the game.