Official "From the Tap" update thread.

[Andrew]

One thing to consider is that if we are only seeing OVR/POT ratings change, and not the individual ratings, then I say there really isn't an issue. Of course, there is a problem with the OVR/POT ratings, and way to many 20/20's, but if the individual ratings aren't changing, then they are still the same players. Now, if your seeing pitchers are dropping from 7/7/7 to 3/3/3, then there may be a huge problem.

Yah definitely. Seems like you have to look at the individual ratings a lot more. I've also seen a lot more variability in ratings just in 2007. When I traded for Drewitt I had him as 5's across the board, in the mid 50's overall. Soon after the same scout had him in the 30's with a bunch of 4's mixed in. His rating his back up in the low 50's now, but I'm still wondering if I got the player I thought I traded for.

[Squint]

One thing to consider is that if we are only seeing OVR/POT ratings change, and not the individual ratings, then I say there really isn't an issue. Of course, there is a problem with the OVR/POT ratings, and way to many 20/20's, but if the individual ratings aren't changing, then they are still the same players. Now, if your seeing pitchers are dropping from 7/7/7 to 3/3/3, then there may be a huge problem.

And in Hoeft's case he went from a 6/5/5 to a 5/4/4 from my best scout.

[robster1225]

Also, it's going to be very hard to determine how much of this is due to the changes in the scouting system, and how much of this is changes in the way the game calculates OVR/POT.

In Hoeft's case, I had him more like Diesel had him. Now, that's not saying my scouts are right, or his are, or even yours are, Squint. It's just saying that scouts see players differently. So, it is really hard to judge what is the major factor in ratings changes. I suspect it's a combination of both.

[Jistic]

Ratings are so dam.....over rated...if that makes sense anyway.

Are they important? Yep, but there's some big under performers out there and over achievers as well. And I'm not talking about one season. Some guys seem to not even care what their ratings are.

[robster1225]

Ratings are so dam.....over rated...if that makes sense anyway.

Are they important? Yep, but there's some big under performers out there and over achievers as well. And I'm not talking about one season. Some guys seem to not even care what their ratings are.

I 100% agree with that. Ultimately, the stats are telling, but with small sample sizes we sometime have to rely on ratings. Which is why this can be frustrating. I think scouts are to blame more than some mass decline in actual player ratings. Just my opinion, though

[Pat]

Again.....this is just another example of you trying to impose your opinion as fact because you see it through your scouts and and a using a couple of isolated stats and instances to skew an argument your way. Get off your high horse and try to look at it like this.

OOTP '06 = OVR and POT at 52/53 and 54/62

OOTP '07 = OVR and POT at 20/20

If I was the only one bringing this up then I wouldn't have said anything, but seeing as how about at least four other owners have brought it up I'd say it's an issue.

Get off my high horse? Ever thought to realize that this is happening to other teams? I'm saying you shouldn't cry about it.

I can open up the last file of OOTP 2006 and take a screen shot if you want. I would say I probably had 30 players do something similar to this. The most results I have seen, is with players who are rated in the 30s and 40s. These players are all now 20/20. Which I think is the case for you.

I just opened up OOTP 2006 and quick scouted all the guys with all my scouts. Hoeft averaged 40/44.

[robster1225]

One thing to consider is that if we are only seeing OVR/POT ratings change, and not the individual ratings, then I say there really isn't an issue. Of course, there is a problem with the OVR/POT ratings, and way to many 20/20's, but if the individual ratings aren't changing, then they are still the same players. Now, if your seeing pitchers are dropping from 7/7/7 to 3/3/3, then there may be a huge problem.

And in Hoeft's case he went from a 6/5/5 to a 5/4/4 from my best scout.

Which is one ratings point for each area. Also, we don't know if those are high 5's and 6's or low ones. We also don't know if the potential is high 5's or low 4's. He might not have changed all that much.

[Squint]

Again.....this is just another example of you trying to impose your opinion as fact because you see it through your scouts and and a using a couple of isolated stats and instances to skew an argument your way. Get off your high horse and try to look at it like this.

OOTP '06 = OVR and POT at 52/53 and 54/62

OOTP '07 = OVR and POT at 20/20

If I was the only one bringing this up then I wouldn't have said anything, but seeing as how about at least four other owners have brought it up I'd say it's an issue.

Get off my high horse? Ever thought to realize that this is happening to other teams? I'm saying you shouldn't cry about it.

I can open up the last file of OOTP 2006 and take a screen shot if you want. I would say I probably had 30 players do something similar to this. The most results I have seen, is with players who are rated in the 30s and 40s. These players are all now 20/20. Which I think is the case for you.

I just opened up OOTP 2006 and quick scouted all the guys with all my scouts. Hoeft averaged 40/44.

Who the fuck is crying? Sully and other's brought it up as well. I simply put names to what others were saying. Excuse the fuck out of me for expanding on what OTHER TEAMS were saying as well. How 'bout you get on them for crying or will that hurt some type of social status at OS?

Again (what part of this I don't get what you don't understand), I give two shits about what your scouts say about Hoeft (and again, he is one isolated case). I care what my scouts say and how he performed. Post all the screen shots you want, but all you are doing is posting a reflection of what your scouts have assessed (do you get it yet)?

Which is one ratings point for each area. Also, we don't know if those are high 5's and 6's or low ones. We also don't know if the potential is high 5's or low 4's. He might not have changed all that much.

Which, if what Andrew said earlier is true about how players are rated against the league, reinforces my earlier suggestion to go to a 80 based ratings scale.

[robster1225]

Which, if what Andrew said earlier is true about how players are rated against the league, reinforces my earlier suggestion to go to a 80 based ratings scale.

This is just my opinion, but I like the "fog of war" that we get with the smaller ratings scale. OVR/POT are rated against the league, but individual ratings are not.

[robster1225]

Also, why can't this league have a debate without losing all forms of civility? This type of banter back and forth seems to happen way to often, and it is very frustrating. What was a good debate/conversation became a slam-fest. I just don't get it.

[Squint]

Which, if what Andrew said earlier is true about how players are rated against the league, reinforces my earlier suggestion to go to a 80 based ratings scale.

This is just my opinion, but I like the "fog of war" that we get with the smaller ratings scale. OVR/POT are rated against the league, but individual ratings are not.

If the ratings are as ambiguous as you have been saying (and even moreso in '07) then you would still have the "fog of war" as you like to call it.

Your scout is still going to see a 6 as a 6. It would just be 61-69 while my scout will still see a 5 as a 5. It would help us to internally make player based decisions.....but this is a topic that has already been addressed (which I think you actualy agreed with back then).

[Squint]

Also, why can't this league have a debate without losing all forms of civility? This type of banter back and forth seems to happen way to often, and it is very frustrating. What was a good debate/conversation became a slam-fest. I just don't get it.

Ask Mr. Knowitall.

I simply expanded on what Sully and a few others have stated. Who knows why he decided to take my post and use it as a springboard for his frustrations. I think someone put their tampon in backwards today.

[robster1225]

If the ratings are as ambiguous as you have been saying (and even moreso in '07) then you would still have the "fog of war" as you like to call it.

Your scout is still going to see a 6 as a 6. It would just be 61-69 while my scout will still see a 5 as a 5. It would help us to internally make player based decisions.....but this is a topic that has already been addressed (which I think you actualy agreed with back then).

Point well taken. I agree that the scouts add their own "fog of war" (as I like to call it, sorry I'm a geek and miss my RTS days.). I can see that it would make sense to have expanded ratings since we have the scouts. But, this is an issue that i've been back and forth on. IIRC, I was even back and forth in that thread your referring to. That being said, I don't mind the system we have now, because it has that random effect that I think is present in real baseball. But, who know, maybe I'm an idiot, all I know is that I love this league, and the challenge of trying to stay competitive with all the other factors involved.

[Pat]

Also, why can't this league have a debate without losing all forms of civility? This type of banter back and forth seems to happen way to often, and it is very frustrating. What was a good debate/conversation became a slam-fest. I just don't get it.

Ask Mr. Knowitall.

I simply expanded on what Sully and a few others have stated. Who knows why he decided to take my post and use it as a springboard for his frustrations. I think someone put their tampon in backwards today.

Just use me as your scapegoat again. I really don't care.

[Clay]

I Love Lamp