An Argument For Relative Ratings
- niles08
- BBA GM
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:15 pm
- Has thanked: 168 times
- Been thanked: 424 times
An Argument For Relative Ratings
A few reasons we should consider switching back to relative ratings.
With the change in minor league age limits coming up, in addition to the importance of “developing” your prospects more than ever, it is very important that we consider the change to relative ratings again.
In relative mode, being able to select which league is the reference point makes managing your minor leagues much easier. Want to know if your single-A shortstop could handle double-A? Switch your ratings to be relative to the Eastern League and watch his “overall”. A 50 would theoretically be “around” average if relative ratings were turned on.
Furthermore, it's important to know which league your draftees should start off in. If you just dump them all to Rookie ball, the roster will be overcrowded. Realizing that your 5th-round reliever you drafted out of college can go straight to single-A will help you spread out the sudden influx of players and help them develop facing competition that is not too “tough” or “too easy”.
Although potential ratings are the most important for drafting, it also pays to find players whose current ratings aren't too shabby either. Your 20th round pick probably won't ever reach the majors, but you might be able to find a college senior who's ready to become a valuable minor league contributor right away.
A misunderstanding of relative ratings caused us to switch, when most of our talent was showing up as higher than “50” overall. The thing to consider on the 20-80 overall scale is that 50 means “average” and “average” should mean 2 WAR. Every guy on the team should not be a 50 overall. There should be a few guys starting who are under that. On a side note, knowing that our scale is 1-10, it forces us to depend on past performance instead of "64 is better than 56" throughout the various individual player ratings, which is a good thing. When we were looking at “contact” with an average higher than 5.7 or something and not understanding why, it was forgotten that a “5” means somewhere between 50 and 59 on the internal 1-100 scale. When we took the average of all the players in the league, it makes sense that we didn’t get a “5 average” because we didn’t know how many of those 5’s were high 5’s(see below for gif involving this) or low 5’s. Had we shown “true 1-100” contact ratings, we would have had an average of 50.
On a somewhat related note... It is very important to note that a switch to "relative ratings" would send some shockwaves, as those 50 pot prospects might look even a bit uglier when being compared to current BBA players in the league. Time to rip the band aid off though and make the switch now so that these prospects can develop properly.
With the change in minor league age limits coming up, in addition to the importance of “developing” your prospects more than ever, it is very important that we consider the change to relative ratings again.
In relative mode, being able to select which league is the reference point makes managing your minor leagues much easier. Want to know if your single-A shortstop could handle double-A? Switch your ratings to be relative to the Eastern League and watch his “overall”. A 50 would theoretically be “around” average if relative ratings were turned on.
Furthermore, it's important to know which league your draftees should start off in. If you just dump them all to Rookie ball, the roster will be overcrowded. Realizing that your 5th-round reliever you drafted out of college can go straight to single-A will help you spread out the sudden influx of players and help them develop facing competition that is not too “tough” or “too easy”.
Although potential ratings are the most important for drafting, it also pays to find players whose current ratings aren't too shabby either. Your 20th round pick probably won't ever reach the majors, but you might be able to find a college senior who's ready to become a valuable minor league contributor right away.
A misunderstanding of relative ratings caused us to switch, when most of our talent was showing up as higher than “50” overall. The thing to consider on the 20-80 overall scale is that 50 means “average” and “average” should mean 2 WAR. Every guy on the team should not be a 50 overall. There should be a few guys starting who are under that. On a side note, knowing that our scale is 1-10, it forces us to depend on past performance instead of "64 is better than 56" throughout the various individual player ratings, which is a good thing. When we were looking at “contact” with an average higher than 5.7 or something and not understanding why, it was forgotten that a “5” means somewhere between 50 and 59 on the internal 1-100 scale. When we took the average of all the players in the league, it makes sense that we didn’t get a “5 average” because we didn’t know how many of those 5’s were high 5’s(see below for gif involving this) or low 5’s. Had we shown “true 1-100” contact ratings, we would have had an average of 50.
On a somewhat related note... It is very important to note that a switch to "relative ratings" would send some shockwaves, as those 50 pot prospects might look even a bit uglier when being compared to current BBA players in the league. Time to rip the band aid off though and make the switch now so that these prospects can develop properly.
- aaronweiner
- BBA GM
- Posts: 12041
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 769 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
An argument against: the 20-80 ratings have a significant recency bias.
- niles08
- BBA GM
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:15 pm
- Has thanked: 168 times
- Been thanked: 424 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
What does 20-80 have to do with anything? Leave it at 1-10 like we have it and use relative ratings on those.aaronweiner wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 3:04 pmAn argument against: the 20-80 ratings have a significant recency bias.
- Jwalk100
- GB: FL Pacific Division Director
- Posts: 3115
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1834 times
- Been thanked: 790 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
Relative ratings is like bowling with the bumpers in the gutters.
- niles08
- BBA GM
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:15 pm
- Has thanked: 168 times
- Been thanked: 424 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
I seen that comparison today as well....very similar to having scouts turned off, or overall/potentials on, or other items that make the game "not too tough".
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:28 pm
- Has thanked: 523 times
- Been thanked: 403 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
Mixed feelings. I think the relative ratings could be helpful for making international complex/IFA decisions and draftees. But there's still so much time for the talent to change I don't know if it would help all that much.
______________________________________
2051 London Monarchs (GBC)
2051-present Edmonton Jackrabbits (BBA)
2051 London Monarchs (GBC)
2051-present Edmonton Jackrabbits (BBA)
- niles08
- BBA GM
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:15 pm
- Has thanked: 168 times
- Been thanked: 424 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
The biggest deal for me personally is helping me decide who should be at what level. Is my 20 overall guy good enough to play A ball or is he truly a rookie level guy. Where is he going to develop the best etc.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 6652
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:39 am
- Location: Manama, Bahrain
- Has thanked: 207 times
- Been thanked: 776 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
Another major issue with relative ratings is they get all skewed at points like the off-season and September when rosters are in flux.
Randy Weigand
Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-
League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43
Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-
League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43
- shoeless.db
- BBA GM
- Posts: 2340
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 10:25 pm
- Has thanked: 1845 times
- Been thanked: 1100 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
Good arguments that I completely disagree with, but that's show business, Baby!
Counter proposal: Remove all ratings, stats, and personal details. I want to play pictures-only. You can't tell me a chiseled jawline doesn't translate to wins on the field.
Counter proposal: Remove all ratings, stats, and personal details. I want to play pictures-only. You can't tell me a chiseled jawline doesn't translate to wins on the field.
Sacramento Mad Popes
-- Vic Caleca Team News Award Winner 2052
-- BBA Champion 2053
— The Heartland Sucks
-- Pacific Champs 2040, 2042, 2043, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2051, 2053, 2054, 2058
Life is a bit more beautiful when time is measured by the half inning rather than the half hour.
-- Vic Caleca Team News Award Winner 2052
-- BBA Champion 2053
— The Heartland Sucks
-- Pacific Champs 2040, 2042, 2043, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2051, 2053, 2054, 2058
Life is a bit more beautiful when time is measured by the half inning rather than the half hour.
- niles08
- BBA GM
- Posts: 2507
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:15 pm
- Has thanked: 168 times
- Been thanked: 424 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
Your vote doesn't count. North Dakota doesn't get a say in anything.shoeless.db wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 9:41 amGood arguments that I completely disagree with, but that's show business, Baby!
Counter proposal: Remove all ratings, stats, and personal details. I want to play pictures-only. You can't tell me a chiseled jawline doesn't translate to wins on the field.
- DaveB
- GB: JL Atlantic Division Director
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:27 pm
- Has thanked: 83 times
- Been thanked: 195 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
If I have a player who is a 20 overall and potential that I’m on the fence about cutting I usually send him to SA and I’ll do similar stuff up the line. Best case scenario is he develops or someone from rookie ball develops and creates space for a demotion. Worst case the player doesn’t develop or regresses and is cut. I have a few players like that in SA right now actually.
Charm City Jimmies GM
2046-47 UMEBA Champ for Mumbai Metro Stars
2050 UMEBA Champ for Jerusalem Hebrew Hammers
2054, 2055, 2058 Monty Brewster Champion with Charm City Jimmies
2046-47 UMEBA Champ for Mumbai Metro Stars
2050 UMEBA Champ for Jerusalem Hebrew Hammers
2054, 2055, 2058 Monty Brewster Champion with Charm City Jimmies
- Trebro
- BBA GM
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2022 12:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1084 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
True story, I'm a worse bowler with the bumpers in. And same for ratings lol
Rob McMonigal
Yellow Springs Nine Sep 2052 - ????
London Monarchs Aug 2052 - Sep 2052
Yellow Springs Nine Sep 2052 - ????
London Monarchs Aug 2052 - Sep 2052
- Trebro
- BBA GM
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2022 12:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1084 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
Not a huge deal to me but scouts off does always feel weird because I like the variety it adds. but i also understand why in online play it can cause problems.
Rob McMonigal
Yellow Springs Nine Sep 2052 - ????
London Monarchs Aug 2052 - Sep 2052
Yellow Springs Nine Sep 2052 - ????
London Monarchs Aug 2052 - Sep 2052
- Jwalk100
- GB: FL Pacific Division Director
- Posts: 3115
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1834 times
- Been thanked: 790 times
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 6652
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:39 am
- Location: Manama, Bahrain
- Has thanked: 207 times
- Been thanked: 776 times
Re: An Argument For Relative Ratings
i have always maintained that there should be a toggle for each individual team that allows you to switch back and forth between the two on your own screen.
Randy Weigand
Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-
League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43
Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-
League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests