Kudos to The Wolf!

[frank_olaf]

any ideas on the above?
Thanks

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by frank_olaf

any ideas on the above?
Thanks

I don't think you are necessarily getting an advantage, because the ratings aren't always predictive of performance in any given season (though they are over a longer period of time).

EDIT: deleted some stuff about stats-only that's not relevant

[CR5]

Originally Posted by baseballonly

I leave stars on but never look at them. I have found that if you do, you are setting yourself up for failure since there are many 5-stars who are overrated just due to speed/defense and there are many 1-stars who have better ratings than those 5-stars.

Same here. I look at them, but build teams more to what I like depending on the team I have constructed.

[Syd Thrift]

I will go so far as to say that while they still aren't perfect I think Wolf's ratings (especially 0/67/22/11) are the best way to go for historical and historical/fictional leagues. The problem with using the defaults is that not only will the game base things on ratings, it'll do so from the standpoint of a modern day manager/GM. That in turn means that it'll do stuff like grossly overrate power in the deadball era, starting a .230 hitter full time because he has the awesome power to hit double digit homeruns. Or else it'll live with a really awful 3rd baseman for way, way too long (we're talking sub-.800 fielding average bad) because a. 3rd base isn't nearly as much of a fielding-central position as it was back then and b. avoiding errors isn't nearly as big of a deal now as it was then as well.

Even with a 0 assigned to ratings the game will still grade players based on ratings if there's nothing else out there for it to base things on. If you make a superstar player from scratch and place them on a team, that team will likely immediately start them and bat them in the heart of the order. There also appears to be a sliding scale for this, so that guys who go 0-5 in their first professional game won't suddenly be relegated to the bench or anything. So... 0% isn't really 0%.

[sreem]

I've switched to 10/60/20/10, and was wondering if you make any adjustments to "Trade Difficulty"/"Trade Preference"?


Differing from you guys, I turn off all ratings except Ovr/Pot and Other. I base some of my decisions on ratings, but mostly on stats.

[frank_olaf]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I will go so far as to say that while they still aren't perfect I think Wolf's ratings (especially 0/67/22/11) are the best way to go for historical and historical/fictional leagues. The problem with using the defaults is that not only will the game base things on ratings, it'll do so from the standpoint of a modern day manager/GM. That in turn means that it'll do stuff like grossly overrate power in the deadball era, starting a .230 hitter full time because he has the awesome power to hit double digit homeruns. Or else it'll live with a really awful 3rd baseman for way, way too long (we're talking sub-.800 fielding average bad) because a. 3rd base isn't nearly as much of a fielding-central position as it was back then and b. avoiding errors isn't nearly as big of a deal now as it was then as well.

Even with a 0 assigned to ratings the game will still grade players based on ratings if there's nothing else out there for it to base things on. If you make a superstar player from scratch and place them on a team, that team will likely immediately start them and bat them in the heart of the order. There also appears to be a sliding scale for this, so that guys who go 0-5 in their first professional game won't suddenly be relegated to the bench or anything. So... 0% isn't really 0%.

How about for a standard MLB league, do you think the ratings (10/60/20/10) are still suitable?

[Syd Thrift]

I don't play with the modern day much but when I do play 70s Era leagues 0/67/22/11 works great for me.

[SirMichaelJordan]

I believe batters (not sure about the criteria for pitchers) need a certain number of AB or PA for his stats to start being weighted to the % set. I also think its prorated so if a player doesn't meet the criteria during the year then his AB/PA for the previous year are added and so on. Also major league stats hold more value than minor league stats and if a player has 0 stats to go by then ratings are given more weight by default. Well at least thats the info Ive collected and had experienced from testing.

[Saul Goodman]

Using a 10/50/30/10 AI Eval settings at the moment (might give 10/60/20/10 ago soon too) and wondering if anyone plays with overall/potential ratings off (ie no stars)?

I'm wondering if I should give it a go, as I think I might be relying on star ratings a little too much when trading etc and perhaps with turning them off might change the way I try to construct trades, what players to target etc.

Just looking for some opinions on how people think the game plays without having star ratings on.

[tcoots423]

Originally Posted by Saul Goodman

Using a 10/50/30/10 AI Eval settings at the moment (might give 10/60/20/10 ago soon too) and wondering if anyone plays with overall/potential ratings off (ie no stars)?

I'm wondering if I should give it a go, as I think I might be relying on star ratings a little too much when trading etc and perhaps with turning them off might change the way I try to construct trades, what players to target etc.

Just looking for some opinions on how people think the game plays without having star ratings on.

You can play with or without them on. I think its just something to look at, and certain people dont want 5 shiny stars to distract them from the fact thier player hits .220 consistently haha (aka 1B Matt Olson from the A's). I have them on with the settings the wolf put out and its a ton of fun. But the main thing to look at is stats and ratings.. I had Jose Peraza in a trade from the Braves on my Toronto team. He was 1 Star with 1 Star potential(fell from 5 stars in like one season). He consistenly batted .300, was top 3 in stolen bases, and won the AL Gold Glove at 2b every year(80/80) defense) IDC about the stars... JOSE PERAZA can play so i continue to keep him!

[frank_olaf]

I turned off the stars a few weeks ago and it's really changed the way I play. Just like you said, you end up spending more time trying to put trades together and getting more immersed in the game.

I would definitely recommend it.

Just beware, it will take a little while to get used to, but once you do, it will be worth it.

[tcoots423]

Originally Posted by frank_olaf

I turned off the stars a few weeks ago and it's really changed the way I play. Just like you said, you end up spending more time trying to put trades together and getting more immersed in the game.

I would definitely recommend it.

Just beware, it will take a little while to get used to, but once you do, it will be worth it.

What team do you normally use? Curious!!

[frank_olaf]

Originally Posted by tcoots423

What team do you normally use? Curious!!

I've been playing with the Tampa Bay Rays with these new settings. I also have a Cubs save going but haven't played that in a while. I'm playing in GM mode only.

This is my first year playing OOTP so I don't have a team I usually play with but I would recommend Tampa. It's fun trying to win now and also buidling for the future.

[tcoots423]

Originally Posted by frank_olaf

I've been playing with the Tampa Bay Rays with these new settings. I also have a Cubs save going but haven't played that in a while. I'm playing in GM mode only.

This is my first year playing OOTP so I don't have a team I usually play with but I would recommend Tampa. It's fun trying to win now and also buidling for the future.

I have 3 teams that I like to play with the most for different reasons

Atlanta- Childhood favorite
Detroit- Family is from there, plus thier budget is up there with the LAS and NY teams

but my favorite is Toronto, im half canadian, always loved thier colors and jerseys, and love beating the sox and especially the yankees haha.. Josh Donaldson is my favorite player too, even though on here he only seems to hit about .260

[RubeBaker]

Wow, I'm amazed and pleasantly surprised that this thread is still active and going strong! Now, if only the same could be said about my threads on the "Dynasty Reports" forum.