Tell me why the new ratings system is better

Baseballman2K5 · 08-03-2025, 05:47 PM

So many players have individual ratings right around 50. I'm not talking about OVR/POT...I've been playing since OOTP4 and understand ovr and pot have never mattered.

I had a SP have a brilliant rookie year with mostly 50 ratings, but in the offseason he lost 5 stuff and went down to 45 from 50, with a 55 potential at stuff. Why would he lose ratings after a season where he posted a 3.10 ERA in his rookie year with 180 Ks in 182.2 IP?

I also had a 28 year old SP who had a 3.59 ERA with 171 Ks in 165.1 IP with a 1.12 WHIP....go from 60 control to 50.

Both these rating decreases OSA agrees with vs my Scout, so it's not a matter of just my scout.

There are too many players that hover right around the 50s for individual ratings that it's impossible to compare players outside of Stats. Do stats>ratings matter a lot more now? There are FAs that just sit in FA, that have very similar ratings to some players that have all-star numbers.

This is the first version in 22 years where I've been very dissapointed with how ratings play out.

If anyone can explain the new ratings system better to me...or why so many players hover right around 50s in individual ratings, compared to past versions...I'd love to hear solid reasons why it's now like this.

Thanks

PSUColonel · 08-03-2025, 05:59 PM

Because this is the case in MLB. Most players scouting grades hover in the average range which is considered anywhere from 45-55

OutS|der · 08-03-2025, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baseballman2K5

So many players have individual ratings right around 50. I'm not talking about OVR/POT...I've been playing since OOTP4 and understand ovr and pot have never mattered.

I had a SP have a brilliant rookie year with mostly 50 ratings, but in the offseason he lost 5 stuff and went down to 45 from 50, with a 55 potential at stuff. Why would he lose ratings after a season where he posted a 3.10 ERA in his rookie year with 180 Ks in 182.2 IP?

I also had a 28 year old SP who had a 3.59 ERA with 171 Ks in 165.1 IP with a 1.12 WHIP....go from 60 control to 50.

Both these rating decreases OSA agrees with vs my Scout, so it's not a matter of just my scout.

There are too many players that hover right around the 50s for individual ratings that it's impossible to compare players outside of Stats. Do stats>ratings matter a lot more now? There are FAs that just sit in FA, that have very similar ratings to some players that have all-star numbers.

This is the first version in 22 years where I've been very dissapointed with how ratings play out.

If anyone can explain the new ratings system better to me...or why so many players hover right around 50s in individual ratings, compared to past versions...I'd love to hear solid reasons why it's now like this.

Thanks

Because ratings were inflated before. This is more realistic and challenging. Also players internal ratings went from 250 to 600. There is a lot more variance between displayed ratings now.

There are no such thing as All-Star numbers when it's a fan vote on popularity and every team gets a player, stats or not.

PSUColonel · 08-04-2025, 02:08 AM

I love it!! It does however make me re-think what the AI evaluation settings should be. I’ve always been a proponent of a very ratings heavy setup like 70-15-10-5. But I’m now starting to think maybe it should be something like 55-25-15-5. I know a lot of people obviously use 25-25-25-25 and I’d have to see, but under this new system that may just be a very good setup as well.

jcard · 08-04-2025, 07:39 AM

In defense of the OP:

1) If relative to league ratings are being used, the distribution of ratings should be flatter (thus, more broadly distributed) than the absolute ratings that you see on many websites.

2) As I mentioned elsewhere, real-life scouting departments have an entire range of physical, mental, and performance data—by which they can (however quixotically) at least feel that they are distinguishing future value deltas between players—that are not present in OOTP. This is a game, and it is understandable that the user wants to realize a greater sense of agency than that of choosing from a large bowl of fortune cookies.

LansdowneSt · 08-04-2025, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcard

This is a game, and it is understandable that the user wants to realize a greater sense of agency than that of choosing from a large bowl of fortune cookies.

Isn't this why the game has other scales available? i never much got into the debates of whether the 20-80 scale should be game-like or realistic. I've always used 1-100 as the scale so incremental differences show. Others like much lower, rounded scales for a fog of war. There isn't just one scale, one way, for all customers.

Baseballman2K5 · 08-04-2025, 12:36 PM

Thanks for the replies. I guess it makes sense and is ultimately more realistic

noooooo4499 · 08-04-2025, 01:03 PM

It's normally distributed now. It's just how the universe tends to work

NoOne · 08-04-2025, 04:22 PM

Greater resolution..

the scale you choose to see - stars, 20-80 or 1-100 are just less resolved veneers.

Also, it shouldnt be "normally" distributed. That infers a bell curve. The distribution curve for pro sports context is not a bell curve. It's a truncated bell curve.... The last few percentiles are the curve... and, it is decidedly fat at the bottom and reduces quickly from there - a steep decline.

an 'everyday' player at 2-3 war is not median nor average. It's well above average, or should be.

Hopefully, it helps reproduce this sort of distribution more accurately...

You don't get that with 'real' players because human biases are baked in no matter how much people profess 'zips' is not influenced in such a way... it must be because the distirbution curve is notably bloated and malformed. 100x worse for 'real' prospects' ratings distribution..

Some of it is is understandable... easy argument that the game is more enjoyable with prospects you are familiar with getting a leg-up. But, theey could do some sort of random alottment of potential among them.. that way it wouldn't be so easily predictable and you can enforce a more realistic distribution curve.

This is why i hate playing multiple seasons with the real players / modern day. The league gets so oversaturated with talent that the stat distribution, even if accuurate league-wide, just sucks.

jcard · 08-05-2025, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Isn't this why the game has other scales available? i never much got into the debates of whether the 20-80 scale should be game-like or realistic. I've always used 1-100 as the scale so incremental differences show. Others like much lower, rounded scales for a fog of war. There isn't just one scale, one way, for all customers.

57 vs 56 vs 58 on some 100 point scale only superficially improves upon 12 vs 12 vs 12 on a twenty point scale, not to mention the issues with translating those numbers. ItÂ’s 2025. The scouts should be giving you projected stat lines, like in the editor only based on scouted ratings instead of real. Still, the similar ratings are not really the problem. Rather, it is that they are ALL we have with which to work. The real solution is to have more types of component information for players to parse. Just in terms of performance metrics, watch an ESPN Statcast telecast to get an idea of the myriad possibilities.

OldFatGuy · 08-06-2025, 03:45 AM

I like the fog of war too, but 20 to 80 with increments of 5 is only 12 variables. That's a little too much for my liking, so I've always played with a 1 to 20 scale. Always seemed a nice medium to me. YMMV

Pelican · 08-06-2025, 09:08 AM

I like the new ratings approach so far. It does tend to flatten things out in the middle, as IRL, true, and the 20-80 ratings scale makes that worse, particularly in increments of 5. All the guys in the middle look the same.

I play with the 1-100 scale, single digits, high scouting accuracy, which is more granular. Yeah, I fully realize and accept that no rating system could be that accurate. Those numbers are estimates, approximations. But those ratings are based on a 600 point scale, so you do get differences, and a valid basis for making distinctions between players. Sure, those differences may prove to be illusory. I still get plenty of good and bad surprises. What I can do is make informed choices on decent evaluations - as can the AI with opposing teams.

Fog of war? I don't understand the challenge. You're left with a bunch of seemingly random players, with no reliable information on which to base a draft, a free agent signing, trades, a roster, lineups. [Or, can you go outside OOTP and check their stats?] Only after they accumulate stats at the MLB level do you have some data. But without meaningful ratings, you could be seeing a hot streak by a bad player, or a cold streak by a good player. Where's the fun in that?

No judging. We play the way we want. Playing without meaningful information is a choice. Like all choices, with consequences. The result is ratings that are not reliable, not stable, just not helpful. That isn't a weakness of the game itself. It's a direct result of choosing to play in a certain way.

oldfatbaldguy · 08-06-2025, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

I like the fog of war too, but 20 to 80 with increments of 5 is only 12 variables. That's a little too much for my liking, so I've always played with a 1 to 20 scale. Always seemed a nice medium to me. YMMV

I play 1 to 20 too, without caps. Some guys go over 20 for some ratings. I like this system.

What I'm noticing about the new ratings is that I need to change the way I evaluate my roster. With the 1 to 20 scale, pitchers whose stuff, movement and control ratings added up to 30 used to be guys you needed to replace ASAP, and guys around 34 were just OK. Now the 30s seem to be OK and the 34s are pretty good. Very few guys still go way up toward 50. Guys with ratings you wouldn't pay serious money for are now guys you have to consider paying serious money.

08-03-2025, 05:47 PM	#1
Baseballman2K5 Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Phoenix Posts: 476	Tell me why the new ratings system is better So many players have individual ratings right around 50. I'm not talking about OVR/POT...I've been playing since OOTP4 and understand ovr and pot have never mattered. I had a SP have a brilliant rookie year with mostly 50 ratings, but in the offseason he lost 5 stuff and went down to 45 from 50, with a 55 potential at stuff. Why would he lose ratings after a season where he posted a 3.10 ERA in his rookie year with 180 Ks in 182.2 IP? I also had a 28 year old SP who had a 3.59 ERA with 171 Ks in 165.1 IP with a 1.12 WHIP....go from 60 control to 50. Both these rating decreases OSA agrees with vs my Scout, so it's not a matter of just my scout. There are too many players that hover right around the 50s for individual ratings that it's impossible to compare players outside of Stats. Do stats>ratings matter a lot more now? There are FAs that just sit in FA, that have very similar ratings to some players that have all-star numbers. This is the first version in 22 years where I've been very dissapointed with how ratings play out. If anyone can explain the new ratings system better to me...or why so many players hover right around 50s in individual ratings, compared to past versions...I'd love to hear solid reasons why it's now like this. Thanks

08-06-2025, 03:45 AM	#11
OldFatGuy All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Northern Va., Loudoun County Posts: 1,893	I like the fog of war too, but 20 to 80 with increments of 5 is only 12 variables. That's a little too much for my liking, so I've always played with a 1 to 20 scale. Always seemed a nice medium to me. YMMV __________________ I believed in drug testing a long time ago. In the 60's I tested everything. - Bill Lee

08-06-2025, 09:08 AM	#12
Pelican Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2021 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 2,934	I like the new ratings approach so far. It does tend to flatten things out in the middle, as IRL, true, and the 20-80 ratings scale makes that worse, particularly in increments of 5. All the guys in the middle look the same. I play with the 1-100 scale, single digits, high scouting accuracy, which is more granular. Yeah, I fully realize and accept that no rating system could be that accurate. Those numbers are estimates, approximations. But those ratings are based on a 600 point scale, so you do get differences, and a valid basis for making distinctions between players. Sure, those differences may prove to be illusory. I still get plenty of good and bad surprises. What I can do is make informed choices on decent evaluations - as can the AI with opposing teams. Fog of war? I don't understand the challenge. You're left with a bunch of seemingly random players, with no reliable information on which to base a draft, a free agent signing, trades, a roster, lineups. [Or, can you go outside OOTP and check their stats?] Only after they accumulate stats at the MLB level do you have some data. But without meaningful ratings, you could be seeing a hot streak by a bad player, or a cold streak by a good player. Where's the fun in that? No judging. We play the way we want. Playing without meaningful information is a choice. Like all choices, with consequences. The result is ratings that are not reliable, not stable, just not helpful. That isn't a weakness of the game itself. It's a direct result of choosing to play in a certain way. __________________ Pelican OOTP 2020-? ”Hard to believe, Harry.” Last edited by Pelican; 08-06-2025 at 09:12 AM.

08-03-2025, 05:59 PM	#2
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,104	Because this is the case in MLB. Most players scouting grades hover in the average range which is considered anywhere from 45-55

08-04-2025, 02:08 AM	#4
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,104	I love it!! It does however make me re-think what the AI evaluation settings should be. I’ve always been a proponent of a very ratings heavy setup like 70-15-10-5. But I’m now starting to think maybe it should be something like 55-25-15-5. I know a lot of people obviously use 25-25-25-25 and I’d have to see, but under this new system that may just be a very good setup as well.

08-04-2025, 07:39 AM	#5
jcard All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 593 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	In defense of the OP: 1) If relative to league ratings are being used, the distribution of ratings should be flatter (thus, more broadly distributed) than the absolute ratings that you see on many websites. 2) As I mentioned elsewhere, real-life scouting departments have an entire range of physical, mental, and performance data—by which they can (however quixotically) at least feel that they are distinguishing future value deltas between players—that are not present in OOTP. This is a game, and it is understandable that the user wants to realize a greater sense of agency than that of choosing from a large bowl of fortune cookies.

08-04-2025, 12:36 PM	#7
Baseballman2K5 Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Phoenix Posts: 476	Thanks for the replies. I guess it makes sense and is ultimately more realistic

08-04-2025, 01:03 PM	#8
noooooo4499 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2019 Posts: 29	It's normally distributed now. It's just how the universe tends to work

08-04-2025, 04:22 PM	#9
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/2 (4)	Greater resolution.. the scale you choose to see - stars, 20-80 or 1-100 are just less resolved veneers. Also, it shouldnt be "normally" distributed. That infers a bell curve. The distribution curve for pro sports context is not a bell curve. It's a truncated bell curve.... The last few percentiles are the curve... and, it is decidedly fat at the bottom and reduces quickly from there - a steep decline. an 'everyday' player at 2-3 war is not median nor average. It's well above average, or should be. Hopefully, it helps reproduce this sort of distribution more accurately... You don't get that with 'real' players because human biases are baked in no matter how much people profess 'zips' is not influenced in such a way... it must be because the distirbution curve is notably bloated and malformed. 100x worse for 'real' prospects' ratings distribution.. Some of it is is understandable... easy argument that the game is more enjoyable with prospects you are familiar with getting a leg-up. But, theey could do some sort of random alottment of potential among them.. that way it wouldn't be so easily predictable and you can enforce a more realistic distribution curve. This is why i hate playing multiple seasons with the real players / modern day. The league gets so oversaturated with talent that the stat distribution, even if accuurate league-wide, just sucks.