The Planetary Extreme Baseball Alliance

Borealis wrote:Here's one of the most disconcerting one on the Front Range - and he went to Winter Ball to improve his K number... here's hoping there's a bounce back!!

Torres.png

Also I have noticed that aside from position rating, our pitchers have no defensive ratings on their main page - you have to go to the ratings page, but they do have Batting ratings on their main page... Ppppppfffffffftttttttt....

Torres's true ratings were not changed, except for Winter Ball.

You'd think in a DH league they wouldn't do that with pitcher batting ratings (who cares?) and defensive ratings, but at least they're still displayed somewhere. The ongoing trend of Ootp of hiding more and more information with each new version is annoying.

Evas wrote:The new stats almost look like the stat levels we were playing with back in the LRS. Back then I could count on "6" contact guy to hit .290 - but I wouldn't expect that out of anything less than an "8" in 2025 in PEBA.

If the shift is permanent it might actually be useful as the degree of difference between players who are just adequate in a stat and those that are very good seem to have been amplified.

I hope this is the case. I was kind of tired of guys with above average ratings and below average performance. This could be a significant improvement.

Now we can only hope the ratings might lower player expectations on salaries

Commish wrote: You'd think in a DH league they wouldn't do that with pitcher batting ratings (who cares?) and defensive ratings, but at least they're still displayed somewhere. The ongoing trend of Ootp of hiding more and more information with each new version is annoying.

Ya I really hope v18 is not another turd from OOTP just to get $ ... so far not real thrilled with what I purchased. v17 was horrid where v15 was pretty dam good

We are in the process of updating StatsLab, but in the meantime we have lost some functionality, notably the Export Tracker.

This will have to wait until Dan has some time to look into it.

I've already tested uploading the league file and downloading updates from the server, and that worked fine.

Regarding the scouting evaluation changes. Much of this can be attributed to checking the option "All player ratings are displayed relative to Planetary Extreme Baseball Alliance", rather than absolute values. This is a change from v.17 where this was not checked. What this did was make a '5' rating average in comparison to PEBA talent, and created more separation for ratings of ML-level players relative to each other.

This gives us a more fine-grained looked at ML level players, though it flattens the range of ratings for minor leaguers (making statistical performance more important in evaluating minor league players).

If we want to, we can always go back to the old way in the next league file.

I want to emphasize again that no true ratings changed, just scout evaluations, so on-field performance will be the same either way.

Commish wrote:Regarding the scouting evaluation changes. Much of this can be attributed to checking the option "All player ratings are displayed relative to Planetary Extreme Baseball Alliance", rather than absolute values. This is a change from v.17 where this was not checked. What this did was make a '5' rating average in comparison to PEBA talent, and created more separation for ratings of ML-level players relative to each other.

This gives us a more fine-grained looked at ML level players, though it flattens the range of ratings for minor leaguers (making statistical performance more important in evaluating minor league players).

If we want to, we can always go back to the old way in the next league file.

So, if I understand this, the change gives us a 'truer' view of a player? Does that also suggest that our scout's opinions are diminished?

IDK... I, for one, would like to see a return to where we were - as it is now, we all are going to have to 'reinvent the wheel' on how we look at not only our players, but all players across the league - basically having to learn a whole new 'language', which seems unnecessary.

Just my 2¢...

And I'll add, that with this option enabled, you can change the displayed ratings relative to whichever league you choose on an player's profile page, if you're looking at filling out your minor leagues, or if you want to feel better about your players' ratings.

Borealis wrote:

Commish wrote:Regarding the scouting evaluation changes. Much of this can be attributed to checking the option "All player ratings are displayed relative to Planetary Extreme Baseball Alliance", rather than absolute values. This is a change from v.17 where this was not checked. What this did was make a '5' rating average in comparison to PEBA talent, and created more separation for ratings of ML-level players relative to each other.

This gives us a more fine-grained looked at ML level players, though it flattens the range of ratings for minor leaguers (making statistical performance more important in evaluating minor league players).

If we want to, we can always go back to the old way in the next league file.

So, if I understand this, the change gives us a 'truer' view of a player? Does that also suggest that our scout's opinions are diminished?

IDK... I, for one, would like to see a return to where we were - as it is now, we all are going to have to 'reinvent the wheel' on how we look at not only our players, but all players across the league - basically having to learn a whole new 'language', which seems unnecessary.

Just my 2¢...

Scouts' overall opinions of players/prospects haven't changed, just the scale used to represent those opinions.

The scale should be far easier to understand. Whichever league you choose, you see a player's ratings (both current and potential) relative to that league, with 5=average. Player evaluation should be much easier, in theory.

The old way, what would you say average was in the PEBA? Somewhere around 6 and two-thirds, maybe? What about at AAA, or AA? You kinda had to guess.

I don't mind the new system with that explanation. I'm especially glad we know exactly why the ratings changed. If it were just weirdness from switching to 18, I would be more concerned.

I do think it is good that it provides more differentiation for PEBA level talent, which is more important than the absolute scale.

As long as we all understand what the rating now mean I think it is likely an improvement.

Commish wrote:The scale should be far easier to understand. Whichever league you choose, you see a player's ratings (both current and potential) relative to that league, with 5=average. Player evaluation should be much easier, in theory.

Kinda like those '+' stats - ERA+, WAR+, etc, where you look at a number relative to 'League Average'?

Man... I hate those new fangled statistics...

So far I have seen nothing but improvements in my guys, in both prospects and vets. I am going mostly by memory though. That I had to cut my scouting budget last year may have something to do with it.

It is odd that my OSA ratings in game are higher across the board than those in Statslab though (those definitely took a hit)...even though both are dated Jan. 30.

Thanks for the explanation. If 5 is the league average, then the ratings changes make sense.

Commish wrote: Scouts' overall opinions of players/prospects haven't changed,.

That isn't true, my scout says lots of different things about my prospects and others...So there opinion did change.

With this explanation, the ratings definitely make sense. Seeing .200 hitters with 3 contact is reasonable, but I was definitely concerned when good players at certain things had their ratings only at 6 or 7.

My first take on this is that I think this definitely would reduce our "fog of war" aspect because a group of players that may have previously clustered at 7 or 8 ratings, but now it might be distributed across the 4-7 range.

I hated this last night, but kind of like it today. But I like change. If the vets who are used to the current scale hate it, I'm fine with whatever they decide.

I am in favor of adjusting to the new system. It's weird at first, but I think it will be more useful moving forward.

Sandgnats wrote:I am in favor of adjusting to the new system. It's weird at first, but I think it will be more useful moving forward.

I kind of feel like it diminishes that whole 'fog' thing...