bigmark
General Manager 
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Oct 26, 2015 0:20:43 GMT -5
It would if we stopped giving into people who want to inflate all the ratings.... Well the draft certainly isn't what's inflating the ratings. So you admit the ratings are inflated.... |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 0:21:49 GMT -5
no I'm saying if they are supposedy "inflated" these awful drafts are certainly not the culprit. I leave it to you to find one if there is and display it. I blame natural inflation the game has.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 0:24:01 GMT -5
Even in leagues without PD reversals I end up with teams full of guys G/B/B, G/B/G, B/G/A, B/A/A, G/G/B, with G/A/A kind of backups when drafts are rated normally and not even inflated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 0:24:45 GMT -5
aka my twins in gabl
|
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Oct 26, 2015 0:32:01 GMT -5
no I'm saying if they are supposedy "inflated" these awful drafts are certainly not the culprit. I leave it to you to find one if there is and display it. I blame natural inflation the game has.So with the natural inflation the game has....why would we inflate the drafts even more if the game takes care of that plus we have point rate ups and protection..... its pointless to touch the draft at that point |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 26, 2015 8:19:49 GMT -5
The chart isn't archaic, the program is. I believe the chart is straight from the developers of ootp5, I don't think it's just a made up thing. I made the chart from scratch; it's a JPG export from the excel document I put together; but the numbers are straight out of OOTP5. Anyone can make their own solo league and test it for themselves, it's 100% accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 26, 2015 8:24:57 GMT -5
Don't forget that the league stat modifiers are the main coefficients that drive stats. Think of the league stat modifiers as gravity. Whatever the numerical ratings are, whether they are in a range of 0 to 10 or 1 to 3, they will be pulled into the direction of the league stat modifiers.
That means, ultimately, the numerical ratings do not truly matter in terms of how many home runs they will hit. But it will matter in comparison to other players in the league. For instance, if a player has a 5 in HR, you probably think they will only hit 15-18 home runs, right? Well, that depends on what the other players in the league has. If there are players that go up to 14 (like Mathews does now), then yea, a 5 rating will probably get you 15-18 home runs. But what if the other players in the league top out at 6-7? Then that player with the 5 rating will probably hit 25-30 home runs instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 26, 2015 8:32:13 GMT -5
Offense will be fairly stagnant until the mid 1970s, then stablize through the early 1980's and explode in the mid 1980s. Those players with the 5 in home runs won't hit 15 home runs in each of those time periods, they will be hitting like 12 in the 1970s, 15 in the 1980's and 18-20 in the mid 1980s.
What matters is their rating compared to other players in the league.
The only problem I see is the AR rating for pitchers, it is very misleading and I often ignore them. I look for a combination of the hitting, home run and walk ratings, divided by 3.
|
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on Oct 26, 2015 9:13:44 GMT -5
I'm just stuck on the same gm who says he always gets bad pd hits now saying he gets too many good rate ups.
|
|
Matt
Other 
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 26, 2015 9:19:34 GMT -5
Offense will be fairly stagnant until the mid 1970s, then stablize through the early 1980's and explode in the mid 1980s. Those players with the 5 in home runs won't hit 15 home runs in each of those time periods, they will be hitting like 12 in the 1970s, 15 in the 1980's and 18-20 in the mid 1980s. What matters is their rating compared to other players in the league. The only problem I see is the AR rating for pitchers, it is very misleading and I often ignore them. I look for a combination of the hitting, home run and walk ratings, divided by 3. With you saying that, there are too many top heavy hitters in the league. Nags/Thomas/Nomura are at least a 6 in hits with a career average under 260. Brock is an 8 in hits and has hit 270 or under the past 2 seasons. My offense is offensive compared to what the players are rated. Which I understand was part of that era of baseball where pitching ruled....but it's crazy how bad mine is compared to others similar. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 26, 2015 9:24:44 GMT -5
Offense will be fairly stagnant until the mid 1970s, then stablize through the early 1980's and explode in the mid 1980s. Those players with the 5 in home runs won't hit 15 home runs in each of those time periods, they will be hitting like 12 in the 1970s, 15 in the 1980's and 18-20 in the mid 1980s. What matters is their rating compared to other players in the league. The only problem I see is the AR rating for pitchers, it is very misleading and I often ignore them. I look for a combination of the hitting, home run and walk ratings, divided by 3. With you saying that, there are too many top heavy hitters in the league. Nags/Thomas/Nomura are at least a 6 in hits with a career average under 260. Brock is an 8 in hits and has hit 270 or under the past 2 seasons. My offense is offensive compared to what the players are rated. Which I understand was part of that era of baseball where pitching ruled....but it's crazy how bad mine is compared to others similar. I have no answers for your Nags/Nomura guys. Brock not hitting at least .300 is puzzling. |
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 26, 2015 9:31:37 GMT -5
With you saying that, there are too many top heavy hitters in the league. Nags/Thomas/Nomura are at least a 6 in hits with a career average under 260. Brock is an 8 in hits and has hit 270 or under the past 2 seasons. My offense is offensive compared to what the players are rated. Which I understand was part of that era of baseball where pitching ruled....but it's crazy how bad mine is compared to others similar. I have no answers for your Nags/Nomura guys. Brock not hitting at least .300 is puzzling. I've seen a season or two aberration, but nothing like Nags and Nomura for almost their entire career. If I had any money I'd change my ballpark ratings, but then again I'd add more seats to make more money....but I just can't do it! Haha. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 26, 2015 11:06:53 GMT -5
If I had to guess, I would say that their 6's are low 6's, which would normally equate to .287 average, but since the modifiers are pointing to lower offensive ratings overall, it's probably being pulled to the .270's or lower. If we were in the mid-1980's, I bet they would be hitting near 290's with the leaderboard guys normally in the .330's.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 26, 2015 11:08:10 GMT -5
Which makes Nomura even more of a head-scratcher. I guess it's being a catcher the is a drag too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 14:10:25 GMT -5
because the game won't naturally inflate when it doesn't feel it needs to obviously. But if you wanna play in a league where the #1 pitcher in the draft is worse than 100 other pitchers in the league, then the game is going to get wonky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 14:14:23 GMT -5
I'm just stuck on the same gm who says he always gets bad pd hits now saying he gets too many good rate ups. When did I say I get too many rate ups? Jesus christ you just make shit up as you go don't you. I should just ignore you and only talk to chris about it because you clearly live on a different planet from the rest of us and see things that don't exist. |
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on Oct 26, 2015 15:38:05 GMT -5
I'm just stuck on the same gm who says he always gets bad pd hits now saying he gets too many good rate ups. When did I say I get too many rate ups? Jesus christ you just make shit up as you go don't you. I should just ignore you and only talk to chris about it because you clearly live on a different planet from the rest of us and see things that don't exist. Oh my bad right I must be on a different planet where not every player drafted is a superstar, not every player is clutch and people don't whine constantly. I call that planet earth maybe you've heard of it. As for the rest all agreeing with you take your own advice and learn to read. Go ahead an ignore me I really don't care it'll save me having to read whatever " the league is out to get me" BS you come up with next time. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 16:50:03 GMT -5
Being serviceable does not equal being a superstar. You're putting words in my mouth like a douchebag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 16:50:19 GMT -5
A/G/A players are not serviceable. Not once have I asked for there to be 1000 studs in the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 16:51:37 GMT -5
You're creating drafts where there are almost no players who will serviceable perform in the majors without us putting board points or luck into them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 16:52:27 GMT -5
forcing the game to inflate
causing you to think the game is inflating
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Oct 26, 2015 16:54:21 GMT -5
it's a cycle and you are the cause
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 26, 2015 17:16:25 GMT -5
You're creating drafts where there are almost no players who will serviceable perform in the majors without us putting board points or luck into them. That won't be possible because there are league modifiers within the OOTP engine. If we make everyone Poors and 1's and 2'. Those with 1's will be average and those who are 2's will be superstars. It literally does not matter, especially when Siebern, Mays, Hank and a couple top-heavy guys retire in the next 3-4 seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 26, 2015 17:28:17 GMT -5
And besides, the planned ratings are fine; everyone earns about enough points to increase a potential talent rating to 1-2 players each year. That is intentional because it allows you to stack your points into a player and make them however you want them to be (sans intangibles HAH). Want Pete Rose to hit more home runs? Spend the points. Want Tony Perez to be slightly better? Spend the points into hitting. Want Nolan Ryan or Randy Johnson to get a better handle on the walks rating? Go ahead and spend the points. Love a certain player despite he being average at best? Spend the points! It's there for a reason.
I have no issues with the draft pools, at all. The way I think of it, I assume everyone will spend points to increase one rating to each player drafted, particular first round draft picks. Imagine the very same pool you're looking at, and change one average rating for the top players and change it to good...that's what the Reward Camp system effectively does. Don't forget the bonus credits given to reverse PD hits to first round draft picks.
|
|
Darryl
New Member
California Angels
Posts: 2,412
|
Post by Darryl on Oct 26, 2015 17:31:26 GMT -5
it's a cycle and you are the cause Yep it's gotta be me I mean given that I have been told my ratings are too high and Chris approves. |
|
