What ratings scale is most popular?

[Jonah Falcon]

I use 1-20, in keeping with the style of Football Manager.

[Sven Draconian]

Display talents 1-5, no actual ratings displayed. I like the additional challenge .

[Scoman]

1-100

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Jonah Falcon

I use 1-20, in keeping with the style of Football Manager.

As a player of both FM and EHM I also use the 1-20. Makes the transition between games very easy.

[Scoman]

Originally Posted by Sven Draconian

no actual ratings .

I think I need to switch to this method,seems its the only way to make the game the most difficult.

[wbonnell]

Although I like the idea of scouting, the 2k6/2k7 implementations are mind-numbingly tedious (I actually prefer the scouting in previous incarnations). Consequently, I turn scouting off but use 1-5 (for both actual and potential) with stars.

[wbonnell]

Originally Posted by Scoman

I think I need to switch to this method,seems its the only way to make the game the most difficult.

I've considered this approach (because I dislike the micro-mgmt heavy scouting system), but rejected it because I'm playing a text-based game. Without it, I have no way to "see" my players, especially youngsters.

[Magpiestar]

Originally Posted by Sweed

As a player of both FM and EHM I also use the 1-20. Makes the transition between games very easy.

I use the 1-20, cos i'm used to using that range from my years of CM/FM games. I found the 1-100, and 20-80 too wide ranging for me to take in at a glance.

[Nukester]

Originally Posted by Honolulu Blue

That's part of the reason I favor the same.

The other part is that I believe that the difference in gradients should be (in general) meaningful. The difference between "5" and "6" in any rating seems to be meaningful as it plays out in the game. The difference between "50" and "51" probably isn't, and there might be a tendency by myself as a GM/manager to make more of that difference than there really is.

Pretty much the same for me. I use 1-10 with no scouts or stars. I think for me, using this is the best, since I tend to have to go by past stats a little more when deciding between a player with a 5 rating and a player with a 6 rating. If I used a 1-100 scale, Id be tempted to use the player that was a 61 rating instead of the player that was a 54 rating, no matter what the past stats indicate. Something like that

[MikeS21]

OK, let's try a little experiment. Different folks use different ratings. How do you apply those ratings to players in your game?

Let's say you have two players:

Player A is a 26 year old starting pitcher who has career (two seasons) numbers of: 315 innings, 295 hits, 150 K's, 97 BB's, ERA of 4.48. Player A has a 91-93 mph fastball, a slightly better than average curveball, and an average change. How do you translate pitching stats like that into OOTP2007 ratings?

Player B: 29 years old. Career stats (five seasons) of 2427 AB's, 673 Hits, 144 2B's, 6 3B's, 86 HR's, 428 K's, 377 BB's, and lifetime BA of .278. How do you translate these hitting stats into ratings?

[Sven Draconian]

Originally Posted by wbonnell

I've considered this approach (because I dislike the micro-mgmt heavy scouting system), but rejected it because I'm playing a text-based game. Without it, I have no way to "see" my players, especially youngsters.

As a fan, I've never looked at ESPN and seen "Jeremy Bonderman, 95 stuff, 80 control, 75 movement" either . I doubt too many managers have at that.

[pat]

Originally Posted by sporr

I use 1-10, mostly because it's the most similar to older versions of the game.

Same here.

I do not like 1-100 because the players' ratings don't have mystery. With 1-10, you do not know if it's in the low 10 or the high 10 or something.

[tb62388]

1-5! like the uncertainty of ratings, love to look at stats.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Jonah Falcon

I use 1-20, in keeping with the style of Football Manager.

Do you use the setting that allows you to see when somebody has an exceptionally long rating? I find that every now and then knowing who has off-the-charts ratings in, for example, gap power will allow me to appreciate a player that much more.

[Zitofan75]

20-80, never interested in the others.

[Althius]

Can someone please explain why 20-80 is used IRL?

[CaLíKrAzY]

Last year I went w/ 1-20 and thought to myself I think is too easy because I know a little too much about all my guys. This year I've tried 2-8 for the main ratings, 1-5 for potential and 1-10 for other tools.

So far there's a good mix of uncertainty and this forces me to utilize stats more in transactions which is what baseball's pretty much all about.

[Crimguy]

Before we discard any of the ratings systems, aren't they always subject to error, either by the scout you employed, or by SISA? So regardless of how granular it is, you're still somewhat in the dark as to the true ratings, right?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Crimguy

Before we discard any of the ratings systems, aren't they always subject to error, either by the scout you employed, or by SISA? So regardless of how granular it is, you're still somewhat in the dark as to the true ratings, right?

It's true, there is going to be error in scouting in all ratings levels, and it's going to be to pretty much exactly the same degree. However, it just doesn't seem realistic to me to say "hmm, Dennis Dean has a Contact of 52 whereas Ray Cable's is 49. Well, there's my decision then!" At some level, a scout really shouldn't be able to tell you one guy is 3% better than another at any one scouted category.

I use 20-80, which is basically base 13. This is good because it's less granular than even 1-20 and also it has a midpoint.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Althius

Can someone please explain why 20-80 is used IRL?

it's actually 2-8.

you start with the baseline of 5, which is average. Then you have three levels above, three levels below.

8 = outstanding
7 = well above average
6 = above average

5 = average

4 = below average
3 = well below average
2 = poor

2 and 8 are extremes you rarely see. Most are 4, 5, or 6.

you can read more here.