Changes of Heart

[1998 Yankees]

On the chance that anyone will be interested (a long shot, I know), I would like to share some changes of opinion that I have had concerning OOTP gameplay. Background: After 10 long "years" of minor league management, working my way up the ladder, I am in my first year as a MLB GM, a job that I forced my way into as commissioner.

1) I will never manage in the minors again. The coup de grâce was being fired from the stinking (literally) Buffalo Bisons after a quarter of the season because the GM never gave me more than 8 pitchers, only 2 of which were starters and 2 were usually hurt. 'Nuff said.

2) Having been fired three times, I now agree with those of you who find this frustrating. The heck with realistic career paths. As commissioner, I will merely foist myself upon the owner if he ever fires me. Job security for life! (BTW, I "retired" my minor league manager and labeled him as such. I created a new manager/commissioner with the same name and labeled him as "major league" so it looks like a historical record for the same person, only divided into minor and major league experience).

3) Now that I have more than one scout to play with, and to accomplish things with, I have rediscovered the fun of scouting. It is a bit boring with scouting off, knowing immediately and exactly what each player's ratings are, and I like the task of having to find this out instead with the best scout available. Besides, I tend to manage by past statistics and now that I am on the MLB level and my baseball world is in its eleventh year, I have them. I still don't scout nations for hidden talent, however.

OK, gotta go now. Just got the message that the Texas GM wants to trade me a broken-down catcher and some prospects for my #2 starter. Yeah, right. What does he think, he's dealing with an amateur?

[fhomess]

Good to see you're finding the enjoyment of the league again, but...

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I tend to manage by past statistics and now that I am on the MLB level and my baseball world is in its eleventh year, I have them.

Why not just turn ratings off?

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by fhomess

Good to see you're finding the enjoyment of the league again, but...

Why not just turn ratings off?

Good point, but stats are not everything and ratings can add to one's player assessment capability, without being told exactly who's who and what's what (with scouting off, diminishing the fun/challenge aspect.)

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by fhomess

Good to see you're finding the enjoyment of the league again, but...

Why not just turn ratings off?

If you turn ratings off, ALL ratings are off, so you don't even know what positions a guy can play or whether he can run or not or whether a pitcher can be a starter.....

I played 6.5 with ratings off, but you could still see fielding ratings, running ratings, bunting ratings, and endurance....

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Questdog

If you turn ratings off, ALL ratings are off, so you don't even know what positions a guy can play or whether he can run or not or whether a pitcher can be a starter.....

I played 6.5 with ratings off, but you could still see fielding ratings, running ratings, bunting ratings, and endurance....

Plus, I was wondering later on after posting above, how do you conduct an inaugural or amateur draft without ratings, actual or scouted? No stats available then, so you would really be in the dark without some numbers to go by.

[MadMax58]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Plus, I was wondering later on after posting above, how do you conduct an inaugural or amateur draft without ratings, actual or scouted? No stats available then, so you would really be in the dark without some numbers to go by.

I really havent gotten into the scouting part...too much busy work to me... so I just play with 1-5 ratings.

To me, this gives me a basic idea of the guy's talent, but still requires me to check his stats, and could possibly lead me to making a less than stellar personnel decision, which adds some challenge for me. After all...81 & 100 are both 5's on the 1-5 scale.

Just my 2 cents.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by MadMax58

I really havent gotten into the scouting part...too much busy work to me... so I just play with 1-5 ratings.

To me, this gives me a basic idea of the guy's talent, but still requires me to check his stats, and could possibly lead me to making a less than stellar personnel decision, which adds some challenge for me. After all...81 & 100 are both 5's on the 1-5 scale.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for your . Added to my own, I now have .

It's always interesting on these boards to see differences of opinion and perspective. Like the fellow who suggested no ratings at all, an option that I was aware of but never seriously considered until now (hence my question about drafts in that situation), your preference for a 1-5 scale is giving me pause. To take your example further, a 4 can be anything from 60 to 80 on a 1-100 scale. To me, that's a huge range to be represented by one number on your scale.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Thanks for your . Added to my own, I now have .

It's always interesting on these boards to see differences of opinion and perspective. Like the fellow who suggested no ratings at all, an option that I was aware of but never seriously considered until now (hence my question about drafts in that situation), your preference for a 1-5 scale is giving me pause. To take your example further, a 4 can be anything from 60 to 80 on a 1-100 scale. To me, that's a huge range to be represented by one number on your scale.

I much, much prefer the 1-5 scale. Just like a grading scale of A to F....
Gives you an indication of talent but still makes you look at the stats...

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Questdog

I much, much prefer the 1-5 scale. Just like a grading scale of A to F....
Gives you an indication of talent but still makes you look at the stats...

Matter of preference, of course. Do you find 1-5 as useful with drafts? Also, do you have an opinion on whether you could have a successful draft with ratings off altogether, as mentioned above?

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Matter of preference, of course. Do you find 1-5 as useful with drafts? Also, do you have an opinion on whether you could have a successful draft with ratings off altogether, as mentioned above?

The only way to draft with ratings off in this version is to pick whoever your head scout tells you to.....

In the inaugural, I draft with actual ratings on, potentials off. For the ammy draft, I turn potentials on and then turn 'em off after the draft. With a 1-5 scale, you'll find several players with batting ratings about the same, so I pick the players with better peripheral ratings (Fielding, running, arm, etc....).

[MadMax58]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Thanks for your . Added to my own, I now have .

It's always interesting on these boards to see differences of opinion and perspective. Like the fellow who suggested no ratings at all, an option that I was aware of but never seriously considered until now (hence my question about drafts in that situation), your preference for a 1-5 scale is giving me pause. To take your example further, a 4 can be anything from 60 to 80 on a 1-100 scale. To me, that's a huge range to be represented by one number on your scale.

Yep...thats exactly it.

To me, it's the most realistic way to simulate being a real GM. As IRL you know most players "general" abilities without truly scouting them(sort of like a quick scout), but you dont know precisely how good they are and there is that slight cloud about whether player 1's 4 rating in contact is worth as much as player 2's 4 rating. The tiebreaker has to be the stats they put up. This could lead to benching player 1 (who could have an actual 80 in favor of player 2 with an actual of 61). But you get the idea.

In addition, if you enjoy playing with scouting on, this probably wouldnt vary the ratings much unless it hit one of those threshold levels (i.e. 55-65, 75-85, etc.)

But again...just a matter of how much challenge or inexactness(is this a word?) you want in your decision making. I'd also recommend this to anybody who thinks the AI is too easy to rip off.

[1998 Yankees]

Q'dog, Max: Thanks for sharing some interesting thoughts. As you can tell from my posts, I do enjoy a challenge - one of the reasons for my turning scouting back on. So I might adopt these aspects of your gaming style should things get a bit too tame for me.

Max, what you said about one player's "4" rating being weighted by his stats over another guy with the same rating resonates with me. That's more realistic than knowing one is actually a "78" and the other a "62" (assuming your scouting assessment is accurate).

Questdog, thanks for answering that question about drafting "blind"; that is, with ratings off altogether. Might as well auto-draft in that case, same thing. So the only time you use potentials is the ammy draft? Hmmm.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Q'dog, Max: Thanks for sharing some interesting thoughts. As you can tell from my posts, I do enjoy a challenge - one of the reasons for my turning scouting back on. So I might adopt these aspects of your gaming style should things get a bit too tame for me.

Max, what you said about one player's "4" rating being weighted by his stats over another guy with the same rating resonates with me. That's more realistic than knowing one is actually a "78" and the other a "62" (assuming your scouting assessment is accurate).

Questdog, thanks for answering that question about drafting "blind"; that is, with ratings off altogether. Might as well auto-draft in that case, same thing. So the only time you use potentials is the ammy draft? Hmmm.

In 6.5, we had HS/College stats to use, but alas, that is no longer an option....

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Questdog

In 6.5, we had HS/College stats to use, but alas, that is no longer an option....

Yes, I remember that now. And I miss it. I guess the improved scouting module was supposed to make such data unnecessary or unnoticed as missing. I beg to differ, and hope that makes it back into OOTP in 2007.

[DCHepler25]

Just wanted to say that this is a very interesting post!

I also like to hear how others play the game. I had been playing with 20-80 scale only b/c thats what the scouts offer for their overall ratings, but I am reconsidering that now. I love the new scouting system, but I suggest scouting nations as well. Sometimes the scouts return duds (well most of the time) but I did get a 22 year old SS from the Dominican with overall potential of 72! He developed nicely into an everyday player by age 26.

I also sim all the games b/c I am the GM, not the manager. I hired him to make the onfield decisions!

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by DCHepler25

I also sim all the games b/c I am the GM, not the manager. I hired him to make the onfield decisions!

Well, don't hesitate to fire him 1/4 through the season if he's not measuring up to expectations! Just, for goodness sake, give him enough pitchers to work with!

Edit: Hey, your avatar is the logo that I used when I started out managing the Bradenton Pirates in the Gulf Coast League. Ahhh, those were the good old days. I was young and foolish then. Thanks for the nostalgia.

[Curtis]

I use the 1-100 scale myself, but for people who want increased uncertainty, I'd suggest the 2-8. It's the same as the 20-80, but rounded off, which is how (according to 'Mets Inside Pitch') they do it in real scouting. Nobody gets a '72' in real life; they'd round them to '70', so why not call them a '7'?

[Assos]

My good friend, you have learned something every minor league manager has ever learned in the real world.... the GM thinks he knows everything!

You only needed the 8 pitchers because the GM says so. I salute you for your attempt.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Assos

My good friend, you have learned something every minor league manager has ever learned in the real world.... the GM thinks he knows everything!

You only needed the 8 pitchers because the GM says so. I salute you for your attempt.

Well, now I'M in the catbird seat. And I DO know everything and have godlike authority, especially as the commissioner as well as GM. The power is intoxicating. Right now, I am looking for players named Heinsohn and Duffy (as suggested in another thread) to make them do my bidding.

[Cowboys3356]

Originally Posted by Questdog

If you turn ratings off, ALL ratings are off, so you don't even know what positions a guy can play or whether he can run or not or whether a pitcher can be a starter.....

I played 6.5 with ratings off, but you could still see fielding ratings, running ratings, bunting ratings, and endurance....

Yet another aspect of gameplay where 6.51 dominates OOTP2006.