 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Overall Rating Change
tysonlowery
This is only in effect on the Depth Chart at the moment.
Please provide your feedback to the new formula being used:
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=94780
FYI - Overall Rating plays a part into Mentoring, so the mentoring score on the depth chart may be different.
Overall Rating Change
February 10, 2006 at 06:43PM View BBCode
I've changed how overall Rating is calculated.This is only in effect on the Depth Chart at the moment.
Please provide your feedback to the new formula being used:
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=94780
FYI - Overall Rating plays a part into Mentoring, so the mentoring score on the depth chart may be different.
DeVeau31
Here's one to start with, should Tip Smith be rated an "A" overall?
http://www.simdynasty.com/beta/depth.jsp?teamid=7
February 10, 2006 at 06:46PM View BBCode
I'll find some examples to question:Here's one to start with, should Tip Smith be rated an "A" overall?
http://www.simdynasty.com/beta/depth.jsp?teamid=7
tysonlowery
"Tim Smith seems too high at A. Maybe we should tone down the percentage for X, or crank up for Y."
February 10, 2006 at 06:53PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
That might be a bad way to do this. Perhaps a better way would be:
"Tim Smith seems too high at A. Maybe we should tone down the percentage for X, or crank up for Y."
DeVeau31
February 10, 2006 at 07:06PM View BBCode
I agree, but looking around the league, I can't figure out why he's an A and other players are A- otherwise I would have came up with a possible solution.
barterer2002
February 11, 2006 at 02:23AM View BBCode
Leadership factors into overall now? Not sure about that one.
tysonlowery
http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=94780
Help us tweak it...
February 11, 2006 at 04:53PM View BBCode
Hey Bart - the new formula is here:http://www.simdynasty.com/oldforum-viewthread.jsp?tid=94780
Help us tweak it...
rnznsmn
First of all, the uniformity of grading for the current system provides an excellent factor to weigh in the evaluation of players. It's not THE only factor, and I disagree with those here that contend newbies rely solely on the overall grade in evaluating players. It's a factor, but not the only factor. And frankly, changing the overall grade to become so varied (X% to this, Y% to that, Z% to the other) especially when it incorporates hidden traits like leadership, makes it even MORE confusing to evaluate a player's overall grade. Those who know how to reverse engineer a formula will have a HUGE advantage in evaluating players in their categories - newbies will have no clue how to evaluate an overall score, or even a player's composition based on the overall score, because varying weights and including hidden traits make it extremely NON-intuitive.
Changing the weights to factor into mentoring calculations is even WORSE in my opinion. Doing so will make the "less favored" stats even MORE useless, and the "more favored" stats even MORE out of balance. At least some stats that usually get little credit (like defense or contact versus lefties) have SOME value because they contribute to the overall score for mentoring purposes. Changing the weights of the overall score and then using that score for mentoring will make these other traits even MORE useless. This makes the game even LESS interesting, as we ALL try to get the players that have the highest scores in a few important areas and ignore the rest even more than we already do.
Moreover, I don't see how this actually SOLVES any problems. If newbies are going to rely too much on overall scores to their disservice, this doesn't change the problem very much. If a newbie is going to be swayed by a higher overall score that is composed of A+ in contact versus lefties, arm, and range, then they're STILL going to be swayed by it. The weighting might be less, but at the end of the day most of us (and especially newbies) eventually default back to the letter grade and especially the color of the grade. If a guy gets A- overall because of an A+ in those categories, he may STILL be "overvalued" by newbies, and you've done little to solve the problem. ESPECIALLY since the new varied proposed weightings are so unintuitive until you look them up on this forum. How have we helped the problem?
As a final note, if SD is ultimately going to go through changes that make lesser-favored cateogories like arm, range, and contact MORE useful after all (e.g., the implementation of a grid system), then you'll be required to RE-change the overall scoring grades AGAIN in the future - ostensibly, back to what they are now/were originally. If the grid system, or other changes that alter the impact of arm, range, and contact, are ANYWHERE on the horizon in the next year, you're really creating a mess with this change. Dynasty leagues will draft or trade for a player based on a certain overall grade, use him to 2-3 seasons, and then find out he's less valuable that originally perceived when the overall grade is re-calculated back to what it was? How incredibly confusing!
So again, I'm really, really opposed to this change. I don't see what we gain, and I see a lot of problems and confusion issues on the horizon!
February 12, 2006 at 10:38PM View BBCode
Wow. I just caught this thread, but I have to say that I really do NOT like this idea. I don't like it as a way to adjust overall scores in general, and I especially do not like it as a way to adjust overall scores to factor into mentoring.First of all, the uniformity of grading for the current system provides an excellent factor to weigh in the evaluation of players. It's not THE only factor, and I disagree with those here that contend newbies rely solely on the overall grade in evaluating players. It's a factor, but not the only factor. And frankly, changing the overall grade to become so varied (X% to this, Y% to that, Z% to the other) especially when it incorporates hidden traits like leadership, makes it even MORE confusing to evaluate a player's overall grade. Those who know how to reverse engineer a formula will have a HUGE advantage in evaluating players in their categories - newbies will have no clue how to evaluate an overall score, or even a player's composition based on the overall score, because varying weights and including hidden traits make it extremely NON-intuitive.
Changing the weights to factor into mentoring calculations is even WORSE in my opinion. Doing so will make the "less favored" stats even MORE useless, and the "more favored" stats even MORE out of balance. At least some stats that usually get little credit (like defense or contact versus lefties) have SOME value because they contribute to the overall score for mentoring purposes. Changing the weights of the overall score and then using that score for mentoring will make these other traits even MORE useless. This makes the game even LESS interesting, as we ALL try to get the players that have the highest scores in a few important areas and ignore the rest even more than we already do.
Moreover, I don't see how this actually SOLVES any problems. If newbies are going to rely too much on overall scores to their disservice, this doesn't change the problem very much. If a newbie is going to be swayed by a higher overall score that is composed of A+ in contact versus lefties, arm, and range, then they're STILL going to be swayed by it. The weighting might be less, but at the end of the day most of us (and especially newbies) eventually default back to the letter grade and especially the color of the grade. If a guy gets A- overall because of an A+ in those categories, he may STILL be "overvalued" by newbies, and you've done little to solve the problem. ESPECIALLY since the new varied proposed weightings are so unintuitive until you look them up on this forum. How have we helped the problem?
As a final note, if SD is ultimately going to go through changes that make lesser-favored cateogories like arm, range, and contact MORE useful after all (e.g., the implementation of a grid system), then you'll be required to RE-change the overall scoring grades AGAIN in the future - ostensibly, back to what they are now/were originally. If the grid system, or other changes that alter the impact of arm, range, and contact, are ANYWHERE on the horizon in the next year, you're really creating a mess with this change. Dynasty leagues will draft or trade for a player based on a certain overall grade, use him to 2-3 seasons, and then find out he's less valuable that originally perceived when the overall grade is re-calculated back to what it was? How incredibly confusing!
So again, I'm really, really opposed to this change. I don't see what we gain, and I see a lot of problems and confusion issues on the horizon!
tysonlowery
I guess I disagree on the rest though. If the system tells me that player X is B+ overall, and player Y is B. I would expect player X to be better.
February 13, 2006 at 02:22AM View BBCode
I can see your point on mentoring and leadership.I guess I disagree on the rest though. If the system tells me that player X is B+ overall, and player Y is B. I would expect player X to be better.
rnznsmn
Yeah, well, define "better". Not all of us classify players the same way. At least the current even weighting allows everyone to be on the same footing. Changing the system makes it even more confusing for me to rank players, because I do not evaluate players the same way as everyone else.
At the end of the day, I just don't see what we GAIN by doing this. It seems like even MORE confusion to me. I know it will literally make it much more difficult for me to evaluate players, because I'll have to start building spreadsheets with formulas to adjust the weightings BACK to something standardized so I can evaluate players my own way.
[Edited on 2-13-2006 by rnznsmn]
February 13, 2006 at 02:57AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
I can see your point on mentoring and leadership.
I guess I disagree on the rest though. If the system tells me that player X is B+ overall, and player Y is B. I would expect player X to be better.
Yeah, well, define "better". Not all of us classify players the same way. At least the current even weighting allows everyone to be on the same footing. Changing the system makes it even more confusing for me to rank players, because I do not evaluate players the same way as everyone else.
At the end of the day, I just don't see what we GAIN by doing this. It seems like even MORE confusion to me. I know it will literally make it much more difficult for me to evaluate players, because I'll have to start building spreadsheets with formulas to adjust the weightings BACK to something standardized so I can evaluate players my own way.
[Edited on 2-13-2006 by rnznsmn]
tysonlowery
[Edited on 2-13-2006 by tysonlowery]
February 13, 2006 at 03:00AM View BBCode
Do you actually use the Overall Rating? Outside of mentoring, I can't remember the last time I actually paid it any attention.[Edited on 2-13-2006 by tysonlowery]
rnznsmn
For example, if a guy is C+/B-/C+/B- with straight C+'s in arm, range, and speed, and is a C+ overall, that tells me one thing. If he's B- overall, that suggests some of his stats may be towards the higher end of the range. I've built some spreadsheet formulas over time that help me estimate this further on a numerical basis. although I've gotten pretty good at doing it in my head.
Consequently, overall grades DO factor into my analysis of a player. I suppose technically I could do it even if you made the weightings all wacky, but it would now REQUIRE a spreadsheet and some reverse engineering, whereas it's much more intuitive to evaluate players when the categories have the current more-balanced weighting distribution.
In addition, since the overall weighting does factor into mentoring, I 'use' it for that as well. The fact that overall grades factor into mentoring is what gives scores like arm, range, and contact versus lefties a little more value. To reduce those weightings on the overall grade would make those lesser-used categories even MORE useless than they are now.
And as a final note, it's worth saying that there's still a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling I get when my entire batting lineup is A- overall. Those pretty red letters are my friends. :)
February 13, 2006 at 03:06PM View BBCode
I use overall rating to help estimate where a player might be within his score ranges.For example, if a guy is C+/B-/C+/B- with straight C+'s in arm, range, and speed, and is a C+ overall, that tells me one thing. If he's B- overall, that suggests some of his stats may be towards the higher end of the range. I've built some spreadsheet formulas over time that help me estimate this further on a numerical basis. although I've gotten pretty good at doing it in my head.
Consequently, overall grades DO factor into my analysis of a player. I suppose technically I could do it even if you made the weightings all wacky, but it would now REQUIRE a spreadsheet and some reverse engineering, whereas it's much more intuitive to evaluate players when the categories have the current more-balanced weighting distribution.
In addition, since the overall weighting does factor into mentoring, I 'use' it for that as well. The fact that overall grades factor into mentoring is what gives scores like arm, range, and contact versus lefties a little more value. To reduce those weightings on the overall grade would make those lesser-used categories even MORE useless than they are now.
And as a final note, it's worth saying that there's still a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling I get when my entire batting lineup is A- overall. Those pretty red letters are my friends. :)
Pages: 1