Relative importance of ratings
When I look at ratings to set a lineup or acquire a player, I tend to treat Contact/Power/Eye as having equal value, so I would rank Ramon Castro at 76/94/92 considerably ahead of Randy Winn at 92/76/84. (Mogul 2011, 2002 season, dynasty started in 1973; I don't pay too much attention to speed.) Does anyone have a sense that there is a drastic difference in the relative value of any of these? Also, how about pitching? I rely much more on actual performance, but it is my impression that Control and Movement continue to be more important than Power, though perhaps not as drastic as in older versions of Mogul.
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Re: Relative importance of ratings
I try to use, control, contact, age and health to evaluate players
it is still a work in process for me though
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Speed is a very tricky one. I find its important but the "speed" rating doesn't give you the important story. I don't look at these because I think its unrealistic for me to do so, but the "base stealing skills" will give you a better picture. I have a guy with 87 speed who just sucks as a baserunner. He's ok but he's a 66% SB type guy. I had another 94 speed guy who just never wanted to run... ever. And I have a veteran 74 speed guy who will be able to steal bases with 90% success rate if you keep him to 15 attempts a year, he ALWAYS breaks up double plays, he goes 1st to 3rd very well. I've never looked at those metrics for him but I'm sure all his instincts are awesome because just playing every day I can see how much better he is on the bases than most of his peers.
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Batters: Contact/Power, Eye, Speed
Starters: Control, Power/Movement
Relievers: Control, Movement, Power
Closers: Power, Control/Movement
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Thanks filihok, but I seem to be having some problems with Excel. Perhaps your sheet includes some feature not supported by Excel '97. Anyway, from playing around with it, do you have the sense of a drastic difference in ratings importance? Looking at your sample picture, the weights seem to be about equal for Contact/Power/Eye, somewhat lower for Speed, and higher for all the defense ratings (for catchers, I assume.) Is that your sense of things overall? Or am I misinterpreting the Weights?
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lex Logan
When I look at ratings to set a lineup or acquire a player, I tend to treat Contact/Power/Eye as having equal value, so I would rank Ramon Castro at 76/94/92 considerably ahead of Randy Winn at 92/76/84. (Mogul 2011, 2002 season, dynasty started in 1973; I don't pay too much attention to speed.) Does anyone have a sense that there is a drastic difference in the relative value of any of these? Also, how about pitching? I rely much more on actual performance, but it is my impression that Control and Movement continue to be more important than Power, though perhaps not as drastic as in older versions of Mogul.
Power is best predictor of OPS/RC which in turn is best predictor of offensive power (runs per game scored). Contact boosts batting average which is part of OPS, and so is also important. Eye creates walks which boosts OBA, but this is of much lesser importance. Some high Eye players can have OPS so low they should not be playing in MLB. Speed means more steals and perhaps extra bases, but is also of much less importance
Movement and control are the best predictors for pitchers, but do NOT strictly correlate with low predicted ERA. For pitchers I look for low predicted ERA combined with actual performance in at least 60 IP per year. The actual performance is more importance if you have set the HOF careers switch high (like I have)
High peaks/MG for batters usually corresponds to high OPS if they reach that peak. High peak pitchers on the other hand may never develop in a top (low ERA) pitcher, even with a long number of peak years
As RP become SP their power goes down, but not usually their predicted ERA. Hence RP with low predicted ERA are the best goldmine in BBM for finding SP pitchers that the AI always overlooks (until they have already become SP)
In BBM 08 RP had some possibility of becoming SP by just making them SP during spring training. BBM 10 seems to have made it harder to get RP to become SP using that technique, but still makes such a conversion during the regular season quite possible, particularly if their starting END is above 30
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Merlin401
Speed is a very tricky one. I find its important but the "speed" rating doesn't give you the important story. I don't look at these because I think its unrealistic for me to do so, but the "base stealing skills" will give you a better picture. I have a guy with 87 speed who just sucks as a baserunner. He's ok but he's a 66% SB type guy. I had another 94 speed guy who just never wanted to run... ever. And I have a veteran 74 speed guy who will be able to steal bases with 90% success rate if you keep him to 15 attempts a year, he ALWAYS breaks up double plays, he goes 1st to 3rd very well. I've never looked at those metrics for him but I'm sure all his instincts are awesome because just playing every day I can see how much better he is on the bases than most of his peers.
This. Worst thing in the world is a guy with high speed / steal tendency and low "base running" (success rate). On the other hand, guys with an extremely high success rate (sometimes Mogul will generate guys in the 85%+ career success rate) are worth quite a bit.
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Evo X
Excel 97?!
LOL Yes most people I know are too cheap to keep upgrading something like MS Office. I use 97 and I know dozens of other who use it as well. I don't know anyone who uses a newer version than 2004 and that is only because it came with a new puter that she bought.
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
End of the Road
LOL Yes most people I know are too cheap to keep upgrading something like MS Office. I use 97 and I know dozens of other who use it as well. I don't know anyone who uses a newer version than 2004 and that is only because it came with a new puter that she bought.
Not to get all off topic or anything, but wow. You're better off using Open Office than a 15 year old version of MS Office. OO isn't bad, there's just a few idiosyncrasies in Calc that make me prefer to use Excel.
In any case, for around a year now I've always saved/shared files in .xlsx format, which came about with Office 2007 and I've only had one person complain in that timespan. So for my purposes, I don't know anyone who uses a version older than 2007 (or if they do they've at least figured out how to use a converter).
Re: Relative importance of ratings
I feel like power is a category by itself, and it is only all that useful if there's a high combination of Contact and Eye. From what I have experienced, it seems like someone with high Contact and lower Eye will perform better than low Contact and high Eye...that's in-game anyway. I haven't simulated as much without playing the games myself.
Off-topic: I use OpenOffice over any version of MS Office. What a monumental waste of money, at least for my purposes (opening files sent to me and creating files mostly for print-off or personal use).
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Merlin401
Speed is a very tricky one. I find its important but the "speed" rating doesn't give you the important story. I don't look at these because I think its unrealistic for me to do so, but the "base stealing skills" will give you a better picture.
I just need help understanding the comment, but it does go a long way towards the original post's question as far as interpretation goes.
The best blind answer would be Eye trumping everything out. Big market/small market, young team/veteran team, simulation/play-by-play, it doesn't make a difference; Eye is your rating. Luckily, the game DOES NOT underestimate the value of nor cheapen OBP, so this is your best fix for small market teams. It'll also give you the "missing piece" for a playoff contender. Then and only then will the SB come into play, again realistically. Putting a 50-steal guy at the top of the order will cost you a ton of runs over a season if the OBP is ignored, while putting a 50-Speed guy with a high OBP works. Just like reality, only start looking at the SB column if you have a guy with a .350 you're thinking of giving 600 ABs.
Applying the Attribute to the Statistic is probably an exercise in futility, so assume one attribute is 99 with all others set to 50. Personal rule of thumb is to insert two Power guys into this...at no point will Contact or Speed ever come up when building any team.
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cfeedback
Not to get all off topic or anything, but wow. You're better off using Open Office than a 15 year old version of MS Office. OO isn't bad, there's just a few idiosyncrasies in Calc that make me prefer to use Excel.
In any case, for around a year now I've always saved/shared files in .xlsx format, which came about with Office 2007 and I've only had one person complain in that timespan. So for my purposes, I don't know anyone who uses a version older than 2007 (or if they do they've at least figured out how to use a converter).
since we have ventured offtopic into what is "old" for computers -
I would still use Excel 5 if I could get away with it since very little functionality was added from that version up to Excel 2003. however I id eventually upgrade to Excel 2003 (primarily to open documents created with it) but plan no further upgrades since Excel 2007 totally redesigned the use interface and created meaningless new file extensions. ditto for Word 2007
Excel 2007 does offer one useful feature, more rows (>64k) = bigger databases. however it is buggy if you format the data
I also would still be running Windows 3.1 if I could get away with it. however with the now "old" Win XP MS finally got an OS as stable as Win 3.1 (although much, much larger and built upon Win NT). many corporate offices refuse to upgrade from Win XP and that led to a SP ver 3
in the long run most computer user's objective is to have something merely functional, so this makes it harder and harder for MS to sell new versions of their OS or apps for more money when the current versions work just fine (are apparently fully functional). maybe this will change if MS ever decides to go to a light version of their OS designed for desktop computers (not cell phones) that improves stability by jettisoning all the unneeded junk they have piled into their OS over the years since Win 3.1
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
libradawg
The best blind answer would be Eye trumping everything out. Big market/small market, young team/veteran team, simulation/play-by-play, it doesn't make a difference; Eye is your rating. ...at no point will Contact or Speed ever come up when building any team.
I currently have a league for 1953 with a lot of high OPS batters. of 163 batters with more than 40 games, 17 have OPS > 1.000 (I boosted the batting sim settings)
16 of 17 have CON > 90, all have POW > 82, all have EYE > 90, SPEED is from 61 to 86, so naively this would say CON and EYE are more important than POW and SPEED is meaningless. however if I sort on each of these, many CON and EYE in the 90's have low OPS, but ALL POW >94 have an OPS of at least 0.836 with most in the 0.900's and seven with OPS > 1.000. (Six of top twenty in SPEED have an OPS of at least 0.900, so there is little correlation of SPEED with batting results.)
high POW is rarer than CON and EYE and so is a better predictor of high OPS. to round out the rest of my team I look for high OPS predicted or high peak which generally corresponds to high OPS. it turns out these additional batters usually have CON and EYE in the 90's and POW in the 80's
so the result is that power hitters with POW of at least 80 are the most desirable batters, even if they have to waddle around the base paths (like the older Babe Ruth). if they happen to have some speed so much the better since it may generate some steals, but high power gives more predictable results
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joelwest
Excel 2007 does offer one useful feature, more rows (>64k) = bigger databases. however it is buggy if you format the data
I also would still be running Windows 3.1 if I could get away with it. however with the now "old" Win XP MS finally got an OS as stable as Win 3.1 (although much, much larger and built upon Win NT). many corporate offices refuse to upgrade from Win XP and that led to a SP ver 3
Okay, last off topic post I swear. :cool:
The two Excel 2007+ features I use are the ability to sort more columns/rows simultaneous and have more conditional formatting rules on a single cell. I forget what the .xls limits are but every time I try to save in the old version it seems I run into them.
As far as XP for personal use, unless your computer just can't handle it, 7 is better in every way, shape, and form. I was an XP holdout for the longest time, in fact I skipped Vista completely even when I built a brand new top of the line PC about two years ago. Windows 7 is the first Microsoft OS I actually enjoy using (long time Mac user dating back to the late 80s).
Also, re: businesses...many corporations also still use the archaic IE6, which is the bane of web designers and security experts everywhere, because of custom built in house apps they're too lazy to upgrade. Luckily more and more sites are refusing to support IE6, so hopefully it goes the way of the dodo soon.
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joelwest
I currently have a league for 1953 with a lot of high OPS batters. of 163 batters with more than 40 games, 17 have OPS > 1.000 (I boosted the batting sim settings)
16 of 17 have CON > 90, all have POW > 82, all have EYE > 90, SPEED is from 61 to 86, so naively this would say CON and EYE are more important than POW and SPEED is meaningless. however if I sort on each of these, many CON and EYE in the 90's have low OPS, but ALL POW >94 have an OPS of at least 0.836 with most in the 0.900's and seven with OPS > 1.000. (Six of top twenty in SPEED have an OPS of at least 0.900, so there is little correlation of SPEED with batting results.)
high POW is rarer than CON and EYE and so is a better predictor of high OPS. to round out the rest of my team I look for high OPS predicted or high peak which generally corresponds to high OPS. it turns out these additional batters usually have CON and EYE in the 90's and POW in the 80's
so the result is that power hitters with POW of at least 80 are the most desirable batters, even if they have to waddle around the base paths (like the older Babe Ruth). if they happen to have some speed so much the better since it may generate some steals, but high power gives more predictable results
Well, quite simply the SLG is the dominant number of OPS given its base standard alone. A good SLG equates to Hall of Fame OBP, so yes, Power ratings will increase the OPS faster. What is not addressed is what this does in any given, blind situation. For example, I can't throw a 70/90/70 to generic Lineup A and expect the win total to increase. It's begging for a .320/.600 line in the best-case scenario; far too many outs to outweigh the added production the hits eventually provide.
Furthermore it's a blind test, one that only figures to come into play when trying to spend wisely to build a bad team. This means A LOT of solo bombs. 90/70/70 gives me .300+ for batting average along with moderate speed and power, but now I'm forced to worry about Speed---legging out grounders becomes a must, as does turning singles into doubles via the SB. Even with 9 just like him I'm forced into small-ball.
A 70/70/90 does absolutely everything Contact did, and no real-life interpretation of "Eye" changes anything. Either you're drawing a ton of walks, or your pitch-selection is top-notch; either way you can stick 9 into a lineup and make pitchers miserable. Also, it doesn't matter what lineup you give me---there will be tangible uses for a guy like this. I say tangible because time spent looking for guys adept at making "good outs" is time wasted. OPS goes up slower but I'm minimizing outs.
A terrific example is how the 2010 race for NL ROY played out. Check out the OBP standings, namely the star power behind the names in the top 10. Focus on the guy who finished 4th, consider the 3 guys who finished ahead of him, then decide one of two things: 1. Did you vote for the right guy? 2. Which guy will have the better career?
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
libradawg
A 70/70/90 does absolutely everything Contact did, and no real-life interpretation of "Eye" changes anything.
One thing to take into account with Mogul is that strikeouts factor into the Contact and Eye ratings--but not at the same relative weight. Predicted Ks increase/decrease Eye at a faster rate than Contact. The gist of it, is when you have two players who are like so:
Player A: .300 hitter, 90 eye, 120 Ks a season
Player B: .300 hitter, 90 eye, 50 Ks a season
Player A is almost certainly better because he'll draw far more walks at 90 eye than player B. I'm not listing all ratings because in this scenario for both players to be .300 hitters they're going to have different contact ratings (because of the strikeouts). But you get the idea--there's more to looking at an Eye rating in Mogul than just the number.
Actually, the same thing applies to most Mogul ratings. The ratings are based upon multiple factors, yet these factors are not of equal value. One of the best players I ever had for his ratings/overall was a player who hit about 15-20 doubles a year, no triples, but 35-40 HRs.
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Hrm, was really late when I wrote that post last night. I'll go on a little because this is one area of scouting talent that still excites me and I feel I can sometimes get a small edge online because not everyone looks at this stuff.
Anyway, there point I'm really trying to get across is that Mogul overvalues or undervalues certain predicted stats in it's ratings--and looking for that can give you the edge up. For any given 2 hitters with the same rating (such as both having 85 power), in my experience the following are what to look for:
Strikeouts: Lots of Ks are good. I'm not going to get into the RL argument of whether not striking out a lot is good, but in Mogul I'm convinced it's unimportant. The player who strikes out more is likely to have a higher average and higher walk rate than the player who strikes out very little.
2B:3B:HR Ratio: Mogul underestimates the value of the homerun in its ratings. The player who's power is largely homerun based will perform better.
Base Stealing vs Steal Tendency: You want the former to be higher. If both are extremely high it's not a big deal, but a guy with say an 88 steal tendency and 80 base stealing is an out making machine.
Again, I'm talking about comparing players OF THE SAME RATING. Can't stress this enough. Obviously a player who hits 50 doubles and 40 HRs is more valuable than a player who hits 20 doubles and 40 HRs. But the first player is going to have a significantly higher power rating. I'm talking about 2 players who both have 85 power--and I promise you the one who's 85 power is more HR based (either via predicted stats or career performance if you don't want to look at those) is more valuable.
For pitchers, I don't have as many things I look for--but the one important one is HR rate. Again, it's a rating that Mogul undervalues. You can have 2 pitchers with the exact same vitals but one has a 50% higher predicted HR rate--and they're not equally valuable. (Hint: the lower HR rate is better)
Last thing I look at is health. Now this one is a bit more subjective, but even at the default injury settings I think Mogul places too much emphasis on health in the overall rating. A player at 90 overall and 70 health is almost always more valuable than a player with 90 overall and 90 health--even when you factor in the less playing time.
And that's all I have to say about that. Feel free to tell me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. ;)
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cfeedback
Okay, last off topic post I swear. :cool:
...many corporations also still use the archaic IE6, which is the bane of web designers and security experts everywhere, because of custom built in house apps they're too lazy to upgrade. Luckily more and more sites are refusing to support IE6, so hopefully it goes the way of the dodo soon.
I wish the same could be said for ANY version of MSIE, namely that websites begin refusing to support any version of MSIE. that would prompt anal retentive IT departments to revise their policy that any software that did not come with the OS is "bad"
the first thing I do when I use a new computer is dump MSIE and the built in windows explorer for shareware
the next thing that needs to go is MS Outlook, the best tool ever designed to rapidly spread viruses
regarding Win 7+, I will switch to it only when I have a piece of hardware that XP does not support. that is the only reason I have ever upgraded from any version of Windows beyond ver 3.1
Re: Relative importance of ratings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
libradawg
Well, quite simply the SLG is the dominant number of OPS given its base standard alone. A good SLG equates to Hall of Fame OBP, so yes, Power ratings will increase the OPS faster. What is not addressed is what this does in any given, blind situation. For example, I can't throw a 70/90/70 to generic Lineup A and expect the win total to increase.
everyone tailors BBM to suit their own tastes or to create their own challenge. I personally want all my batters to bat OPS 0.900 even if this is "fantasy". hence I would never even consider the type of batters you are referring to
regarding pitching I recently relearned that in most cases it is movement and control in the 90's or at least the 80's that guarantees a pitcher to be in the top 10% in his league. most of these pitchers have a peak in 90's, but not all.
strangely enough some pitchers with a peak as low as 81 can lead a league in ERA, even with control and movement not at least in the 80's. to find these pitchers you have to look for predicted ERA, not raw pitching stats
