• Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.

Travis7401's Newsletter! Subscribe Today!

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
I think you'd do best to focus on understanding the non-hidden ratings :laughing:

Well yeah, I'm shit at the game, but I'm just sayin'. And my thoughts were backed up by a quick google, and the manual even mentioned hidden ratings. The only point I was making was that there was bound to be stuff we can't see ever.

My main question to you though, was whether you could incorporate personality into your spread sheets, as I think it would improve the analysis. That's something that doesn't rely on hidden parameters.
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
I already incorporate personality in my spreadsheets, but I've never found a correlation between any single personality trait and a players' stats. I do think it is very useful to consider personality, but I think it has more to do with development and how players respond to adversity than anything else. Since those things are tough for me to pair with the statistics I have access to, I can't really establish a correlation.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
I already incorporate personality in my spreadsheets, but I've never found a correlation between any single personality trait and a players' stats. I do think it is very useful to consider personality, but I think it has more to do with development and how players respond to adversity than anything else. Since those things are tough for me to pair with the statistics I have access to, I can't really establish a correlation.

Try harder @Travis7401 . I expect to see more effort.
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
It's all been done! The only intangible that has a statistically significant correlation with WAR is DESIRE FOR WINNER (still way lower than any actual rating). This could be due to selection bias, as players who have strong DESIRE FOR WINNER trait might be more keen to sign FA contracts with good teams.... more likely, players who have high ratings in this category will play very much below their ratings when on a losing team.

https://www.nutopiasports.com/forum...atistical-analysis-nerding-thread.1376/page-6

Well first of all, none of the intangibles correlate with WAR enough to not wash out compared to the ratings, so keep that in mind.

The greatest correlation was Desire for Winner, like @Lloyd Carr guessed. This is a good example of correlation probably not equaling causation and likely can be explained by selection bias as those players probably tend to play for winners more often. Still, if you are good team with the last pick in the 20th round of the draft and staring at a sea of 30 ratings, might as well pick the dude who aspires to be on your winning team!

Other intangibles have very slight positive correlation in this order:
Leadership
Intelligence
Work Ethic

Loyalty and Greed have zero correlation.

The way these intangibles are described by the OOTP devs, we should not expect them to have much impact at all on the statistical performance of players, and I was pleased to see that. I figured it was worth checking just in case there was some super secret correlation!These ratings all likely have much more to do with the player's development, likelyhood of stabbing theirselves, and contract negations.
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
I should say while I've been doing this, I've run regression on basically every single rating to see if there happened to be anything really strange going on. There really isn't anything weird in our data set, which is nice. The game largely functions as the developers say it should and that is so cool. Every rating really does function as they say it should. There is enough randomness, error, etc built into the game engine so that it isn't just a slam dunk either. You'll have players who outperform ratings and those who under perform, etc.

Compare that to ratings in EA sports games. I saw a regression analysis someone did on data EA released from FUT matches and it basically showed that in gameplay the only things that really mattered were speed, strength, acceleration, etc. and like 90% of the technical/skill/intelligence/etc attributes just completely washed out to nothing. That's where FUTHead came up with their BEAST rating. Trogs like Emenike, Ibarbo, etc are just infinitely better than they should be because EA don't know how the fuck their own game works.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
It's all been done! The only intangible that has a statistically significant correlation with WAR is DESIRE FOR WINNER (still way lower than any actual rating). This could be due to selection bias, as players who have strong DESIRE FOR WINNER trait might be more keen to sign FA contracts with good teams.... more likely, players who have high ratings in this category will play very much below their ratings when on a losing team.

https://www.nutopiasports.com/forum...atistical-analysis-nerding-thread.1376/page-6

Your working methods might have been wrong. Start from the beginning and do it all again. Then start over another three times.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
I have no idea what hayvis is trying to say here

I expect far more of my co-manager. I will have to educate you more in the ways of the Illuminati. If we're going to win this thing, dark secrets are going to have to be uncovered. Prepare yourself for a dangerous adventure, co-pilot.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
On a serious note, I didn't really say much other than that there was a bunch of shit that we couldn't see other than the ratings (that I didn't realise @Travis7401 had already researched).
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
There are hidden ratings that show up in the editor like "Handles Failure". Sometimes it's alluded to in personality types

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
@hayvis, I think you should just create a quickplay game and rummage around under the hood to get all ur answers.
https://manuals.ootpdevelopments.com/index.php?man=ootp16&page=player_editor

Player personalities are based on like a 0-500 scale in a multitude of different categories and the actual performance ratings are all on 0-250 scale. Those are the REAL ratings and they are ALL hidden because it wouldn't be a very fun game if they weren't. We get scouting reports and OSA ratings that summarize and give us hints and the underlying true ratings.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
@hayvis, I think you should just create a quickplay game and rummage around under the hood to get all ur answers.
https://manuals.ootpdevelopments.com/index.php?man=ootp16&page=player_editor

Player personalities are based on like a 0-500 scale in a multitude of different categories and the actual performance ratings are all on 0-250 scale. Those are the REAL ratings and they are ALL hidden because it wouldn't be a very fun game if they weren't. We get scouting reports and OSA ratings that summarize and give us hints and the underlying true ratings.

So basically I was kind of correct in my half assed suspicions, you already knew all the answers to (but didn't give them straight away) and then everyone told me I was being weird/wrong. Sounds like Utopia.

To be honest, I'm just posting because I keep coming back to check for the league announcement. I should probably stick to the shit ma pants forum where I actually know about the subject.

Hopefully I'm going to sign some minor league place holder pitchers to imorove on the junk I have until I can get some prospects. Could you give my teams a check to see if I'm heading down the right roads?
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
Here are the C ratings. I'm really struggling with position+defensive value because right now I would need to apply a huge adjustment to C in order to account for the difference between their actual WAR and the WAR from hitting. If I want to reduce the error to 0 I need to assign a value of 1.5 to the position. I left it at 1.0 for now in the prediction tool. I'll be diving into defense more in the next installments of the newsletter in an attempt to figure out some more universal ratings for the BTT tool!

1566667859320.png
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
Here are some players who added a good amount of Value via stolen bases. Here's everyone who added at least 0.3 WARS WON via steals. You'll notice they all had very high steal ratings (75+) and that the players with the highest values typically had good OBP (ie more opportunities to steal). This has always been a hard thing for me to quantify in the BTT tool because stolen bases are so dependent on team strategy and OBP in addition to just the players STE rating. There are lots of players with 75+ steal ratings that never add much to their teams because they don't get enough opportunities or their strategy is set so that they don't try to steal. Still, I think this is something that is worth considering if you have a player with good OBP and great base stealing, because some of these players added over 1 WAR WON!


1566679127142.png
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
@bruin @bruin228 seeing two SOL players near the top of this list

giphy.gif
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
I took a deep dive into defensive positions and how they are derived from the fielding ratings. I now finally have my DRAFT TOOL updated so that you can see the MAX POSITION rating based on full experience! The only one I'm still having trouble with is actually 1B, ironically, because it just doesn't make sense.

Then I found out that these German Indy Devs made height a factor in the 1B positional rating, and it appears to be some equation based in CENTIMETERS! Only fucking @hayvis gonna be able to evaluate his 1B!

1566703406042.png

So for a player with 50 Range/50 errors, if they are the size of @Yankee151 they will have a shit 1B rating of 35! If they are the size of me with the same fielding ratings they will have a max rating of 80 at 1B! Who knew that height played such a huge role?
 

Yankee151

Hot Girl Summer
I took a deep dive into defensive positions and how they are derived from the fielding ratings. I now finally have my DRAFT TOOL updated so that you can see the MAX POSITION rating based on full experience! The only one I'm still having trouble with is actually 1B, ironically, because it just doesn't make sense.

Then I found out that these German Indy Devs made height a factor in the 1B positional rating, and it appears to be some equation based in CENTIMETERS! Only fucking @hayvis gonna be able to evaluate his 1B!

View attachment 8818

So for a player with 50 Range/50 errors, if they are the size of @Yankee151 they will have a shit 1B rating of 35! If they are the size of me with the same fielding ratings they will have a max rating of 80 at 1B! Who knew that height played such a huge role?
I believe height also factors in to some pitcher stats/potential as well
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
I gave up trying to figure out the 1B equation. It wasn't linear (break point around 35 or 40 range) and the height multiplier added more complexity. My PRE CTE brain might have been able to reverse engineer it, but I'm dumb AF now so I quit and decided to go back to my old approach of setting a minimum threshold to play the position at a WBL level (ie a 45 position rating). To do that, players taller than 180cm (most of them other than Yankee) need to have a range of 35 and errors of 35. Taller players can probably get away with 30 range and 30 errors, but if you go below 30 on those ratings it's probably better to just DH them.

The only other "surprises" compared to last time I ran regression equations on positional ratings was the fact that ARM is more important for both RF and 3B than it was before and is now less important for CF than it was before (arm is less important in CF than in LF now). Using the EDITOR on a MLB Rockies sim allowed me to do the full regression to determine max positional ratings at max experience, so that eliminated some of the error I had when using WBL stats on players who might not have full experience at their positions.

Here is a shot of 180cm 1B max positional experience at 1B with minimum ARM/TDP ratings and 35 Range/Errors. He has a max positional rating of 45 at 1B (ignore the LF/RF ratings this was a guy who had real outfield ratings, lol)

1566755540916.png

So all that being said, my DRAFT TOOL will now compute max ratings at all positions other than 1B, where it will use a can/can't threshold like my old draft tool used. Here is a sample screenshot of players in my system. I copy/pasted the fielding ratings on the right and it generated the maximum position ratings based on ma'equations.

1566755708467.png

If ya'll are interested in the POSITION TOOL, let me know and I can send it to you with some instructions on how to not fuck it up. Otherwise, I'll just use it to establish max position ratings for the players in the draft classes going forward.
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
I tried to find if someone else UNWRAPPED THE 1B MYSTERY and found this interesting reddit thread related to SPERGE MODE! @Mr. Radpants it isn't directly applicable because perfect team uses a 1-100 rating scale, but the basics of the equations look correct to me! (I think he might have the 1B equation correct for that scale at least).

 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
Basically I'm just trying to show ya'll what's going on UNDERNEATH THE HOOD of my new BTT DRAFT RANKING TOOL that I will be releasing with this draft class! You'll get estimated stats for max AVG, OBP, SLG, and OPS and max positional ratings! Anyway, I've been trying to re-invent the wheel instead of just searching reddit and I found this dude's post really helpful so I figured I should CITE SOURCES instead of CJONESING IT and pretending I made all this shit up.
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
I also find his conclusions dubious regarding his preference for HIGH Ks WHEN PITCHING, but not caring about Ks when bating. I think the Ks rating is underwhelming in the current iteration of batting ratings, BUT I also think he's rating stuff too high!
 

Rutgers Mike

Dr. Sad
Fielding - IF range should add up to at least 200 between the 4 positions. I dont want anybody below 30 in the field though. Really don’t want guys below 50 in error. Arm and turn DP is a case by case basis. Noodle arms end up at 2B if they can turn the DP or 1B if they can’t but have trog bats
 
Top