Kershaw and Trout regressing?

[geisterhome]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

I hear you, but if let's say 6 years down the road Trout being 28 years old now, he shouldn't be in the mid 70's unless he's been consistently having an under .200 BA for every year in those 6 years. Players shouldn't regress THAT much. Even if Trout was only giving an average performance, let's say .230-.250 average with maybe only 15 HR's for each year, he shouldn't regress THAT much..maybe go from 99 to 88-90 in 6 years.

yes they definitely shouldn't! I guess it can happen that a young player raises to superstardom in very young age and then can't stay on the same high level in the later years of his career even he is still young. BUT in the show this is the rule rather than the exception. The regression/progression logic is, although improved, still faulty to some extent. A thing that should patched too btw!

[ShaBoomer]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

I hear you, but if let's say 6 years down the road Trout being 28 years old now, he shouldn't be in the mid 70's unless he's been consistently having an under .200 BA for every year in those 6 years. Players shouldn't regress THAT much. Even if Trout was only giving an average performance, let's say .230-.250 average with maybe only 15 HR's for each year, he shouldn't regress THAT much..maybe go from 99 to 88-90 in 6 years.

The OVR rating doesn't mean what it used to in previous versions of The Show. A 75 OVR can still be a very productive hitter, but lack in other areas (such as defense, PD, PV, bunting, etc). It can also be the other way (defensive specialist, but can't hit very well).

If you edit a player, you'll see that you can increase/decrease stats without having any effect on OVR, depending on which ones you changed and how much.

For example, I decreased Jose Bautista's power ratings by 5 points each (for a total of a 10 point change) and he stayed an 86 OVR. I then dropped his contact ratings by 3 points each and he only dropped down to an 85 OVR.

[geisterhome]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

So what's the reason to even do well if you don't have to worry about regressing due to poor performance? If players can just strikeout on every pitch and have a ton of errors in the game but not have any regression or consequences then what's the point?

Regression in this game is according to the age of player or, as the examples Trout and Kershaw show, rather by years after their peak. Ratings influence performance, but performance has no influence on ratings with other words. At least thats my understanding of how it works in the show. And As I said this is for last years version, but from all I have read here the regression logic is pretty much the same with only a few tweaks.

[geisterhome]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

The OVR rating doesn't mean what it used to in previous versions of The Show. A 75 OVR can still be a very productive hitter, but lack in other areas (such as defense, PD, PV, bunting, etc). It can also be the other way (defensive specialist, but can't hit very well).

If you edit a player, you'll see that you can increase/decrease stats without having any effect on OVR, depending on which ones you changed and how much.

For example, I decreased Jose Bautista's power ratings by 5 points each (for a total of a 10 point change) and he stayed an 86 OVR. I then dropped his contact ratings by 3 points each and he only dropped down to an 85 OVR.

Yea I think nobody is really questioning this. OVR isn't everything. But we would need to go into an in depth analysis of how the more significant attributes of the here mentioned players like Mike Trout or Clayton Kershaw have changed during their regression to the 70s, I'm pretty sure speed, contact and power have taken a drastic hit as well.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

Regression in this game is according to the age of player or, as the examples Trout and Kershaw show, rather by years after their peak. Ratings influence performance, but performance has no influence on ratings with other words. At least thats my understanding of how it works in the show. And As I said this is for last years version, but from all I have read here the regression logic is pretty much the same with only a few tweaks.

Since when is it that players regress in their 20's in real baseball? Is that the rule or some oddity that rarely occurs? Does Bryce Harper regress in his 20's? Do any baseball experts think Trout will regress in his 20's to average or below average ability? I often watch the MLB channel and all they say is Trout is the best overall player in the game. Meanwhile, in my franchise at 22 years of age he is supposedly losing it, reaction time, speed, and fielding!

I edited him back to where he was, and then I looked after the next game and he was back to before like editing means nothing.

I had this same issue with Kershaw last year. My guess is the game likes power, power hitters and power pitchers. It doesn't matter if Kershaw wins 3 Cy Young awards in real baseball, and it wouldn't make a difference if Trout won MVP this year--they will regress in their 20's.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

You are really the only one saying that it is not working properly. The game making decisions about training that you do not agree with does not mean it is not working properly. Who is to say that the next training round the trainer won't set the training to recover those lost points. Or change their training manually.


Skill decline happens gradually this way. It simply is not just a case of Trout is now age 30, drop his rating to 95.

Are you kidding me? The only reason I said it is because of all the people who said that was the reason Kershaw and Trout regressed. Read this thread from the first post.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

Yea I think nobody is really questioning this. OVR isn't everything. But we would need to go into an in depth analysis of how the more significant attributes of the here mentioned players like Mike Trout or Clayton Kershaw have changed during their regression to the 70s, I'm pretty sure speed, contact and power have taken a drastic hit as well.

Regression is much different than last year. Last year it was predictable trout would regress in 6 years. I have run sims where he is a 99 10 years later, others where he regresses at different ages. It is very dynamic this year.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[kehlis]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

Are you kidding me? The only reason I said it is because of all the people who said that was the reason Kershaw and Trout regressed. Read this thread from the first post.

You've been the only one making that claim and yes I've read the whole thread.

The claim was that because you weren't manually training them they were regressing. Not that there was a problem with training.

You have been the only one to make that claim.

[Knight165]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

From tabarnes in another thread.....he's the guy to ask when in question...

I know you already chimed in Tim....but...

I've spent the day simming to 2021 a few times. At first glance I thought Regression had been changed from the PS3 version, but I am not so sure. The reason I say that is on the PS3 version I had simmed to 2021 a couple times and have seen Trout maintain a 99. With the 4 I haven't seen that, I think it is more tied to the randomness of each sim.

Here is my last sim compared to a sim from ps3 at the end of 2021. Both systems I used default rosters.

Name ps3 ps4
Cano 71 72
Kemp 72 78
Price 87 87
Pujols 58 55
McCutchen 84 89
Trout 99 86
T. Walker 99 97
King Felix 86 80
Strasburg 91 99
Puig 95 92
Wil Meyers 83 90
G. Stanton 92 88
Kershaw 73 75
Cole 90 93
Harper 98 99
C. Davis 70 68
J. Fernandez 94 98
Segura 90(apot) 84 (bpot)
Yelich 93 93
Wieters 80 81
Posey 84 78

So I am not sure if anything was changed with the regression or if the sims I did with the PS3 with Trout holding at 99 were just luck of the draw. Each sim I have ran today has had overalls different, so each franchise is going to be different...which I ind great.

If anyone else gets a chance to run a sim to the end of 2021 I am curious what trout and others do there and if trout is going to maintain 99 in any sims.

In one sim he started to regress at 26 and this one he didn't start until 29.

Oh....and if Trout is going to regress....I hope it's before he plays the Mets again in 2015....he just went 8 for 10 in 20 games so far in my franchise vs. Mets.....with 3 homers and 8 RBI....2 SB's....

M.K.
Knight165

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

I asked Luis if any changes were made to regression from the ps3 to the ps4 and he says there were not. I have simmed about 20 different seasons and have seen different career paths of players.

I have a few saves where trout is 31 and still a 99, one where he started to regress at 26, most the regression starts later.

It is so fluid, I don't really know what it is tied to, could be streaks, but I do like it, like knight posted above, that is one test comparison and you can see there are differences in where players end up. Before we knew player x would regress to 71 after the first season and player y would progress to a 98 after 3,seasons. That is no longer true.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[@legendm0de]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

We read to much into these numbers, I knew I would not like these numerical stats and I don't like them one bit to be honest. I think it would be really cool to at least "display" a new way of ranking a player and grading his performance output. Just a fleeting idea of mine would be that MLB The Show separates entirely a players play making ability from their performances at any given point in the season. Something like a form tracker, where you see a 0%-100% representing how much a player is playing up to his ability based on all information you can collect about his games played. They should also factor poor graded decision making, like if a player runs himself into an out or an error or something poorly graded about his defense. All in season grades should be the primary emphasis we look at and then we can compare that against what his abilities are.

This will eliminate for example, sort of dumb attention paid to whether a player all of a sudden dropped 2 points off of his power vs LHP. And what does that mean, can he no longer hit as many home runs?

edit --

This will also be great for injury tracking, in terms of how has a player performed since he was affected by an injury. Ultimately, at the end of a season or so then you can allow this system to affect the players attribute statistics for the next season and hopefully overall formula is eliminated or in some way just displayed in a better than the current way this is done now. This isn't madden or nba, what does a rating 99 mean in baseball? He still will fail 7/10 times or more depending on the given day or situation he faces.

[24]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

While I think it still needs some fine tuning, This dynamic progression/regression thing is fantastic. Sometimes players really do fall off the table in real life. Andruw Jones is a perfect example of this. He goes from one of the games premier power threats to a shell of his former self in the matter of a couple of seasons.

While I'm not saying it will Happen to Trout in the future, It could. Anything is possible. Hell It happened to Albert Pujols too and no one expected that to happen. Look at the history of the game. It's very rare that you get players that maintain a certain level of dominance for their entire career. Pitchers like Randy Johnson or Position players like Ted Williams come around once in a generation.

[decga]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

Maybe the coaches rating are in negative in some areas and maybe that is causing all this regressing.

I know before I started my franchise with the Braves. I edited Heyward's speed from 83 to 89, but when I started playing in the MLB schedule his speed was down to 87. I searched my coaches and Pendleton speed rating is -2.....

[Knight165]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

Maybe the coaches rating are in negative in some areas and maybe that is causing all this regressing.

I know before I started my franchise with the Braves. I edited Heyward's speed from 83 to 89, but when I started playing in the MLB schedule his speed was down to 87. I searched my coaches and Pendleton speed rating is -2.....

Coaches/manager ratings effect in season ratings only.
They aren't tied to progression/regression from season to season.

As far as I can see it's
Age and potential... are still the biggest POSSIBLE factors..
Potential can be influenced by extended streaks(meaning that can change it)
Training can help to fine tune some player areas....
Potential now is not a concrete indicator of future growth/loss(but it is likely)
There is a certain amount of POSSIBLE random moves that don't bear out the player potential(for instance.....a player will still be "considered"(coach/scout does not e-mail you his stance has changed on a players potential) an A....but his ratings changes don't reflect an A players movement.(any letter)

You have to watch YOUR players......in YOUR franchise now......USER X's findings will not necessarily reflect YOUR findings.

M.K.
Knight165

[decga]

Re: Kershaw and Trout regressing?

@Knight ok cool