Performance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

[Grubster11]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

My point however is guys arguing for performance based progression and regression as if that's the indicator of how things actually happen.
Some guys RAILED about the random factor brought into player performance/progression/regression but fail to see that more often than not....there is a huge randomness to year to year player performances.

IMO....SCEA doesn't have progression/regression TOTALLY right with it's mostly linear path to projected numbers, but even it's flawed system is light years better than a totally performance based or heavily influenced system for sure(IMO)

M.K.
Knight165

I agree that SCEA definitely has most of the progression/ regression thing down. EXCEPT for older players. It literally makes no sense, and I don't understand how it's been like this for so many years. I don't get how anyone hasn't seen that it's a problem for older players. There has to be away to balance it out to have a regression for these players, but in no way is a -20 overall drop in a season acceptable. This literally happens for EVERY player at a certain age. It almost seems like it's a bug.

[Grubster11]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

....and I'll also slightly disagree with your assertion that taking on 33+ age players is "worthless".
If you are "numbers hunting"....perhaps.(and one of the reasons that I beg for the day that we have the ability to NEVER see actual ratings and the GOD AWFUL TOTALLY IRRELEVANT video sports game phenomenon ...OVR.) back to topic....

In my 2014 franchise....I took a chance on two older players. Josh Willingham and Adam Dunn both regressed during the year and looking at their ratings.....you wouldn't really say you'd want them on your club. Especially their OVR.
But somehow through good handling(if I must say so myself) in pretty strict platoon play/PH......I got Dunn to hit .234 with 24 homers and Willingham to hit .295 with 18 homers at 1B.(traded Ike Davis and moved Duda to LF)
Not bad for two 33+ players.

M.K.
Knight165

See that's the problem. Great that those guys worked out. But Willingham (regardles of his good performance) will drop off by about -20 overall (meaning all his stats drop, effecting the overall) in the next year/ 2 years. This will happen to every single player in the game. If you want to build a franchise then those players are utterly useless.

[NDAlum]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Why not use them for what they are worth? 1-year solutions who you might be able to squeeze 2-3 out of.

That's what those guys are.

[geisterhome]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

35 seems like the age most players start regressing this year, some start a year earlier some a year later. That is already older than it has been the last years. I would like to see how much performance really influences the regression. Do some testing and see how the likes of Huerhle, Ortiz, Hunter or Beltran regress in good statistical seasons and bad ones.

[Knight165]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Why not use them for what they are worth? 1-year solutions who you might be able to squeeze 2-3 out of.

That's what those guys are.

Absolutely....that's what I had in mind for them both...and that's what I did.
Picked them up for peanuts....totally expecting to get a "real" 1B, but after a month of doing well, rode them out.

Now....Willingham was a 79 OVR at 35 y.o. last year. He did not drop 20 points in any category....he is now a 74 OVR and at a cursory look his rating dropped by 4 in most rating categories.

Yes....some players do have the "cliff"...and yes it can be aggravating, but I think someone posted something from fangraphs(?) that at a certain age players do have that swan dive year...and if they stick around kind of level off.

I'm not actually arguing that I love SCEA's progression/regression system. I actually find it acceptable-good...but IMO it needs to have more surprises........some straight climbs...some big climbs to big drops....some roller coaster guys. Anything to keep your eye on it(which is what I do....I try very hard to avoid looking at ratings and especially OVR when determining my roster moves)

M.K.
Knight165

[Maverick09]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

I agree that SCEA definitely has most of the progression/ regression thing down. EXCEPT for older players. It literally makes no sense, and I don't understand how it's been like this for so many years. I don't get how anyone hasn't seen that it's a problem for older players. There has to be away to balance it out to have a regression for these players, but in no way is a -20 overall drop in a season acceptable. This literally happens for EVERY player at a certain age. It almost seems like it's a bug.

Funny you mention bugs. When looking at the regression of RA Dickey, his velocity is marked as having improved by +64 points, even though his velocity declined with the rest of his attributes (his velocity is somewhere in the 60's at the end of the season). There is definitely a bug there; could it be responsible for the massive -20 OVR point drops? Only the devs would be able to tell if they look over their algorithm.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

It would be impossible. They don't have any system in the game where an unknown player can become an all-star. But that's a completely different point altogether.



I have done many, many, many sims of my own franchises as well. While every player slowly regresses at a certain age, there is always, ALWAYS, one year where every player does the Dickey and drops from an 85 to a 65. Like I said before, if you were doing a fantasy draft, it would be utterly useless to draft anyone over the age of 33, even if they are one of the best players in the league.

Not to beat a dead horse, but every player does not regress at 33.
Attached you will see Ellsbury at age 36.

People have talked about players falling off a cliff. In one sim Cabrera retired at an 82 overall hall of famer.

One of the issues with having stats drive progression/regression, even with the small input that is in this year is progression exploding. Remember on the default rosters there are 3 total 99 players and very few 90 overall players. Here is 5 or 6 years in the future.

Look at the Abreu numbers..

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Here is Ellsbury.

[BrianU]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

....and I'll also slightly disagree with your assertion that taking on 33+ age players is "worthless".
If you are "numbers hunting"....perhaps.(and one of the reasons that I beg for the day that we have the ability to NEVER see actual ratings and the GOD AWFUL TOTALLY IRRELEVANT video sports game phenomenon ...OVR.) back to topic....

In my 2014 franchise....I took a chance on two older players. Josh Willingham and Adam Dunn both regressed during the year and looking at their ratings.....you wouldn't really say you'd want them on your club. Especially their OVR.
But somehow through good handling(if I must say so myself) in pretty strict platoon play/PH......I got Dunn to hit .234 with 24 homers and Willingham to hit .295 with 18 homers at 1B.(traded Ike Davis and moved Duda to LF)
Not bad for two 33+ players.

M.K.
Knight165

It would be brilliant if we had an option next year to hide player ratings (defaulted off), especially with the revamped stat tracking we sound like we will have. We need them to see and consider this!

[Maverick09]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Not to beat a dead horse, but every player does not regress at 33.
Attached you will see Ellsbury at age 36.

People have talked about players falling off a cliff. In one sim Cabrera retired at an 82 overall hall of famer.

One of the issues with having stats drive progression/regression, even with the small input that is in this year is progression exploding. Remember on the default rosters there are 3 total 99 players and very few 90 overall players. Here is 5 or 6 years in the future.

Look at the Abreu numbers..

In the 2nd picture; is that the Red Sox roster only? Or the entire league? Those OVR ratings are absolutely ridiculous!

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Red Sox only. The other picture was free agency.

[Maverick09]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Red Sox only. The other picture was free agency.

How is that even acceptable? How can the rosters be so horribly calibrated??? They have enough 90+ OVR pitchers to fill their AAA and AA pitching rotations.....

This basically ruins the entire franchise mode for those who like playing several years.

[Grubster11]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Here is Ellsbury.

I didn't mean that the substantial regression will occur at age 33, but it will come to every player at some point after this age, and that's my issue. It has happened in every franchise I have played since before I can even remember. Just start a quick franchise with the Jays, sim a season and you'll see what I mean. You'll see why I, as a Jays fan especially, have wanted this issue addressed for years.

[geisterhome]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

How is that even acceptable? How can the rosters be so horribly calibrated??? They have enough 90+ OVR pitchers to fill their AAA and AA pitching rotations.....

This basically ruins the entire franchise mode for those who like playing several years.

Lol have to agree those ratings are insane...

[BrianU]

Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)

Lol have to agree those ratings are insane...

It looks like one of those historic all-timers legends rosters you download to mess around with. Does anyone have a bug report filed we can all upvote?