Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
Under Pitcher progression, I have let them know as well.
Under Pitcher progression, I have let them know as well.
-
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
Doubt they would spend the time to fix this issue; it was there in last year's game as well. The problem is there are way too many minor league and MLB pitchers with B to A potentials. The devs obviously don't spend the time to calibrate their default rosters in order to make sure ratings remain consistent through time.
I'm planning on restarting my franchise with rosters containing nerfed potentials. Otherwise, playing with the default rosters is a bit of a joke.
Here is the link to tabarnes19's bug report, please upvote it so the devs can see it.
Last edited by Maverick09; 04-06-2015, 01:34 PM.Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
Yeah, it is not really calibrated all that well, and it has been the same in years past too. I quickly simmed until 2035 to get an idea of ratings distribution for fictional player and the results were not good.
2015 MLB Rosters have 233 players rated 80+, with 32 of those being 90+
2035 MLB (fictional players by this point) Rosters have 355 players rated 80+ with 74 of those being 90+
2015 MLB Roster most common rating was 75, which was held by 52 players. Second most common rating was 77, held by 49 players.
2035 MLB Roster most common rating was 78, held by 47 players. Second most common rating was 80, held by 45 players.
2015 MLB Roster had 8 players with ratings at 95+
2035 MLB Roster had 27 players with rating at 95+
Here is a graph I made to show the shift in rating distribution. The X axis is the players rating and the Y axis is the number of players.
The rating distribution causes about a ten point decline in league wide batting averages, which in turn lowers the league wide ERA down to about 3.30-3.40, which is quite a bit lower than league average(AL 2014 ERA 3.81 and NL 2014 ERA 3.66). There is a lot of data that I have yet to look at, but the initial results tell me the game is not properly balanced(at 2014 level statistics) for multi year franchises.Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
I sure hope drafted players aren't causing this as well. If they are coming in with too high potential, editing the rosters will only mitigate the effects.Originally posted by ghostofsparta15Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
Excellent work documenting the problem; very well done.Yeah, it is not really calibrated all that well, and it has been the same in years past too. I quickly simmed until 2035 to get an idea of ratings distribution for fictional player and the results were not good.
2015 MLB Rosters have 233 players rated 80+, with 32 of those being 90+
2035 MLB (fictional players by this point) Rosters have 355 players rated 80+ with 74 of those being 90+
2015 MLB Roster most common rating was 75, which was held by 52 players. Second most common rating was 77, held by 49 players.
2035 MLB Roster most common rating was 78, held by 47 players. Second most common rating was 80, held by 45 players.
2015 MLB Roster had 8 players with ratings at 95+
2035 MLB Roster had 27 players with rating at 95+
Here is a graph I made to show the shift in rating distribution. The X axis is the players rating and the Y axis is the number of players.
The rating distribution causes about a ten point decline in league wide batting averages, which in turn lowers the league wide ERA down to about 3.30-3.40, which is quite a bit lower than league average(AL 2014 ERA 3.81 and NL 2014 ERA 3.66). There is a lot of data that I have yet to look at, but the initial results tell me the game is not properly balanced(at 2014 level statistics) for multi year franchises.Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
This is simply not true. I simmed 15 years over the weekend and there were NO players with 90+ overalls in the drafts.Originally posted by ghostofsparta15
There were however about as many players with A potentials as you'd expect. It's the same way with every game though. There were also only a handful of players that started out 75+ overall.Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
No problem.Originally posted by ghostofsparta15
When I checked the players that came out of drafts with A potentials, maybe 1/3 of them actually got in the 90's though. Alot of them don't perform and get into the 70's and low 80's but that's it. Also, a player's potential rating changes throughout their career as well.
I remember an outfielder that was on the White Sox and was drafted as an A potential - 60 overall but he never played in the majors, and 3 years later i checked back with him and he was a C potential and a 71.Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
Are the player potentials edited in those rosters? If so, they may yield better results than the default ones. Remains to be seen if the drafted players come in with too high potentials; we need more data.Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
Last year the league quality actually stayed pretty consistent. There was a slight uptick. It was Two years ago the league quality got out of control.
I ran tests last year and there were only a few extra 99 players than default and here are sims from 6 years in the future.
http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2046092952
I think the adjustments to progression based on performance may have an impact on this since it wasn't like this last year. Here are all the teams rosters.
Position players don't look too bad.Last edited by tabarnes19_SDS; 04-06-2015, 02:33 PM.Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
What do you mean?
I don't think every player older player regresses at 33 or below. In MLB 14 the show I had AJ Burnett one year and he didn't regress in the first year. Bautista didn't start to regress until he hit 36. But this rarely happened.
To quote Maverick09 it "will only mitigate the effects". OSFM is the best roster update that I've ever used on any sports game and %99.9 it's spot on with it's ratings. I wish SCEA could put a little more effort into it's ratings.
On a side note: I also believe Dickey is a bad example seeing as he's a knuckleballer. Bartolo Colon regresses fairly poorly and he pitched 200+ innings last year.Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
This is a thread about how performance is not driving progression or staving off regression...and how it should be a force in doing so.
Then Bautista was brought into the conversation to which I posed the question....
If the game relied on performance to drive rating gains....how could you have the real life Bautista 2007(since that was 600 AB's)....hitting .254 with 15 homers 63 RBI.....68 BB .....330 OBP and 220 total bases.....be about the same if not worse for 2 more seasons and then at age 29 and 30 rocket to the top of the class in HR's...hit .260 and .302....gain 50 and 110 points in OBP and have 300+(including the league leading 350) total bases if the game used performance to drive progression?
My point is...performance is often a piss poor indicator of gains.
The best formula IMO.....potential/probability/a touch of random and a smidge of performance. I think if you looked y2y at most players....it's more roller coaster than anything and expecting last year = next year(+/-) is not right.
JMHO.
M.K.
Knight165All gave some. Some gave all. 343Comment
-
Re: Preformance-Based Player Progression (Official Thread)
Knight, I'm not sure I understand your Bautista example. The sim engine is supposed to capture that sort of thing. Sometimes you have a 90 OVR player perform poorly during a sim. Performance based regression would adjust that player's OVR so that the following year, his stats are worse and, therefore, the likelihood that the sim engine has him play well is lower.
In the Bautista example, performance based progression would kick in so that if the sim engine in MLB 15 came out with a 70 OVR Bautista (at age 29) putting up MVP numbers, he would exceed his natural progression (say default +1 OVR to +8 OVR or something like that). The OVR ratings don't make every player good or bad, the impact is on the likelihood of their results in the sim engine.
Performance based progression/regression, should simply change overalls in a way that impacts the probability that a player repeats his performance from the previous season (for better or worse).
In other words, if 29 year old Bautista has an MVP season in an MLB15 sim despite having a 70 OVR, he should be rewarded by having his OVR increased the following season, therefore making it more likely (but not certain) that he repeats the MVP performance. I see it as being no different than when a player has a good year, like Corey Kluber in 2014 and gets a bump in his rating by +17 in MLB15.
Comment
Comment