From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • thescottyglasgow
    Rookie
    • Mar 2013
    • 175

    #46
    Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

    Originally posted by tabarnes19
    Each Sim is different. I am in 2016 and Tex is an 82. Pujols is an 83.

    There is not a linear path.

    2016 and Koji is a 64 Overall but about to win the RP of the year award.

    Stop caring about the Overalls...

    I think that is because of their monthly potential updates. If potentials remain constant then I know in previous years the player will increase and decrease at a set age a set amount no matter what circumstances up or down its set. The overalls do not matter to me.

    Comment

    • CaseIH
      MVP
      • Sep 2013
      • 3945

      #47
      Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

      Originally posted by jvalverde88
      This so much, pay attention to what attributes are declining and by how much. I have Bartolo's OVR declining but he's still in the top 5 of the NL in K's for me.




      I think that's the key. IMO when you just jump right in and sim seasons without really making adjustments to training and such effects declines in players ratings. Personally I have always felt with any game when you just simulate entire seasons you wont necessarily get accurate results, to where you would if spending more time evaluating and running your organization. I play 30 team control I I do keep a eye out for the other teams I don't play when it comes to training and will change some of them that don't make since with a players age or a players position.


      Maybe Im wrong and simming entire seasons don't effect anything strangely, it just something I have always been leary of, and maybe these guys or some of them having issues with regression haven't actually just simmed right thru seasons all at once either.


      I do know regression in this game has had its issues since I can remember, and I don't think its ever going to be perfect to where everyone is happy as they cant tell the future, and who knows what the future holds for Trout or any player for that a matter, I have seen it happen several time in my years of watching baseball where some guys have fallen off a cliff early, although I would say that happens to pitchers more so than hitters over the years. I know they said they worked on this and performance can stave off regression to a point, but it sounds like it might need some more tweaking.
      Everyone who exalts themselves will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted- Luke14-11

      Favorite teams:
      MLB- Reds/ and whoever is playing the Cubs
      NBA- Pacers
      NFL- Dolphins & Colts

      Comment

      • DexterHol
        Rookie
        • Aug 2010
        • 123

        #48
        Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

        Originally posted by braves_94
        I just don't agree with this at all. Most players go through a slow decline unless injuries occur. It's rare a player hits an ability wall. Rare. BJ Upton? Though Albert Pujols isn't living up to his massive deal, he's still a productive player. Nothing that would warrant a huge slide in game ratings. Joey Hamilton? His body is deteriorating due to injuries. In fact, most of the decline player's experience is due to bodies that can no longer hold up to a 162 game schedule. But when healthy they still are good players. Alex Rodriguez. Players just don't suck one day. It makes no sense. Derek Jeter fell off after breaking his ankle. It took 6 injuries to finally do in Griffey. Ryan Howard was a negative player due to his defense before signing that monster extension. Dan Uggla, suffered a severe concussion and was never the same. Same for Marcus Giles. So I can rattle of 50 players that had typical regression compared to those who just get old and hit a ratings free fall.
        I agree to this and may I add about Uggla, that his Lasik surgery on 2013 might have been an issue as well, apart from the concussion. I had Lasik surgery myself around that time and although my myopia was corrected, it took me around a month to get used to how things looked like afterwards. A baseball player's vision is not something that should be tampered with, imo.

        Comment

        • Knight165
          *ll St*r
          • Feb 2003
          • 24964

          #49
          Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

          Originally posted by geisterhome
          The OVR in the game is a much better evaluation of a players ability than you make it sound, for sure it sounds pretty cool claiming not to even bother looking at it since this is way too shallow but in fact it often gives you a very good indication of the quality of a player. And when it comes to regression it becomes even more relevant since players decline across the board pretty evenly.
          As a general item....meh...yeah.
          It's nothing more than a "depth chart" IMO.

          The real problem is ....as I suspected when they said they were going to implement it...is that it's becoming the end all-be all for some guys.
          Instead of playing the game and evaluating players....guys are using OVR as the way to make roster decisions and professing a players worth.

          For a site that scream about stats...STATS.....STATS...!!!
          Gotta have 'em or this game isn't for "real"....a lot of players don't even bother trying to get them or use them as I see it.

          Just my take.

          M.K.
          Knight165
          All gave some. Some gave all. 343

          Comment

          • Purplepower_NC
            Pro
            • Sep 2004
            • 674

            #50
            Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

            Originally posted by Knight165
            .

            For a site that scream about stats...STATS.....STATS...!!!
            Gotta have 'em or this game isn't for "real"....a lot of players don't even bother trying to get them or use them as I see it.

            M.K.
            Knight165
            I have to agree. It seems that the overall..is getting used more for roster management…than what a player is doing. For instance I have a guy with my Reds who has an overall of 73 and he and has took over the job at 3rd from Fraizer who for some reason can't hit .200 and only 8 HRs going into mid Aug and is rated in the 80's.

            I too get caught up in the whole potential of A should be better than B etc…but just like in real life if the guy can play…he can play. Yes, in real life the scouts can give u an ideal who is going to be great, but there are a lot more that don't live up to the "potential"

            So my advice is if he is still putting up the numbers at a certain age….he is going to be on the field.

            Comment

            • jinugn
              Just started!
              • May 2015
              • 4

              #51
              Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

              I wish the regression wasn't so dramatic for older players still playing very well.

              Comment

              • rjackson
                MVP
                • Apr 2005
                • 1661

                #52
                Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

                Originally posted by Knight165
                As a general item....meh...yeah.
                It's nothing more than a "depth chart" IMO.

                The real problem is ....as I suspected when they said they were going to implement it...is that it's becoming the end all-be all for some guys.
                Instead of playing the game and evaluating players....guys are using OVR as the way to make roster decisions and professing a players worth.

                For a site that scream about stats...STATS.....STATS...!!!
                Gotta have 'em or this game isn't for "real"....a lot of players don't even bother trying to get them or use them as I see it.

                Just my take.

                M.K.
                Knight165
                It's a good take. I remember Scott Podsednik lost his bat speed for a couple of years but was still useful for speed and D. Just one example out of a million, I'm sure.

                I think of OVR as being just like WAR. It is an ATTEMPT at measuring a player's value but it is not the end all be all. Both are flawed and you have to dig deeper. Heck, I'm even thinking of Terrance Gore right now.

                Comment

                • cmutat17
                  Banned
                  • Apr 2015
                  • 127

                  #53
                  Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

                  This feature was the one I was most looking forward to and now I see it's not even in the game. I was looking forward to having a David Ortiz and Bartolo Colon on my team and they're fairly durable/consistent they shouldn't have a significant drop off in ratings.


                  This is ridiculous I've found other forums with this issue and it hasn't been fixed yet?


                  http://www.operationsports.com/forum...egression.html


                  http://www.operationsports.com/forum...al-thread.html


                  Not impressed SCEA....

                  Comment

                  • cts50
                    Banned
                    • Jun 2014
                    • 557

                    #54
                    Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

                    I have studied the new progression system a lot lately and personally, I love it.

                    People need to research aging curves before they come on here bitching about their favorite players regressing in OVR rating.

                    Like, someone was just whining about Trout losing OVR points when he simmed out into his age 30 season...

                    And Shields losing points once he was 34...


                    Um...what exactly did you expect? Trout should just stay 99 forever? Sorry, but it doesnt work that way.

                    Comment

                    • cts50
                      Banned
                      • Jun 2014
                      • 557

                      #55
                      Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

                      Or how about some examples...

                      Albert Pujols. Clear peak at age 28-29...steady decline since.

                      Josh Hamilton. Clear peak at age 29....steady decline since.

                      Josh Beckett. Clear peak at around ages 27-31....steady decline until retirement.

                      Miguel Cabrera. Clear peak around ages 27-30.....probably headed for a steady decline.

                      CC Sabathia. Clear peak around ages 27-30....steady decline since.

                      Derek Jeter. Long time as an elite player, and then a steady decline from age 32 until retirement.

                      I can keep going.

                      Comment

                      • KBLover
                        Hall Of Fame
                        • Aug 2009
                        • 12172

                        #56
                        Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

                        Originally posted by thedudedominick
                        A guy that is 95 when he's 32, shouldn't be just a 75 no matter what the next season.
                        Why not?

                        Why should there be no players that drop off that sharply?

                        If a guy is losing it due to age - me having a good season shouldn't slow that down. Bad knees are bad knees, slowing down bat is a slowing down bat. Just because he's making it work somehow doesn't mean he's getting better in his raw ability or declining (not regressing, regression is something completely different) more slowly.

                        There should be more variability in player development. If the ratings had a "fog of war" around them, performance impacting the scouting report makes sense - but since we have absolute knowledge, it doesn't make much sense. We're just good at pushing the buttons with him or perhaps just getting lucky.

                        Some guys could lose it that bad. Some could be more gradual. Some could be up-and-down. Pitchers in particular are hard to project and may be prone to "uneven" development. Some get better because they lose/shift focus from one area to another (like Maddux) or pick up a new pitch or feature a different one for a change of strategy, etc.

                        EVERY player dropping that hard is not right - but neither is NO player dropping (or rising for that matter) that fast. There should be variability. That's the middle ground - the big unknown where we have to watch, wait, and use production as much as a judge of readiness as a "reason for a player to grow/fall/change rate of either. Injuries should matter more to development as well.
                        "Some people call it butterflies, but to him, it probably feels like pterodactyls in his stomach." --Plesac in MLB18

                        Comment

                        • QuestGAV
                          Rookie
                          • Aug 2011
                          • 315

                          #57
                          Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

                          I agree with you regarding aging curve research cts, guys decline and they decline hard. However, I think the problem is that everyone ages pretty much the same in the game. Anyone over 34 drops precipitously in year 1, seemingly without fail. I understand that adding a proper amount of randomness to the system is difficult, but having everyone age on the same schedule is incorrect also. Father time is undefeated but he doesn't score a 34th round knockout every match.

                          Comment

                          • KBLover
                            Hall Of Fame
                            • Aug 2009
                            • 12172

                            #58
                            Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

                            Originally posted by Knight165
                            Instead of playing the game and evaluating players....guys are using OVR as the way to make roster decisions and professing a players worth.
                            OVR is the WORST thing sports games have ever thought of.

                            It's meaningless at best, completely inaccurate at worst.

                            It's also nothing but a subjective amalgamation of ratings that's based on......what exactly?

                            Originally posted by QuestGAV
                            Father time is undefeated but he doesn't score a 34th round knockout every match.
                            Yeah, sometimes he wins much faster, especially in the sports arena where the standard for ability is high and/or the players ability is fringe/niche and he loses that niche.
                            Last edited by KBLover; 06-07-2015, 07:54 PM.
                            "Some people call it butterflies, but to him, it probably feels like pterodactyls in his stomach." --Plesac in MLB18

                            Comment

                            • thescottyglasgow
                              Rookie
                              • Mar 2013
                              • 175

                              #59
                              Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

                              Originally posted by KBLover
                              OVR is the WORST thing sports games have ever thought of.

                              It's meaningless at best, completely inaccurate at worst.

                              It's also nothing but a subjective amalgamation of ratings that's based on......what exactly?



                              Yeah, sometimes he wins much faster, especially in the sports arena where the standard for ability is high and/or the players ability is fringe/niche and he loses that niche.
                              For me it has nothing to do with overall or any certain players. I only use guys has examples that i notice. I have a problem that it seems every player is set on when they will progress and regress no matter what from the start. Their is nothing random and nothing in the franchise except the potential emails to change it. Playing great or horribly does not change the players ratings over time. I just would like it if I am pitching with bartolo and have a 2.5 era he should not be dropping 10-12 across the board. Likewise if I simulate far into the future and Trout has won mvp three years in a row and leads in every triple crown category plus steals but is regressing heavily at age 30 it makes no sense.

                              Comment

                              • MLB Bob
                                MVP
                                • Jan 2011
                                • 1008

                                #60
                                Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

                                Originally posted by thescottyglasgow
                                For me it has nothing to do with overall or any certain players. I only use guys has examples that i notice. I have a problem that it seems every player is set on when they will progress and regress no matter what from the start. Their is nothing random and nothing in the franchise except the potential emails to change it. Playing great or horribly does not change the players ratings over time. I just would like it if I am pitching with bartolo and have a 2.5 era he should not be dropping 10-12 across the board. Likewise if I simulate far into the future and Trout has won mvp three years in a row and leads in every triple crown category plus steals but is regressing heavily at age 30 it makes no sense.
                                Why does the players stats have anything to do with what happens to him physically (in this case his ratings) the next year, especially when hes obviously in his regression years? Bartolo Colon having an era of 2.5 has absolutely no barring on his ability the following year or even what his stats would be. He could be crap or he could be good again. I dont understand the argument.

                                Comment

                                Working...